Democrats who don't support Bernie Sanders as the frontrunner are the people who put Trump in office

[DrDeth]

@WernhamHogg

Everybody is sick of Hillary. I voted for her, but we gotta face facts here.

And the GOP and the Kremlin made *damn sure *of that, didn’t they?

[k9bfriender]

@Buck_Godot

As others have said, Bernie comes with even more baggage then Clinton. The ads write themselves, Sanders is a Jewish communist radical who wants to make the US into a combination of the former Soviet union and Venezuala, outlaw Christianity and private property and require everyone to keep Kosher.

and that’s the good part!

Add in not so subtle allusions to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Trump and leading to a 2 fold rise in antisemitism, and you find yourself with a Straight Dope full of threads asking why we picked the worst possible candidate instead of a safe bet like Hillary Clinton who would have beat Trump at a walk.

[DrDeth]

@k9bfriender

Are you talking about this exchange?

If so, you have very poorly mischaracterized it.

If nothing else, you left off a very, very key word “again”.

She has already run for president, and she would like to be president. That you would interpret that as being entitled and instructing the peasants is entirely a reflection on how you chose to interpret it, but has nothing to do with what she said. You mischaracterized what she said, and then made up the attitude that you think she would have had to say the things that you claim she said. All of that is only in your own mind.

I did take that as she wouldn’t mind being Tapped for State again. Which would be fine by me.

[Dangerosa]

@Buck_Godot

As others have said, Bernie comes with even more baggage then Clinton. The ads write themselves, Sanders is a Jewish communist radical who wants to make the US into a combination of the former Soviet union and Venezuala, outlaw Christianity and private property and require everyone to keep Kosher. Add in not so subtle allusions to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Trump and leading to a 2 fold rise in antisemitism, and you find yourself with a Straight Dope full of threads asking why we picked the worst possible candidate instead of a safe bet like Hillary Clinton who would have beat Trump at a walk.

He was also - and this is true although I’m going to shade it for effect - a deadbeat dad. The mother of his son was on public assistance because Bernie couldn’t be bothered to hold a real job to support his kid.

[Ashtura]

Bernie didn’t have as strong of a base as he clearly appears to have now because of the establishment and corporate media shitting on him relentlessly.

Even if that is true, do you think the “establishment” and “corporate media” are going to magically disappear? To be a good candidate you NEED to be able to weather that. It’s one of the things Trump is actually pretty good at.

[HelenTroy]

@Barack_Obama

People who support hillary are mostly lesser informed voters similar to trump’s base in a lot of ways.

You know who keeps repeating this? The Bernie Bros (who supposedly don’t exist) said this about African Americans not knowing what was good for them and dismissing them as “low information voters”. The the Bernster went and bemoaned the plight of the white working class and why weren’t we reaching out more to them and dropping identity politics. I guess it’s not identity politics when it’s white people. I also guess African Americans saw him for what he was.

And still is! Here is a recent interview! https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/415705-bernie-sanders-on-close-contests-of-gillum-and-abrams-many-white-voters

To quote: “I think, you know, there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,” Sanders told the Daily Beast. “I think next time around, by the way, it would be much easier for them to do that.”

If you feel uncomfortable voting for a black person, you’re racist. The fact Bernie can’t see or say that means he is the WRONG candidate.

[Darth_Sensitive]

I voted for Clinton in 2016. Had it been Sanders/Trump, I would have voted for Johnson. And I’ll do the same in 2020.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Dangerosa

He was also - and this is true although I’m going to shade it for effect - a deadbeat dad. The mother of his son was on public assistance because Bernie couldn’t be bothered to hold a real job to support his kid.

Not to mention all the articles from that whacko newspaper, the Vermont Freeman he wrote for.

I’m not sure how many people would want to vote for a 32 year old man insisting that a great danger facing society was that too many 16 year-old girls were remaining virgins rather than having sex and in doing so were going to get cancer.

And of course there were his weird claims about female teachers terrorizing male students and causing them to get cancer as well.

And those were just the articles that Mother Jones turned up. Who knows what else they’d turn up.

[septimus]

@Darth_Sensitive

I voted for Clinton in 2016. Had it been Sanders/Trump, I would have voted for Johnson. And I’ll do the same in 2020.

Let’s ignore the utter unsuitability of Johnson (since he wasn’t going to win anyway) and note that your vote is equivalent to casting a half-vote each for Trump and Sanders. Did you actually think it was a toss-up which of the two’s election would best serve America?

[Gyrate]

@DSYoungEsq

While the rather ridiculous “tax reform” has temporarily increased the deficit, as we know from past experience, that eventually flattens out (I’ve never been convinced it results in MORE revenue down the road, but it’s clear that the revenue eventually gets made up for the most part).

**Do **we know that from past experience? Because my past experience is that it only “flattens out” when the runaway deficits force the government to either increase taxes again or to increase revenue or cut spending elsewhere.

However, as we also know from past experience, social entitlement programs NEVER reduce their relative expenditures; I learned that lesson during political science classes in the late 70s, for goodness sake, and nothing in the last 40 years has convinced me otherwise.

But government programs that inject money at the lowest level of society (unemployment, for example) have the largest economic multipliers and do have a significant positive economic impact. If you’re going to weigh benefits against costs, be sure to do it for both your examples please.

So, while President Trump may have temporarily increased the debt (and not at a rate that will bankrupt us in any conceivable way), Mr. Sanders’ programs would have increased our debt spending at a much higher rate, and for a much, MUCH longer term.

I’m not defending Sanders’ questionable policy numbers but you’re really softpedalling the extent of the Trump-driven increase in the deficit.

[septimus]

@Gyrate

I’m not defending Sanders’ questionable policy numbers but you’re really softpedalling the extent of the Trump-driven increase in the deficit.

Not to mention that the precarious Trump-Republican escalation of debt is really happening, while Sanders’ program was a pipe-dream that was never going to be passed in any seriously expensive form.

[Darth_Sensitive]

@septimus

Let’s ignore the utter unsuitability of Johnson (since he wasn’t going to win anyway) and note that your vote is equivalent to casting a half-vote each for Trump and Sanders. Did you actually think it was a toss-up which of the two’s election would best serve America?

Per my location, it was irrelevant. But I’m not willing to back a candidate I don’t support in a foregone conclusion. At least voting Johnson might get the Ls an eventual seat at the table.

[Shodan]

@septimus

Not to mention that the precarious Trump-Republican escalation of debt is really happening, while Sanders’ program was a pipe-dream that was never going to be passed in any seriously expensive form.

Vote for Bernie - he won’t really do what he says!

Regards,
Shodan

[amarinth]

@Whack-a-Mole

If you win the nomination the corporate shills and brainwashed elites line up behind that candidate.

Evidence: Donald Trump

Not necessarily - there is some truth to the maxim “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.” While some Democrats (and other leftists) have clearly fallen in love with Bernie, it seems that many of us haven’t and (at this point) aren’t going to. ever. And so their behavior isn’t going to mirror their counterparts on the Republican side.

It needs to be someone else.

[WernhamHogg]

Yeah, Republicans will always get behind their candidate. It doesn’t matter if he stands for a single value they have, they still think they need to vote Republican it for God and America.

[Procrustus]

@Shodan

Vote for Bernie - he won’t really do what he says!

Regards,
Shodan

Worked for Trump. Democrats took him literally but not seriously. Republicans did the opposite.

Exhibit A: We’ll build a giant wall and Mexico will pay for it.

[Dangerosa]

@Ibn_Warraq

Not to mention all the articles from that whacko newspaper, the Vermont Freeman he wrote for.

I’m not sure how many people would want to vote for a 32 year old man insisting that a great danger facing society was that too many 16 year-old girls were remaining virgins rather than having sex and in doing so were going to get cancer.

And of course there were his weird claims about female teachers terrorizing male students and causing them to get cancer as well.

And those were just the articles that Mother Jones turned up. Who knows what else they’d turn up.

And when Mother Jones is turning up weird shit on Sanders, can you imagine what anyone who really wanted to torpedo him would have turned up.

[Hari_Seldon]

Run Bernie and all the anti-semites come out of the woodwork. They would absolutely crucify him. 2000 years ago they did crucify a socialist Jew and they’re still at it.

[k9bfriender]

@WernhamHogg

Yeah, Republicans will always get behind their candidate. It doesn’t matter if he stands for a single value they have, they still think they need to vote Republican it for God and America.

That does seem to be a big difference. Republicans are made up largely of single issue voters. We have had posters on this board express that they would never vote for a democrat, even if they were not for gun control, because democrats are generally for gun control, and so they are all “gun grabbers”, it did not matter what other issues may be involved. Same with limiting reproductive rights for women, the republicans have single issue voters that will never vote for a democrat because they perceive them as baby killers. The republicans have that on lock, because they know that as long as they keep fanning the irrational fear of having guns taken away they will never lose the gun vote, and as long as they keep promising to take away a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, they will never lose the pro-life vote. They know that guns will never be banned, and they know that they will never ban abortion, but they keep dangling those issues over their voter’s eager little heads. Why? Because it keeps working.

Democrats, on the other hand, have many issues that they are concerned about. It does make it harder to get people to line up behind a candidate, when the candidate and the voter may both agree on the same issues, but have different priorities about which issues to tackle first and which to dedicate more resources to. That means that even if we agree with a candidate, we may still not support them. It’s harder to get people to fall in line behind a candidate that they only have partial support for.

[RTFirefly]

@Ibn_Warraq

I’m not sure how many people would want to vote for a 32 year old man insisting that a great danger facing society was that too many 16 year-old girls were remaining virgins rather than having sex and in doing so were going to get cancer.

Damn. Didn’t realize he’d been an incel before there were incels.