Opinion Bernie Sanders is going to win the Dem nomination in 2020, and become President

[Madmick]

So you haven't learned anything and want another four years of Trump.

That's what I'm hearing.

 

[VivaRevolution]

So you haven't learned anything and want another four years of Trump.

That's what I'm hearing.

 

[Rational Poster]

If people knew what Saudi Arabia actually is, and how many Wahabbi schools they have built in the world, people would care.

People know all about this stuff they still don't care.

Arms sales make money and represent a fair percent of our GDP.

 

[VivaRevolution]

People know all about this stuff they still don't care.

Arms sales make money and represent a fair percent of our GDP.

Ha!

You think most people know that Saudi Arabia is the backbone of every major Islamic terror attack on the US and Europe for the last 25 years, and people don't care because of arms sales?

 

[Rational Poster]

Ha!

You think most people know that Saudi Arabia is the backbone of every major Islamic terror attack on the US and Europe for the last 25 years, and people don't care because of arms sales?

Yup.

You don't?

You act like it's some secret or something. Arms dealing is just one of the many lucrative business opportunities we have in SA today.

 

[Trotsky]

So you haven't learned anything and want another four years of Trump.

That's what I'm hearing.

Well, that's because you're the walking embodiment of a golden mean fallacy.

Honestly, to even argue that Trump would win over Sanders in Ohio and Pennsylvania is just silly, and taking those states would give Sanders a 270-268 floor.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yup.

You don't?

You act like it's some secret or something.

I don't think most people could point Saudi Arabia out on a map.

Nevermind understanding that Mecca is located in Saudi Arabia, and that any world wide Islamic radical movement must have its roots in Mecca.

 

[kpt018]

I keep seeing this claim repeated and I don't buy it, and for sure it's not a given.

Had Bernie won the nomination he would have faced the smear machine and by the end of the campaign the right would have painted Bernie as Stalin reincarnated.

I think @Madmick is right. The left needs to learn from the last election and run someone with broad appeal that can win moderates/independents in rust belts states, especially given how unpopular Trump is. If the left revolts and wants a far left candidate they'll increase the likelihood of losing again.

And just a disclosure to show this isn't about partisanship, I would not even hesitate for one second to vote for Bernie over Trump or really any of the prominent right wingers right now. But I would also vote for John Kasich if it meant unseating Trump. The most important thing to accomplish in 2020 in my view is to get that incompetent, narcissistic and corrupt dotard out of office. Divided government is the priority in 2018. Pushing for your dream president has to come second to all of that.

 

[Rational Poster]

I don't think most people could point Saudi Arabia out on a map.

Nevermind understanding that Mecca is located in Saudi Arabia, and that any world wide Islamic radical movement must have its roots in Mecca.

I think you'd be terrible wrong and I'd take that bet.

Saudi Arabia isn't hard to find.

 

[12ga.]

Truth. It always struck me as odd the consensus coming out of DC that Iran is #1 sponsor of terror when we've never been attacked by an Iranian terrorist in USA or EU. It's all whabbis and mostly out of KSA like 19 outta 21 on 911 were Saudi.

 

[kpt018]

Well, that's because you're the walking embodiment of a golden mean fallacy.

Honestly, to even argue that Trump would win over Sanders in Ohio and Pennsylvania is just silly, and taking those states would give Sanders a 270-268 floor.

Not only did Bernie not face hard opposition and smear tactics from the right they actually supported him! Trump gave him several compliments as did others on the right and do you think that was out of kindness and respect? I would guess they felt he was an easier candidate to defeat than Hillary.

Bernie is only more popular now because Hillary went through the right wing smear campaign and Bernie did not.

It's also worth noting that it's highly likely the differences you're showing there are within the margin of error even accounting for the attacks on Hillary.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I keep seeing this claim repeated and I don't buy it, and for sure it's not a given.

Had Bernie won the nomination he would have faced the smear machine and by the end of the campaign the right would have painted Bernie as Stalin reincarnated.

I think @Madmick is right. The left needs to learn from the last election and run someone with broad appeal that can win moderates/independents in rust belts states, especially given how unpopular Trump is. If the left revolts and wants a far left candidate they'll increase the likelihood of losing again.

And just a disclosure to show this isn't about partisanship, I would not even hesitate for one second to vote for Bernie over Trump or really any of the prominent right wingers right now. But I would also vote for John Kasich if it meant unseating Trump. The most important thing to accomplish in 2020 in my view is to get that incompetent, narcissistic and corrupt dotard out of office. Divided government is the priority in 2018. Pushing for your dream president has to come second to all of that.

He isn't going to run again, so don't worry about it. If he was stupid enough to do so, he would get eaten alive in the primaries.

I can tell you this much. I guarantee you Bernie wouldn't have had a FBI investigation re-opened on him a week before the election. I know this, because Bernie Sanders has never been under FBI investigation, and certainly wasn't during the presidential campaign.

 

[Trotsky]

I keep seeing this claim repeated and I don't buy it, and for sure it's not a given.

Had Bernie won the nomination he would have faced the smear machine and by the end of the campaign the right would have painted Bernie as Stalin reincarnated.

I think @Madmick is right. The left needs to learn from the last election and run someone with broad appeal that can win moderates/independents in rust belts states, especially given how unpopular Trump is. If the left revolts and wants a far left candidate they'll increase the likelihood of losing again.

Not only did Bernie not face hard opposition and smear tactics from the right they actually supported him! Trump gave him several compliments as did others on the right and do you think that was out of kindness and respect? I would guess they felt he was an easier candidate to defeat than Hillary.

Bernie is only more popular now because Hillary went through the right wing smear campaign and Bernie did not.

It's also worth noting that it's highly likely the differences you're showing there are within the margin of error even accounting for the attacks on Hillary.

Except there isn't any policy-based reason to suspect this tired narrative (that Sanders appeal was apolitical and owed only to his being untarnished by right-wing criticism) and there is, at this point, undeniable showing of broad support of pro-labor and anti-neoliberal policy: no more technocratic austerity and casual interventionism. There were shared undercurrents to Trump and Sanders' ascensions. It just happened to be that Sanders' populism was genuine and Trump's was hollow.

Besides his personal popularity, Sanders' policies have broad support across the political spectrum, as does his rhetoric against neoliberalism. The voters don't want some tepid Clintonite talking about how the upward trajectory of the DOW is going to put their kids through college while dropping subtle references about the ongoing threat of Iran.

 

[Renard]

Bernie's too old fam. 74 was already pushing it, he'll be 79 in 2020.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Agree on the Fight for $15, but you know as well as anyone that was just a campaign slogan and that, even if a Democratic president had the political ability to force through a $15.00 minimum wage, it would be lambasted by economists and wouldn't go through.

I think that if we're doing an analysis that includes likelihood of becoming policy, there really wasn't much difference between them. But the question was specifically about platforms.

As far as ability to work across the aisle, I very, very much disagree. Even if Clinton's policy platform is close to the GOP's and her policies more palatable to their donors, the GOP's agenda setters have fomented such historic amounts of vitriol around Clinton that I truly do not believe working with her agenda would ever yield political benefit for incumbent Republicans. Meanwhile Sanders is fairly well-received on the right and furthermore has a history of reaching across the aisle on bills.

It's not just reaching across the aisle--also rallying your own people. And Clinton being more hated by Republicans was solely a function of her actually being the nominee. We saw that with Obama--after he was elected and faced unprecedented obstruction, many Republicans were talking about how they would have preferred Clinton. Also, everyone who actually works with her has positive comments. I agree that Bernie is more pragmatic an operator than his reputation in the media would suggest (I've said many times that he is very different from his supporters).

Also, Clinton's platform was not remotely close to the GOP's. That's way, way, way off.

Re age, I don't personally give a fuck at all. But I realize, however subconsciously, that is does effect electoral viability.

I think people really do decline mentally as they get older and it really does matter. But it's not the only thing that matters and isn't *that* important. All things equal, I'd prefer a younger president.

I just don't know who else in the Democratic Party has fill the spot. Booker is rat poison to the far left (and furthermore epitomizes everything the right likes to sink their teeth into rhetorically). Same with Cuomo, but worse. Gillibrand is grandstanding neoliberal. Warren is great but just presents herself horribly and is not a talented campaigner. Joe Biden is a step in the wrong direction and just feels like a sitting duck for a #MeToo type revelation. Kamala Harris is green and has a very spotty history.

I like Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown, but both seem like afterthoughts right now in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, we'll see. We'll get to know everyone a lot better when the actual campaign starts, and who their advisers are will be important. One of the things that hurt Bernie (in my eyes, at least) last time was that a lot of the top Democratic policy advisers were already spoken for.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Truth. It always struck me as odd the consensus coming out of DC that Iran is #1 sponsor of terror when we've never been attacked by an Iranian terrorist in USA or EU. It's all whabbis and mostly out of KSA like 19 outta 21 on 911 were Saudi.

I always say in the last 30 years. People that were alive during the 70's are the ones that buy the Iran propaganda, because it was true back then.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Except there isn't any policy-based reason to suspect this tired narrative (that Sanders appeal was apolitical and owed only to his being untarnished by right-wing criticism) and there is, at this point, undeniable showing of broad support of pro-labor and anti-neoliberal policy: no more technocratic austerity and casual interventionism. There were shared undercurrents to Trump and Sanders' ascensions. It just happened to be that Sanders' populism was genuine and Trump's was hollow.

It's not a policy-based argument. The GOP's strategy was to try to divide the left, and part of that was praising Bernie. If Bernie had won, the right-wing media would have gone all in on him, and the MSM would have turned much more negative. We don't know how it would play out, but it's very safe to say that he'd lose a lot of support from his current baseline.

Besides his personal popularity, Sanders' policies have broad support across the political spectrum, as does his rhetoric against neoliberalism. The voters don't want some tepid Clintonite talking about how the upward trajectory of the DOW is going to put their kids through college while dropping subtle references about the ongoing threat of Iran.

Voters don't know a lot of about policy. It's about narratives.

Yeah, it's really unprecedented and impossible to properly narrate.

As far as the 2020 Democratic platform/candidacy, I don't even know. The American people have a MUCH higher tolerance for outright corruption than I ever thought, perhaps juts so long as it's not reported on right-wing outlets. I do think that to play the anti-corruption angle (which is supposedly the 2018 midterm angle) in the 2020 race, you'd need an absolutely unblemished candidate, because if they even have 1% of the apparent corruption of Trump, the right-wing with blaringly declare that candidate is a more-corrupt hypocrite.

Yeah, the American people and the media have zero tolerance for any hint of corruption from the left, but it's totally tolerated on the right. The working the refs strategy has worked from a political standpoint, though it's morally and intellectually poisonous.

 

[kpt018]

He isn't going to run again, so don't worry about it. If he was stupid enough to do so, he would get eaten alive in the primaries.

I can tell you this much. I guarantee you Bernie wouldn't have had a FBI investigation re-opened on him a week before the election. I know this, because Bernie Sanders has never been under FBI investigation, and certainly wasn't during the presidential campaign.

I'm not "worried about it". Like I said, I certainly would have voted for Bernie in 2016 and would in 2020 should he be the D nominee.

And I don't know why you're so confident on your last point. The FBI investigation was totally bogus and we all know the email server thing was basically taking a mistake to the extreme for political attacks.

I'm not as confident as you that the right wouldn't be able to manufacture claims against Bernie, even if they're totally made up. They did it to Hillary and they'll do it against any Democrat and we know that because history tells us it will happen!

Except there isn't any policy-based reason to suspect this tired narrative (that Sanders appeal was apolitical and owed only to his being untarnished by right-wing criticism) and there is, at this point, undeniable showing of broad support of pro-labor and anti-neoliberal policy: no more technocratic austerity and casual interventionism. There were shared undercurrents to Trump and Sanders' ascensions. It just happened to be that Sanders' populism was genuine and Trump's was hollow.

Besides his personal popularity, Sanders' policies have broad support across the political spectrum, as does his rhetoric against neoliberalism. The voters don't want some tepid Clintonite talking about how the upward trajectory of the DOW is going to put their kids through college while dropping subtle references about the ongoing threat of Iran.

Hillary and many other prominent Democrats also have pro-labor policy but I think you're overstating the appetite for non-market based policy, which is what I think you're referring to with neo-liberal policy.

The thing I think you and many of Bernie's ardent supporters are also not pricing in here is the cost of his popular programs. Sure, universal healthcare, free college (which many Democrats support), daycare support etc. are great and I support many ideas here, but the right will make certain that people will be well aware of the costs and that their taxes will absolutely go up. Bernie admitted himself that the middle class will also have to help foot the bill for universal healthcare, for example.

I guess we'll see if people have the stomach for higher taxes when they're struggling to make ends meet.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Bernie's too old fam. 74 was already pushing it, he'll be 79 in 2020.

Someone should tell Joe Biden too.

Also this guy.

Veteran Malaysian politician Mahathir Mohamad has become the world's oldest leader after a shock victory in the country's election, upending six decades of control by the ruling coalition.

The 92-year-old was sworn in on Thursday night by Malaysia's constitutional ruler, King Muhammad V, following a momentous vote in which scandal-plagued incumbent Najib Razak was soundly beaten at the polls by his former mentor.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...sia-election-mahathir-victory-intl/index.html

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm not "worried about it". Like I said, I certainly would have voted for Bernie in 2016 and would in 2020 should he be the D nominee.

And I don't know why you're so confident on your last point. The FBI investigation was totally bogus and we all know the email server thing was basically taking a mistake to the extreme for political attacks.

I'm not as confident as you that the right wouldn't be able to manufacture claims against Bernie, even if they're totally made up. They did it to Hillary and they'll do it against any Democrat and we know that because history tells us it will happen!



Hillary and many other prominent Democrats also have pro-labor policy but I think you're overstating the appetite for non-market based policy, which is what I think you're referring to with neo-liberal policy.

The think I think you and many of Bernie's ardent supporters are also not pricing in here is the cost of his popular programs. Sure, universal healthcare, free college (which many Democrats support), daycare support etc. are great and I support many ideas here, but the right will make certain that people will be well aware of the costs and that their taxes will absolutely go up. Bernie admitted himself that the middle class will also have to help foot the bill for universal healthcare, for example.

I guess we'll see if people have the stomach for higher taxes when they're struggling to make ends meet.

Honest question. What part of the two statements I will make below, do you disagree with?

1) the standard operating procedure in law for handling classified information does not allow for ignorance, or intent to be a defense.

2) Hillary Clinton did not properly store classified material.