Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:11 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 8,276

Bernie Sanders makes it official. How far will he go in 2020?


So much has been made of Sen. Bernie Sanders since 2016 and in the time since November 2016.

I'm wondering what dopers think of his chances in 2020. What, if anything, will be different about his campaign this time around? Will he be as strong as he was in 2020?

It seems that a number of his ideas which were, shall we say, unorthodox a few years ago have since become more widely embraced. Major candidates are talking about minimum wage hikes, low-cost college, and universal healthcare, which were his signature issues.

Does Bernie still have that niche to work with and will he be regarded as the more authentic candidate? Or will he get pushed aside by other household names like Harris, Booker, and Biden (if Biden runs)?

How will Sanders' age affect perceptions about him?

Will he be able to bridge the gaps that he had with black voters in particular? If so, how?
  #2  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:43 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,033
Does he have any foreign policy positions yet?
  #3  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:36 AM
Modesty Blaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 181
Is he currently a Democrat? Or is he just (again) going to use the party resources and dump the party when he's done?
  #4  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:38 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,122
I think Bernie will be lucky to meet the 15% threshold for winning delegates in most states.

If he's still running after Super Tuesday, that fact will be of interest only to his most hard-core fans.
  #5  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:04 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,536
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/02/16...all-extension/

He’s at around 17%. I don’t see many people bailing on Bernie unless an equally blinkered idealist makes a pitch to them. Warren is going to flop, so they won’t go to her. They all have major anti-progressive problems that will turn off the Bernie-ites. I also don’t see him picking up too many people from the Biden, Harris, or Booker factions, so at best he will go into the convention with a small contingent.

This is a party that will be hobbled. The various factions are getting too vocal.

This will be a Ron Paul style campaign with maybe a little more oomph.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 02-19-2019 at 09:07 AM.
  #6  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:25 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,352
The most interesting thing about this is how far can he take it when his lane - which he had alone in 2016- has other, more palatable contenders in it. He'll have his hardcore supporters - my youngest brother is one, for example - but he's not one of a field of two this time. There are other options for those not wanting Hillary or Hillary-equivalent.

Or, to quote what a member of my resist from just posted:

"Old. White. Man. No thanks."

I don't agree with the sentiment, but that's going to be something to overcome in a primary electorate that will likely be more than 70% persons of color or female.
  #7  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:29 AM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Or will he get pushed aside by other household names like Harris, Booker, and Biden (if Biden runs)?
While Biden is a household name Harris and Booker definitely are not.
  #8  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:36 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
While Biden is a household name Harris and Booker definitely are not.
At this stage of the race, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama were anywhere close to being household names.
  #9  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:38 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,187
I think the comparison to Ron Paul is an apt one, he has passionate supporters but I don't think he does even as well as last time. I'm not worried about the Democrats having too many in their primary, most normal primary candidates drop out by South Carolina if they don't look viable, and then the also-rans drop out by Super Tuesday. If there's niche candidates remaining after that, they usually only get small numbers of delegates and no one cares.

The only reason Bernie ever got the traction he did is there was a sizable number of Democrats who just weren't entirely comfortable with Hillary. But there was no meaningful opposition to her--there was Bernie who was loud and passionate. Probably the worst thing that happened for HRC's election chances in 2015/2016 is that she wasn't challenged by a strong opponent, because it boosted Bernie's numbers and put her into a damaging primary contest against a really loud rabble rouser.

I would note, as a former Republican (now independent), and a conservative--I voted for HRC due to Trump's unsuitability for the office. If the Democrats nominate Bernie I will not vote for him under any circumstance.
  #10  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:50 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,173
Give. It. Up. Bernie.

Please.
__________________
“Our government may at some time be in the hands of a bad man. When in the hands of a good man it is all well enough.” But “we ought to have our government so shaped that even when in the hands of a bad man we shall be safe.” Frederick Douglass
  #11  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:13 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,969
For Larry David, a chance to work enough to buy that vacation home. For the rest of us, not much to offer. In 2016, he was the straight talking alternative to the inevitable Hillary. Now, his lane is occupied by sleeker and newer models. He's running like we owe him something, as if 2016 was taken from him. Yes, the DNC was in Hillary's pocket. But she also got more votes than Bernie nearly everywhere. Personally, I'd prefer that the Democratic nomination go to, you know, an actual Democrat.
  #12  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:18 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,829
Disclaimer: everyone on the SDMB knows I hate Bernie Sanders.

He won’t go far in 2020 and he is becoming Ron Paul. I’m not a Washington insider, but I do know he rubbed a lot of his senate colleagues the wrong way with the scorched earth campaign and ‘take it to the convention.’ Bernie got treated with the mildest of kid gloves in 2016 as there was no way he could reasonably overtake Clinton in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday and certainly not after New York.

Oh, by the way, Kirsten Gillibrand is running and I’m sure she’ll have a lot to say about the allegations of sexism and harassment on Bernie’s 2016 campaign. Bernie’s also going to have a pissed off Hillary Clinton behind the scenes and I’m sure she’s got tons of opposition research that she never used in 2016.

Those college kids and young people from 2016 are 4 years older now. They’ve lived through Trump. Plus, when you’re in your late teens to early 20s, you change a lot in 4 years.

So, no, I don’t think Bernie has a chance to catch fire again.
  #13  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:22 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,678
he will take it all the way to the early bird buffet at Golden Corral.
  #14  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:29 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 907
I don't know. Bernie would have trounced Trump in 2016 if he were the nominee, and if we're going by the 'it's his turn' model of presidential nomination logic, then he *should* by rights be the frontrunner. I will probably vote for him in the primary, unless he has flamed out and my vote otherwise goes to Warren.

Isn't his wife under FBI investigation, though? That could, um...pose a *big* fucking problem.
  #15  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:34 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,251
Sanders is the most important player in the Democratic party in the past four years, and this despite not being a Democrat. He helped to energize a new generation of progressives, and more importantly, he forced Clinton and others to talk about progressive causes seriously. His campaign was incredibly important.

Sanders: shut up, dude. You won the victory you set out to win. You're the bow that fired the arrow. Don't try to be the arrow.
  #16  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:43 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I don't know. Bernie would have trounced Trump in 2016 if he were the nominee, and if we're going by the 'it's his turn' model of presidential nomination logic, then he *should* by rights be the frontrunner. I will probably vote for him in the primary, unless he has flamed out and my vote otherwise goes to Warren.



Isn't his wife under FBI investigation, though? That could, um...pose a *big* fucking problem.


I don’t agree that Bernie would have trounced Trump, but I’m done rehashing 2016.

But you did bring up a great point about Jane Sanders. Many of Bernie’s most rabid supporters had no problem tying Bill Clinton’s actions to Hillary. I’m quite sure Hillary and others behind the scenes will make damn sure that the Jane Sanders news is out there front and center.
  #17  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:47 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,365
No one who lost an election, directly or indirectly, to Donald Trump should run again. Hillary lost to Trump, Sanders lost to Hillary. If you lost to Trump you get to retire from the "running for President" derby.
  #18  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:51 AM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I don't know. Bernie would have trounced Trump in 2016 if he were the nominee, and if we're going by the 'it's his turn' model of presidential nomination logic, then he *should* by rights be the frontrunner. I will probably vote for him in the primary, unless he has flamed out and my vote otherwise goes to Warren.

Isn't his wife under FBI investigation, though? That could, um...pose a *big* fucking problem.
I thought claims of "it's her turn" was the main reason people didn't like Hillary. Let's not invite that again.

I think Bernie's fine, but hardly (to me) inspirational. I don't have much of a beef with his platform, but I don't think he has the political skills to get much of his agenda through Congress if elected. He's vastly better than what we have now (who isn't?) but I don't see why he's better than 10 other candidates.
  #19  
Old 02-19-2019, 12:06 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modesty Blaise View Post
Is he currently a Democrat? Or is he just (again) going to use the party resources and dump the party when he's done?
Quote:
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
I think the comparison to Ron Paul is an apt one, he has passionate supporters but I don't think he does even as well as last time. I'm not worried about the Democrats having too many in their primary, most normal primary candidates drop out by South Carolina if they don't look viable, and then the also-rans drop out by Super Tuesday. If there's niche candidates remaining after that, they usually only get small numbers of delegates and no one cares.

The only reason Bernie ever got the traction he did is there was a sizable number of Democrats who just weren't entirely comfortable with Hillary. But there was no meaningful opposition to her--there was Bernie who was loud and passionate. Probably the worst thing that happened for HRC's election chances in 2015/2016 is that she wasn't challenged by a strong opponent, because it boosted Bernie's numbers and put her into a damaging primary contest against a really loud rabble rouser.
The comparison to Ron Paul falls flat for various reasons. Sanders performed far better than Ron Paul did in any of his primary runs, winning a larger number of states and share of the overall vote. Even more significant is that Ron Paul made near zero impact on the rest of the Republican Party, who never became sympathetic to neo-isolationism in foreign policy or an abolition of the Federal Reserve. By contrast, Bernie Sanders's social democratic views such as support for single-payer healthcare, free college, 15 dollar minimum wage, and reduction of income inequality have the support of both the majority of Democrats and are espoused by many elected officials. It fundamentally helps that Sanders's views are much more mainstream and appealing than those of Ron Paul. I also find it telling that the anti-Clinton vote in the 2016 primary coalesced around Sanders rather than Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb, suggesting support for him was driven by positive factors rather than merely the negative one of dislike for Clinton.

Quote:
I would note, as a former Republican (now independent), and a conservative--I voted for HRC due to Trump's unsuitability for the office. If the Democrats nominate Bernie I will not vote for him under any circumstance.
With all due respect, the Democratic Party is or at least ought not be in the business of nominating candidates with a view towards who can appeal towards lifelong Republicans the most. Who do you intend on voting for in a Sanders vs. Trump scenario?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
No one who lost an election, directly or indirectly, to Donald Trump should run again. Hillary lost to Trump, Sanders lost to Hillary. If you lost to Trump you get to retire from the "running for President" derby.
This logic is strange.

"Reagan lost to Ford, Ford lost to Carter. Therefore Reagan should not run for President in 1980."
__________________
Clinton/Schweitzer '16
  #20  
Old 02-19-2019, 12:10 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,443
He won't have the novelty factor that he did in 2016 and he'll be four years older. If elected he'd be entering the White House at an older age than when Reagan left the White House.

Really, the solution to electing an oldest-POTUS-ever Trump is to elect an even-older POTUS?
  #21  
Old 02-19-2019, 12:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
I think it's fine that he's running again. I doubt I'll support him in the primary, but I welcome a discussion of his ideas.
  #22  
Old 02-19-2019, 12:46 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,181
I don't see any of the other Dem candidates talking about Climate change as much as he is. I think Bernie has the largest # of grassroots donors of all the candidates, I don't know how that will affect things. Progressives are saying that if you take corporate PAC money then you're going to support what's good for your donors, and not the people.
He's old, but he sounds pretty sharp to me, a lot sharper than that younger guy, Trump. I'm looking forward to the debates.

OLD WHITE MAN - no thanks? I don't give a shit what package it comes in, if a candidate matches closely with my idea of good policies and has integrity I will keep an open mind and give them a chance.

Still early days.
__________________
NM
  #23  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:11 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,829
The comparison to Ron Paul is pretty accurate in that he’s got a small but fervent group of supporters, many of whom don’t ordinarily vote for the R or D candidate, either abstaining or voting third party.

I did a lot of canvassing for Kerry in 2004 and I’d often run into Bush canvassers. This was in Columbus, Ohio, peak battleground. It was interesting to see that we both had similar instructions from the campaign coordinators. The Kerry people immediately wrote off the Nader people as an absolute No and the Bush people did the same for the Ron Paul people.
  #24  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
.
Isn't his wife under FBI investigation, though? That could, um...pose a *big* fucking problem.
No, she isn't.
  #25  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
No, she isn't.
To be specific, she was possibly being investigated by a US attorney, but if so, it appears that the investigation was closed with no charges recommended.

Which makes sense: the whole issue was basically a dirty trick played by the Vermont chairman of Trump's presidential campaign. It was absolutely not the sort of thing that rose to the level of an actual crime.
  #26  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:46 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modesty Blaise View Post
Is he currently a Democrat? Or is he just (again) going to use the party resources and dump the party when he's done?
I believe the Democrat Party changed their rules after Bernie's last run that you have to be a registered Democrat to run in their primaries which is legal under Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. The question is will the Dems prevent Bernie from registering as a Democrat knowing he'd be using it only to use their primaries.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #27  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:56 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,678
seems like if they try to prevent him from registering as a Democrat that will enrage his fans.

also in some states there is no formal party registration anyway.
  #28  
Old 02-19-2019, 02:15 PM
ITR champion is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,287
I expect that Bernie will do well. I predict him finishing second behind Biden, but the possibility of him winning can't be ruled out.

In 2016 he got 43% of the vote, while there was only one other serious candidate. Facing a field of 25 candidates, it might well be possible to win with only 33%. Maybe even with 23%.

As Jonathan Chance mentioned, he has a base of hardcore supporters who won't abandon him. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that they make up 20% of primary voters.

I figure that by the time the Iowa caucuses roll around, a few Gabbards and Buttigiegs may have dropped out, but there will be at least ten candidates still hanging around, maybe more like fifteen. In that type of situation, it's entirely possible that Bernie could win Iowa with 20% of the vote.

Then on to New Hampshire, where he did extremely well last year. Winning New Hampshire would not be difficult if ten losers are splitting up the anti-Bernie vote.

And then ...? I figure that after New Hampshire, folks like Warren, Castro, Gillibrand, and Booker will bow to reality and drop. Progressives will be looking for someone who shares their positions and Bernie will be a natural fit for them. Could happen. Could also not happen. It's gonna' be a long seventeen months from now to the convention.

Last edited by ITR champion; 02-19-2019 at 02:15 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-19-2019, 02:15 PM
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I believe the Democrat Party changed their rules after Bernie's last run that you have to be a registered Democrat to run in their primaries which is legal under Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. The question is will the Dems prevent Bernie from registering as a Democrat knowing he'd be using it only to use their primaries.
From the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention, Section VI:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention
The term "presidential candidate" herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.

At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat.
Each candidate pursuing the Democratic nomination shall affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they:
A. are a member of the Democratic Party;
B. will accept the Democratic nomination; and
C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.
Presumably, Bernie is now a member of the Democratic Party. Of course, that doesn't stop him from running for Senate as an independent, any more than John Anderson being a Republican stopped him from running as an independent for President in 1980.
  #30  
Old 02-19-2019, 02:19 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Presumably, Bernie is now a member of the Democratic Party.
I wouldn't presume that until he, or the DNC, announces it. If it were easy and obvious for him, he'd have done it decades ago.
  #31  
Old 02-19-2019, 03:06 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,678
I need a database to keep track of all the free stuff these candidates are going to give away once elected. A trillion here , trillion there and suddenly it's real money.
  #32  
Old 02-19-2019, 03:23 PM
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I wouldn't presume that until he, or the DNC, announces it. If it were easy and obvious for him, he'd have done it decades ago.
"At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat." Until he does, he's not a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

According to the text of his announcement in the Burlington Free Press, he never says that he is a Democrat.
  #33  
Old 02-19-2019, 03:59 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I need a database to keep track of all the free stuff these candidates are going to give away once elected. A trillion here , trillion there and suddenly it's real money.
We pay for it by undoing Mitch's tax cut from a year ago. A trillion here, a trillion there, available for Dem programs instead of billionaires and big corporations.
  #34  
Old 02-19-2019, 04:02 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I don't know. Bernie would have trounced Trump in 2016 if he were the nominee
As dalej42 already pointed out, Bernie got treated with kid gloves on the Dem side: Hillary didn't want to lose his supporters.

And of course, the GOP never unleashed their barrage on him because he wasn't going to be the nominee, and besides, they'd have rather run against him. He'd have been shredded if there'd been a need.
Quote:
and if we're going by the 'it's his turn' model of presidential nomination logic, then he *should* by rights be the frontrunner.
Wrong party. That's a GOP thing, not a Dem thing.
  #35  
Old 02-19-2019, 04:09 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
As dalej42 already pointed out, Bernie got treated with kid gloves on the Dem side: Hillary didn't want to lose his supporters.

And of course, the GOP never unleashed their barrage on him because he wasn't going to be the nominee, and besides, they'd have rather run against him. He'd have been shredded if there'd been a need.
*Citation needed*.

Quote:
Wrong party. That's a GOP thing, not a Dem thing.
Except Hillary Clinton cleared the field for herself on the basis of this reasoning in 2016.
__________________
Clinton/Schweitzer '16
  #36  
Old 02-19-2019, 04:21 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,139
I was a big Bernie supporter in 2016, and may even exhume my "Feel The Bern" t-shirt. However, I can't support him as a POTUS candidate, mainly because of his age, and suspect he won't last very long this time around. I wouldn't condemn him as a Veep choice, however.
  #37  
Old 02-19-2019, 04:21 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 422
Look who's back!
  #38  
Old 02-19-2019, 04:33 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,329
Wpw. So honest, but possibly naive question. What is with all the Bernie hate? He isn't Ralph Nader, is isn't like he ran as a spoiler and got Trump elected.

Here is my view as a Bernie voter (and keep in mind over 90% of us who voted for him in the primary also voted for Hillary in the general election).

In the 2016 primary, Hillary got 17 million votes, Bernie got 13 million. The other candidates got pretty much nothing (O'Malley got maybe 100k).

Why would those 13 million people who have already voted for Bernie in a primary suddenly be compelled to vote for Harris, Booker, Biden, etc? What do those other candidates offer that Bernie does not? You have to be realistic about this. Bernie probably isn't going to lose 10 million votes to Harris and Booker.

Also Bernie started a movement. A lot of us on the left are tired of corporate centrism, and we want action on the meaningful problems America faces. The democratic party got the message, and now many democratic presidents are running on Bernie's platform (like medicare for all), but how do we know they are serious? Other than Warren, I don't think any of the other dems are actual progressives. They're probably just pretending to win.

Also liberals now make up half the democratic party. So ignore them at your peril.

Any democrat would be superior to Trump. and it doesn't matter if Bernie wins or another democrat wins, nothing meaningful will be passed. The dems probably won't even control both houses of congress in 2020. Even if they do, their majority in the senate will be slim, probably 51-54 seats.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-19-2019 at 04:35 PM.
  #39  
Old 02-19-2019, 04:40 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I need a database to keep track of all the free stuff these candidates are going to give away once elected. A trillion here , trillion there and suddenly it's real money.
Annual costs:

$70 billion - free public college for all
$70 billion - subsidized daycare and pre-k
$30 billion - universal paid family medical leave, paid sick leave, paid vacation
$100 billion - infrastructure investments
$100 billion - expand social security

The big one is medicare for all. That'll require close to a trillion in new taxes. However that trillion will be offset by reduced private spending of over a trillion. Medicare for all will save 2-12 trillion over the course of a decade, likely enough to pay for all of the other programs in the progressive wishlist.

Many of Bernies plans replace private spending with public spending. Medicare for all, public college, subsidized daycare. They are replacing private spending with tax dollars, which is fine by me.

FWIW, Bernies plans (excluding medicare for all) cost less than the war in Iraq and the supply side tax cuts the GOP push. I never see people complain about costs when it comes to war and tax cuts for the rich. Only when it comes to education, daycare, infrastructure and family medical leave.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-19-2019 at 04:44 PM.
  #40  
Old 02-19-2019, 04:47 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Wpw. So honest, but possibly naive question. What is with all the Bernie hate? He isn't Ralph Nader, is isn't like he ran as a spoiler and got Trump elected.

Here is my view as a Bernie voter (and keep in mind over 90% of us who voted for him in the primary also voted for Hillary in the general election).

In the 2016 primary, Hillary got 17 million votes, Bernie got 13 million. The other candidates got pretty much nothing (O'Malley got maybe 100k).

Why would those 13 million people who have already voted for Bernie in a primary suddenly be compelled to vote for Harris, Booker, Biden, etc? What do those other candidates offer that Bernie does not? You have to be realistic about this. Bernie probably isn't going to lose 10 million votes to Harris and Booker.

Also Bernie started a movement. A lot of us on the left are tired of corporate centrism, and we want action on the meaningful problems America faces. The democratic party got the message, and now many democratic presidents are running on Bernie's platform (like medicare for all), but how do we know they are serious? Other than Warren, I don't think any of the other dems are actual progressives. They're probably just pretending to win.

Also liberals now make up half the democratic party. So ignore them at your peril.

Any democrat would be superior to Trump. and it doesn't matter if Bernie wins or another democrat wins, nothing meaningful will be passed. The dems probably won't even control both houses of congress in 2020. Even if they do, their majority in the senate will be slim, probably 51-54 seats.
Thank you for saying this.

I think the Bernie scepticism here is a product of 1) forum demographics with members skewing older than the Internet average (think of it as the inverse of Millennial dominated spaces like Reddit where the general consensus is almost that Bernie was a socialist martyr whose nomination was stolen by an evil neoliberal warmonger Hillary Clinton) and 2) excessive reliance on "normie" political reasoning/punditry that pretends the last four years or so hasn't happened-recall the confident prediction of Trump fizzling out fairly late into the 2016 primaries-hence simplistic analysis that Sanders will be the worst candidate simply because he's nominally the farthest "left" on the political spectrum for example.
__________________
Clinton/Schweitzer '16
  #41  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:08 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
... Here is my view as a Bernie voter (and keep in mind over 90% of us who voted for him in the primary also voted for Hillary in the general election). ...
What did you think about Bernie's declining to reveal his tax returns, despite the several times in 2016 he said he would do so?

Follow-up: would you be fine with him declining to do so again?

(If this is too personal, I apologize-- I am genuinely interested in the attitude Bernie fans have on this topic. If you don't care to offer your own reactions, perhaps you have information you could share on what other Bernie fans have said about his choice not to release returns.)
  #42  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:11 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
What did you think about Bernie's declining to reveal his tax returns, despite the several times in 2016 he said he would do so?

Follow-up: would you be fine with him declining to do so again?

(If this is too personal, I apologize-- I am genuinely interested in the attitude Bernie fans have on this topic. If you don't care to offer your own reactions, perhaps you have information you could share on what other Bernie fans have said about his choice not to release returns.)
I hope Sanders releases his tax returns and would be moderately disappointed if he doesn't but all things considered it is a minor issue in the whole scheme of things.
__________________
Clinton/Schweitzer '16
  #43  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:33 PM
Pithily Effusive is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
So much has been made of Sen. Bernie Sanders since 2016 and in the time since November 2016.
By whom? If you were paying attention, Bernie Sanders developed a reputation over a fifteen year period by being the only one on any talk show who knew what he was talking about. He was the only articulate person who could tell the truth without one iota of bovine scatology. He didn't rush to run for president out of a fit of vanity. He was drafted - by us. We talked him into running. If you're saying November 2016 I find it difficult to believe you're up to speed on the subject about which you've chosen to post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm wondering what dopers think of his chances in 2020. What, if anything, will be different about his campaign this time around? Will he be as strong as he was in 2020?
And I'm wondering what's behind your use of this pejorative term "dopers", as though you're referring to a social class, or a nudge-nudge wink-wink "We all know" inference here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It seems that a number of his ideas which were, shall we say, unorthodox a few years ago have since become more widely embraced. Major candidates are talking about minimum wage hikes, low-cost college, and universal healthcare, which were his signature issues.
I see, you DID miss the boat. None of Bernie's ideas were "unorthodox" at the time he was saying them aloud. We were amazed that someone had finally come out and SAID IT when we first heard him, and were just continuing to enjoy hearing him speak the truth for better than a decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Does Bernie still have that niche to work with and will he be regarded as the more authentic candidate? Or will he get pushed aside by other household names like Harris, Booker, and Biden (if Biden runs)?
Again, you miss the point. Bernie isn't working a niche. He's solidly in the mainstream. I guess you don't recall a number of PO-ed Bernie voters voted for Trump out of spite for the Democrats who did what they could to torpedo Bernie's candidacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
How will Sanders' age affect perceptions about him?
You could seriously ask that after watching what's in the White House now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Will he be able to bridge the gaps that he had with black voters in particular? If so, how?
The brothers and sisters with whom I speak say Bernie was an unknown to them then. He isn't now.

It might behoove you to study a bit more before going off authoritatively about something of which you have but scant understanding.
__________________
If you want to know what God thinks of money just look at the people He gave it to.
-Dorothy Parker-

Last edited by Pithily Effusive; 02-19-2019 at 06:34 PM.
  #44  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:35 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
"Dopers" is not a perjorative. This is the Straight Dope Message Board -- we call each other Dopers.
  #45  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pithily Effusive View Post
It might behoove you to study a bit more before going off authoritatively about something of which you have but scant understanding.
Huh? He asked questions to spark a discussion. Not sure what you're responding to. Many threads are started by asking questions in order to see what other posters think. He didn't make any "authoritative" statements.
  #46  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:49 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
What did you think about Bernie's declining to reveal his tax returns, despite the several times in 2016 he said he would do so?

Follow-up: would you be fine with him declining to do so again?

(If this is too personal, I apologize-- I am genuinely interested in the attitude Bernie fans have on this topic. If you don't care to offer your own reactions, perhaps you have information you could share on what other Bernie fans have said about his choice not to release returns.)
Its a problem, I'm guessing he took advantage of some tax loopholes that he criticizes other people for using. Has he released any other than his 2014 returns?

No, I wouldn't be fine with him doing it again, but I don't know if that alone is enough to make me vote for someone else. There were some things Hillary Clinton and Obama did that I didn't agree with, but I still voted for them.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-19-2019 at 06:51 PM.
  #47  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:58 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pithily Effusive View Post
By whom? If you were paying attention, Bernie Sanders developed a reputation over a fifteen year period by being the only one on any talk show who knew what he was talking about. He was the only articulate person who could tell the truth without one iota of bovine scatology. He didn't rush to run for president out of a fit of vanity.
He spoke in my town in late 2014, in (of all places) an auditorium at the hospital that held about 200 people, and it was SRO. I remember coming home and stating on Facebook, "This guy cannot be our next president. He's too honest."

I don't remember any specifics, except he prefaced the Q&A by stating that he was not going to take any questions about abortion or gun control.
  #48  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:34 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,505
Its been less than a day and I've already seen several Dem blue mark twitter accounts tearing each other a new asshole over Bernie.
  #49  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:52 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/02/16...all-extension/

He’s at around 17%. I don’t see many people bailing on Bernie ...
IF one gives the option of "undecided" his support goes down to 9%. Undecided runs away with it at 48%! Biden is next closest at 12% with Harris close behind at 11%. That 9% is likely solid, but how much of that 48% will he get? I'm guessing not much.

And FWIW this same result also justifies a conclusion that Biden's early polling advantage don't mean much either.


Brought up in the Klobuchar/Harris thread - but why don't the charges of Sanders as an abusive boss get the same attention as Klobuchar's? They should. Managing people is a key part of the needed skillset.
  #50  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:17 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
*Citation needed*.
For what? That nobody bothered to attack him in 2016? Or that there was plenty of material available if someone did?

The former is obvious; for the latter, I've forgotten all the goodies that popped up in blogland at the time, but IIRC, Bernie's got a track record of traveling to hang out with bona fide Communist leaders and stuff like that. I remember thinking that it would hardly take the right-wing noise machine to demonize Bernie; I could have done it with a few million, easily.
Quote:
Except Hillary Clinton cleared the field for herself on the basis of this reasoning in 2016.
She cleared the field on the basis of having raised a shit-ton of money, and having the party establishment behind her as well.

She's also the only Dem runnerup in recent memory who's been the nominee the next cycle. John Edwards was the runnerup in 2004. He did worse in 2008, even before his affair came to light. Bill Bradley was the runnerup in 2000; he didn't even try in 2004. Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown were Bill Clinton's main rivals for the nomination in 1992; where were they in 2000? Jesse Jackson was the runnerup in 1988; where was he in 1992? Gary Hart was the runnerup in 1984; he managed to self-destruct in 1987, and was a nonfactor in 1988. Ted Kennedy was the runnerup in 1980; didn't bother in 1984.

IOW, there's no pattern here of there being an 'it's his turn' deal, the way there is on the GOP side. Just one putative instance that can easily be attributed to more obvious factors.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017