Bernie DESTROYS the opposition in Nevada

[drad_dog]

@wolfpup

I’m responding to many of the implied or explicit statements that Bernie is no more vulnerable to Republican attacks than any other Democratic nominee. I believe he absolutely is.

This is true. But Bernie is the left’s version of a disruptive grenade in a country that is predominantly right-wing by global standards and by Bernie’s standards, in a country in which the performance of the stock market and the robustness of the job market are valued above all things, both of which are currently doing well under Republican policies. And in America, uniquely in the industrialized world, the job market is inextricably interlinked with access to health care, which Bernie has promised to totally reform but that’s going to be a long, tough lift.

If I sound like I’m channeling Saint Reagan, I’m only reflecting what I see and hear and not what I hope for. No one would celebrate more than me if Bernie won the presidency and had a Democratic Congress to support him.

Why do you make this claim?

tornp lost the popular vote

Bernie is on fire with a wide range of democrats.

Left policies are all popular wtih voters, regardless of framing and spin.

A political party on the verge of full delusional nationalistic hatred of it’s own fellow citizens, and human beings.

Context, context, context…

[jo1010]

Putin may be supporting Sanders because it will be a win-win for him in November if Trump wins or loses, if Sanders is the Democratic nominee. In 2019, Sanders didn’t vote on a bill to impose sanctions on Russia. In 2014 and 2017, he voted against sanctions on Russia. In 2012, he voted against the Magnitsky Act. It’s hard to know if Bernie is just a Russophile or if the KGB got dirt on him during his 1988 “honeymoon” in the USSR that they’re holding over his head. Of course, Sanders always has excuses for why he voted the way he did, and those excuses may be enough for his supporters, but the rest of us need to seriously examine why Sanders, the supposed champion of the working man and woman, has been protecting Russian oligarchs. Sanders also supports the same isolationist policies Trump does, so America under a Sanders presidency may continue to be weak on foreign policy. America being MIA on the world stage leaves the door open to Russia to spread their influence around the world. Putin is a very happy man right now.

[Ryan_Liam]

jo1010
Putin may be supporting Sanders because it will be a win-win for him in November if Trump wins or loses, if Sanders is the Democratic nominee. In 2019, Sanders didn’t vote on a bill to impose sanctions on Russia. In 2014 and 2017, he voted against sanctions on Russia. In 2012, he voted against the Magnitsky Act. It’s hard to know if Bernie is just a Russophile or if the KGB got dirt on him during his 1988 “honeymoon” in the USSR that they’re holding over his head. Of course, Sanders always has excuses for why he voted the way he did, and those excuses may be enough for his supporters, but the rest of us need to seriously examine why Sanders, the supposed champion of the working man and woman, has been protecting Russian oligarchs. Sanders also supports the same isolationist policies Trump does, so America under a Sanders presidency may continue to be weak on foreign policy. America being MIA on the world stage leaves the door open to Russia to spread their influence around the world. Putin is a very happy man right now.

Despite the fact Bernie voted for a more robust version in 2015

Sanders Statement on Iran and Russia Sanctions

Thursday, June 15, 2017

“I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran’s activities, but also Saudi Arabia’s decades-long support for radical extremism.”

More explanations as to what happened during these voting sessions for sanctions on Russia.

2019 Deripaska Sanctions

In 2019, the Senate pushed for a bill that would prevent the US Treasury Department from rolling back sanctions on three companies owned by Oleg Deripaska.

On January 15, 2019, the Senate voted 57–42 to advance a resolution that would block the Trump Administration from rolling back the sanctions. Bernie Sanders was one of the Senators who voted in favor of advancing the resolution.

The only Senator to miss the vote was Kirsten Gillibrand, who was launching her 2020 Presidential campaign. Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly), she hasn’t received nearly the same amount of criticism as Senator Sanders has for missing a Russia sanctions vote.

The resolution died the following day. The Senate needed 60 votes to advance the legislation further, but once again, only received 57. Bernie Sanders received plenty of scrutiny for being the sole Senator to miss this vote, even though his Yea wouldn’t have changed the final outcome.
So Why Did Bernie Sanders Miss The Vote?

Bernie Sanders missed the vote on Deripaska sanctions because he was meeting with about two dozen female staffers who worked on his 2016 campaign. The purpose of the meeting was to hear their experiences and work to implement stricter protocols ahead of his 2020 run.

On May 6, 2019, Bernie Sanders announced that his campaign has implemented the “gold standard” of sexual misconduct policies and protocols. Similar protocols were in place during Sanders’s 2018 Senate run.

[asahi]

@Aspenglow

Try and remember that Bill Clinton didn’t win a primary until the sixth one, in Georgia. We’re far from an outcome at this stage.

Nah, it’s absolutely over for everyone not named Bloomberg. IIRC, in SC (Biden’s wall), Biden had steadily held a 20-25% advantage over the rest of the field. It went down to 10, to 8, and now 5% points. Worse, Steyer’s climbing. Biden is done. And except for Bloomberg, none of the other candidates have money or volunteers.

[iiandyiiii]

@asahi

Nah, it’s absolutely over for everyone not named Bloomberg. IIRC, in SC (Biden’s wall), Biden had steadily held a 20-25% advantage over the rest of the field. It went down to 10, to 8, and now 5% points. Worse, Steyer’s climbing. Biden is done. And except for Bloomberg, none of the other candidates have money or volunteers.

I’m assuming you’re leaving out Sanders in a brain-fart…

[CarnalK]

I just assumed he thought everyone knows it’s not “over” for the leader.

[CaptMurdock]

@BobLibDem

Christ, in the most important election in the history of the world, we could nominate about the only fucking person who not only could lose to the Orange Fascist, but give him a compliant House and Senate. Goodbye democracy.

Don’t start the revolution without me!! :rolleyes:

@Socsback

Bernie is winning those polls because of name recognition (because he’s been in the spotlight for years now, and all of the other candidates are fresh faces). Once he gets vetted, there is zero chance that he can win a national election. Trump believes it, Putin believes it, the Democratic party believes it. The only ones who do not get it are Bernie supporters.

@chappachula

for 40 years nobody “went there” against Sanders because he was irrelevant, was unknown, and didn’t draw any attention.
Now they are paying attention, and here’s some of what they will learn:
From the link in post 64 to the editorial in the Guardian (a leftish newspaper in Britain):
These are the kind of stories that hit people in the gut.

Biden may be boring, but that’s better than being punched in the gut.

@chappachula

That was my point, and the reason that I posted the quote from the Guardian newspaper above. We are going to see many more articles and videos on the topics in that editorial.

Before 2016, Sanders was totally unknown on the national scene.
Then during the 2016 campaign,he became know for his ideas, not his personal record.

That was because everybody knew that Hilary was the anointed queen of the party, and Sanders had no chance of becoming the leader. So people listened to and debated his policies, not his leadership skills. That was okay for 2016.
But now he’s running to become the leader, the commander in chief and the face of the country. For that role, it is now legitimate to discuss things which were conveniently ignored in 2016—his personal background, his history and all his dirty laundry.

And he has a lot of dirty laundry.
The republicans and Fox news will show it all.

Compared to the stuff that has come out about Trump before and since the election, this stuff about Sanders looks like a food fight at a church picnic. I think the last 4 years have pretty much blown all of our Give-A-S*** circuits for the next decade.

[enipla]

Fine. I’ll be glad to vote for Sanders.

But he will lose against Trump. The only thing that needs doing is to get the moron/traitor out of the White House. Full Stop.

Bernie ain’t gonna do it.

[Locrian]

@enipla

Fine. I’ll be glad to vote for Sanders.

But he will lose against Trump. The only thing that needs doing is to get the moron/traitor out of the White House. Full Stop.

Bernie ain’t gonna do it.

I feel very similar. However, let’s wait to see a VP pick. Or the maybe contested convention. At this point I see 6 excellent VP picks on stage, not THE definite President nom.

[asahi]

@iiandyiiii

I’m assuming you’re leaving out Sanders in a brain-fart…

Right, because people would have assumed that I meant it’s over for the guy who just steamrolled the entire field. :rolleyes:

[asahi]

@Locrian

I feel very similar. However, let’s wait to see a VP pick. Or the maybe contested convention. At this point I see 6 excellent VP picks on stage, not THE definite President nom.

I’m wondering if it’s not Abrams of Georgia. I’d think that would be a good pick for mobilizing minority voters - Sanders’ campaign will likely be good for the base.

But what I and other Sanders skeptics would point out is that white moderates are going to feel deflated. The left is a more complicated and fragile coalition than the mostly white right wing.

[Ludovic]

@Locrian

I feel very similar. However, let’s wait to see a VP pick. Or the maybe contested convention. At this point I see 6 excellent VP picks on stage, not THE definite President nom.

I think a contested convention might do even worse than Bernie if he had around 40% of the delegates and everyone coalesced around someone else. As much as “Bernie Bros” are overstated, there could be actual hard feelings if a clear front-runner was not nominated.

But I’m not sure he’d lose if nominated. He just stands less of a chance than Buttigieg or Biden, and victory is the most important thing this election cycle. It would be another story if the coattails of victory would be sure to flip the Senate as well: we could then debate over whether it is worth it to support someone you agree with more if they have a slightly lesser chance of winning, but victory in the Senate is much less likely than winning the Presidency, and the cost of losing to Trump is too high to risk.

[Monocracy]

Looking at the results so far, with 60% of the precincts reporting, and comparing them to 538’s prediction, it seems that Bernie has once again grossly under-performed. I don’t think he’s the runaway front-runner that everyone thinks he is.

528s popular vote predictions:
39 Sanders
17 Buttigieg
16 Biden
12 Warren
9 Steyer
7 Klobuchar
.3 Gabbard

Nevada first round, rounded to nearest %:
33 Sanders (-6)
17 Biden (+1)
16 Buttigieg (-1)
13 Warren (+1)
10 Klobuchar (+3)
9 Steyer
0 (.35) Gabbard

[Sherrerd]

@CaptMurdock

Compared to the stuff that has come out about Trump before and since the election, this stuff about Sanders looks like a food fight at a church picnic. …

This would make sense if Democratic voters had the same standards that Trump voters have.

But they don’t. For Trump voters, the only standard, really, is ‘is he white-supremacist and sexist enough/will he make the libruls cry?’

Democratic voters expect something very different from their candidate.

[Unreconstructed_Man]

@chappachula

And he has a lot of dirty laundry.
The republicans and Fox news will show it all.

Good. Sooner the better. The sooner they show it, the sooner people will realise it’s not so bad. They’ll also be able to compare it with all the repugnant shit that Trump has said and done over the years, which is scientifically proven to be precisely 1,758% worse.

[AlsoNamedBort]

@Monocracy

Looking at the results so far, with 60% of the precincts reporting, and comparing them to 538’s prediction, it seems that Bernie has once again grossly under-performed. I don’t think he’s the runaway front-runner that everyone thinks he is.

528s popular vote predictions:
39 Sanders
17 Buttigieg
16 Biden
12 Warren
9 Steyer
7 Klobuchar
.3 Gabbard

Nevada first round, rounded to nearest %:
33 Sanders (-6)
17 Biden (+1)
16 Buttigieg (-1)
13 Warren (+1)
10 Klobuchar (+3)
9 Steyer
0 (.35) Gabbard

538’s forecast was of the final vote, not the first vote.
From 538:

Our model had already anticipated a pretty good showing for Sanders in Nevada; **we expected him to win, 39 percent of the final vote, on average — exactly what he won. **So there isn’t a huge change in how the model sees the race. But Sanders’s outlook still meaningfully improved: His chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates are up 6 points, to 46 percent

[Lamoral]

@drad dog

A political party on the verge of full delusional nationalistic hatred of it’s own fellow citizens, and human beings.

@Sherrerd

But they don’t. For Trump voters, the only standard, really, is ‘is he white-supremacist and sexist enough/will he make the libruls cry?’

This is a really typical misunderstanding of Trump’s campaign by people who haven’t actually been paying attention to Trump’s campaign, only other peoples’ critiques of it.

I HAVE been paying attention to Trump’s campaign, and not because I support Trump, but because you have to be carefully watching both sides if you want to follow this ongoing election.

I know that most Democrats are not interested in watching Trump’s rallies and speeches simply because they’re so disgusted by him, his overall demeanor and speaking style, his supporters, and everything to do with him, that they don’t want to subject themselves to the aggravation. And I get that. But I have been watching his events and I can tell you that around 85% of everything he says in his speeches relates to the economy and job creation.

It’s true that during his FIRST campaign, he leaned very hard into negativity. That is indisputable. At that point, most of what he said in his speeches was about how horrible his opponents were; how horrible Barack Obama was; how we needed to ban Muslims from immigrating; how we needed to build a wall; how we “were going to say Merry Christmas again, folks” and a lot of other shit.

That was then, this is now. NOW, his campaigning is far more upbeat, optimistic, and positive. He still has the same obnoxious demeanor; he still engages in name-calling of his opponents (“little Mike”, “Crazy Bernie”); but it’s undeniable that the general tone of his campaign has shifted.

He spends way more time simply talking up the economy, the low unemployment rate, bringing back manufacturing jobs, and how much he loves his supporters. He’s even been playing up the idea of racial diversity among his voters. At the last rally he held, in either Nevada or Colorado (can’t remember), he talked for a while about how he was specifically going to increase prosperity among Hispanics. Then he actually said, “HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE ARE HISPANIC!!!” and the crowd roared with applause and cheers. “I love the Hispanics…I’m going to help the Hispanic-Americans…don’t we have the best people, folks?” OK, I’m not sure if that’s exactly what he said, verbatim, but it was something very close to it.

My point here is simply that the negativity which characterized his 2016 campaign seems to have been largely replaced by a different kind of vibe. And characterizing this upcoming election as a simple battle between the forces of bigotry and hate, and the forces of justice and honor, is a big mistake. There’s much more at play here, and he is going to be very, very hard to beat no matter who is the Democratic challenger.

[Bijou_Drains]

From what I can tell the last incumbent president who lost with a good economy was Taft. So Trump is smart to play up the economy even if it has nothing to do with him.

[drad_dog]

@Lamoral

This is a really typical misunderstanding of Trump’s campaign by people who haven’t actually been paying attention to Trump’s campaign, only other peoples’ critiques of it.

I HAVE been paying attention to Trump’s campaign, and not because I support Trump, but because you have to be carefully watching both sides if you want to follow this ongoing election.

I know that most Democrats are not interested in watching Trump’s rallies and speeches simply because they’re so disgusted by him, his overall demeanor and speaking style, his supporters, and everything to do with him, that they don’t want to subject themselves to the aggravation. And I get that. But I have been watching his events and I can tell you that around 85% of everything he says in his speeches relates to the economy and job creation.

It’s true that during his FIRST campaign, he leaned very hard into negativity. That is indisputable. At that point, most of what he said in his speeches was about how horrible his opponents were; how horrible Barack Obama was; how we needed to ban Muslims from immigrating; how we needed to build a wall; how we “were going to say Merry Christmas again, folks” and a lot of other shit.

That was then, this is now. NOW, his campaigning is far more upbeat, optimistic, and positive. He still has the same obnoxious demeanor; he still engages in name-calling of his opponents (“little Mike”, “Crazy Bernie”); but it’s undeniable that the general tone of his campaign has shifted.

He spends way more time simply talking up the economy, the low unemployment rate, bringing back manufacturing jobs, and how much he loves his supporters. He’s even been playing up the idea of racial diversity among his voters. At the last rally he held, in either Nevada or Colorado (can’t remember), he talked for a while about how he was specifically going to increase prosperity among Hispanics. Then he actually said, “HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE ARE HISPANIC!!!” and the crowd roared with applause and cheers. “I love the Hispanics…I’m going to help the Hispanic-Americans…don’t we have the best people, folks?” OK, I’m not sure if that’s exactly what he said, verbatim, but it was something very close to it.

My point here is simply that the negativity which characterized his 2016 campaign seems to have been largely replaced by a different kind of vibe. And characterizing this upcoming election as a simple battle between the forces of bigotry and hate, and the forces of justice and honor, is a big mistake. There’s much more at play here, and he is going to be very, very hard to beat no matter who is the Democratic challenger.

I was talking about the republican party, not the trinp campaign.

[Saint_Cad]

@Lamoral

My point here is simply that the negativity which characterized his 2016 campaign seems to have been largely replaced by a different kind of vibe. And characterizing this upcoming election as a simple battle between the forces of bigotry and hate, and the forces of justice and honor, is a big mistake. There’s much more at play here, and he is going to be very, very hard to beat no matter who is the Democratic challenger.

You are absolutely correct. Many people who voted for Trump in 2016 saw him as the lesser of two evils (Clinton being the other evil). It seems like Dems still refuse to acknowledge this fact. Point being that since neither was an incumbent and people hated Hillary that a negative campaign was a natural choice. Now that he’s an incumbent his campaign will be a variation of Reagan’s “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”