Yeah, I agree. Many of them are way to the left of the Democratic Party.
Alessan is an Israeli, is familiar with politics in both Israel and the U.S., and if you choose to dismiss his opinion with an eyeroll, that simply shows how much you know.
No, it isn’t. Sanders is not a democratic socialist but a social democrat, a very different thing. So are the ruling parties in Scandinavia, even if they call themselves “socialist.” Democratic socialism is, in fact, the one system conceived of in modern times that has never yet been tried, though Venezuela might be heading that way.
So Bernie doesn’t even know what he is. That, on top of the terrible interview in which he apparently kept saying “Pass!”, is supposed to inspire confidence?
Clearly, he has not inspired yours, but we can only hope that he can find the strength to go on.
See my quote from above:
That’s because, like Sanders, most democratic socialists use the terms interchangeably, said Joseph Schwartz, vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.
No, he meant they use the terms “socialist” and “democratic socialist” interchangeably. And that’s fair, because democratic socialism is a form or subset of socialism. But social democracy is not. And BTW, I’m sick and tired of people citing paved roads and public libraries and public schools as instances of “socialism.” They’re not, they’re just public services, every government of any form or ideology will provide some public services, but that doesn’t make a government socialist.
Sanders repeatedly lionized and defended the Sandinistas, said breadlines were a good thing, and called for major industry to be nationalized…but when he calls himself a socialist, he’s dead wrong? Really?
I was referring more to our friends’s insinuations that the failure to follow Netanyahu’s settler, Iran etc. policy means that our President is in cahoots with the Ayatollah. That said, I talked about your comment with a Jewish friend of mine and it seems here SlackerInc is right albeit more by accident then anything else. Netanyahu’s economic policies, at least, would make him solidly a Republican in an American context.
He is winning some elements-he does superbly well with low-income whites and his margins with both blacks and Hispanics have improved considerably in recent elections.
“Superbly well”? Cite?
And what are you calling me “right” about? I didn’t even comment on Likud or Netanyahu, not in this or any recent thread at least.
Upshot noted this before the primaries began and it has been confirmed since by exit polls as well as the election results themselves.
I’m saying you were right to scoff at the notion that foreign right-wing party x is automatically more “left” then the GOP. Take it as a compliment, because it is.
You’re attempting to play semantic games; for what reason I’m not sure because even Sanders embraces the “socialist” tag. It’s like trying to argue that the US doesn’t have a capitalist economy; yes, there are nuances and when comparing different styles of socialism there can be striking differences but in the end they are in the same tent.
I see that you aren’t the only one pushing this meme: http://sandersisnotasocialist.com/
Yes, because objectively speaking he isn’t. He isn’t even calling for nationalization of major industries as even the fairly moderate Attlee Labour government of 1945 did. So he’s a social democrat.
He embraces it because even social democracy is so marginal here that he might as well be a socialist by American standards. And I am not attempting to play semantic games, I am calling attention to important distinctions often forgotten in American political discourse. Before we can rehabilitate “socialism” here we have to define it.
I made no such scoff–you are still confused.
As for exit polls, I remember he surprised me by winning most strongly among poor whites in the early states. But that changed later. I have not found a multistate compilation, but here is a large state for example: 2016 Election Center – Presidential Primaries and Caucuses – 2016 Election Center – CNNPolitics.com
Bernie also did best among those who think Obama is too liberal, which is…weird.
Bibi himself? Can’t argue with you there. But then, Nenatyahu - Israel’s most American politician - has always been as much a Republican as he is a Likudnik. That said, he has always been to the right of his own party in terms of economics. The Likud, economically speaking, is only right-wing in context of Israel’s European-style welfare state, and occasionally even comes down to the left of Labor in certain policies.
But that’s another thread. Sorry for the hijack.
My Facebook feed is all filled with people linking to usuncut stories about how New York was stolen from Bernie.
Never mind that Clinton was a two-time state Senator there who won her reelection bid by over 30 points just a few years ago.
Never mind that the polls consistently showed Sanders with a double-digit lead.
Never mind that Hillary received over a quarter of a million more votes than Sanders!:smack:
Someone linked to the supposed 160,000 voters whose party affiliation was screwed up. I pointed out that even if we wanted to assume that:
a) Every one of them would have voted (typically getting 50% turnout even during a contested primary is a lot)… AND…
b) Every one of them would have voted for Bernie (even though in the best district he won about 63% of the vote - and that district borders Vermont!)
Even if we made those assumptions, Bernie still would be over 120,000 votes behind Hillary!
His response: It happened everywhere.
My response: Show me that evidence.
His response (verbatim): “if it happened in one district it happened in all of them.”
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
The logic of a Bernie supporter.
Makes me ashamed that I am one. 
I know, right? The only consolation is the meme that just showed up on my FB feed: “Bernie is like Morrissey: he’s great, but his fans are terrible.”
I am at this point so freakin’ tired of those Sanders fans (a minority, admittedly) who are convinced that the only reason Sanders is losing is shenanigans. His campaign was always a super long shot. He’s losing because progressive values aren’t mainstream yet. The fact that he’s pushed them into the mainstream as much as he has
(OVERTON WINDOW
OVERTON WINDOW
OVERTON WINDOW
OVERTON WINDOW
OVERTON WINDOW)
is a huge success.
Nationally she is up 2.5 million votes - about 15%. She {i}only{/i} has about 9% more pledged delegates.
The patronizing tone of overwhelmingly young white people as they tell me - and 2.5 million other people - that we don’t understand what’s best for us - is infuriating. The temper tantrum they are throwing because, for once, they aren’t getting their own way, is annoying.
Maybe the system is rigged (I don’t think so, but hey) - you know what - for once its rigged in favor of someone who doesn’t have a penis.
The [primary] system is rigged. That is a feature, not a bug. It’s rigged, presumably, to minimize the chance of a part committing political suicide. It’s not working very well for the Republicans. 
If Sanders got the Dem nom, that would not be the party committing political suicide, at any rate.