I’m sorry; my posts are generally brilliant. I hope fellow Dopers will quote some of my brilliancies so Hatchie can see them too!
A large number of Yang gangsters will vote Yang in the primaries,but will coalesce around whomever gets the Dem nomination. IMHO.
I want to travel to the parallel universe where Clinton beat Obama in the 2008 primary and then went on to be defeated by McCain. Just twelve straight years of centrists on this board constantly blaming the sexist “Obama Boys” for the disastrous McCain and subsequent Palin Presidencies.
And then I’ll travel to the timeline where Bloomberg won the 2016 election running as a Republican and centrists in that timeline toying with the idea of supporting Trump in the 2020 Democratic primary.
“Potemkin economy”. Nice one! 
I think this whole Benie will crash the market hysteria is the “Libruls are coming for muh GUNS :eek:” of 2020. From your own site:
Coronavirus will tank the market! :eek:
Consumer debt will tank the market! :eek:
Record stock valuations will tank the market! :eek:
The calendar saying it is February will tank the market! :eek:
Political headwinds for Big Tech will tank the market! :eek:
Stocks will plunge cuz they’re too high! :eek:
There was another one about Boomers selling their 401ks tanking the market, but I am not finding it. I can believe that, though the counterargument is that foreign investors will buy as much as Boomers sell. Who knows?
I do think the market will pull back at least. GNP growth is 2%, stocks are up 30+%, and how can that continue? It doesn’t make sense. But blaming Bernie mostly does not. Anyway, if things do crash and well-off people become poor, they are going to want to benefit from Bernie’s policies. Trump will just say they’re losers who deserve to starve if they won’t pull their weight.
Also, a stock crash is a good thing. I don’t retire for 20 years and I want to buy low. Vote Bernie!
[Pet Peeve Alert]It’s whoever. Don’t use the word if you don’t know how.[/PPA]
It’s been my understanding that if the “who” is on the receiving end of some sort of action, the “m” should be added.
In the sentence in question the pronoun is acting as a subject (nominative); therefore, it shoudl be whoever.
The thread has suddenly taken a soberer, somberer turn. Let me put in my 2¢ worth:
(1) Pro-tip: While I’ve not explicitly checked Emily Post or Merriam-Webster, I think “who/whoever” is now accepted even when “whom/whomever” is preferred, and anyway the substitution will go unnoticed in the real world. Even here at SDMB there’s an even chance that no pedant will bring it up. But whomever writes ‘whomever’ when it is disallowed will sound like an imbecile.
(2) “Gilmore: GOP will rally around whomever is the nominee” is strikingly similar to Mr. Duality’s faux pas and will get you Google hits. But AFAIK Honcho Gilmore, whatever his crimes, is innocent of the heinous grammar that CNN charged him with: CNN paraphrased the Republioturd and thereby demonstrated their own incompetence.
I prefer to use "who-so-fucking-ever, asshole. " 
…
I am appropriately remorseful. (Actually I am having a good chuckle. You guys are a strange and twisted lot.)
This is going to be a problem for Bernie. A big one. There are lots of older voters that are reliable Democrats ( frankly, more traditionally reliable than young voters) and you can’t alienate them this way and not lose. I’m not saying it’s Bernie’s fault. It’s the set-up, the tilt on the playing field.
The economy is good. People like that. Especially older people who have seen their retirement accounts soar. And middle aged people who have seen their kids college fund grow. Even though most of them ( most of the Democrats, at least) know to some extent that it’s not real, there’s a very real attachment to those numbers.
If you run on, “there’s going to be a recession, but just a little one!” or “we’re going to crash the stock market, but it’ll bounce back eventually! ” you will lose like no one has ever lost before. You’ll have old people that have never voted Republican in their lives holding their noses and secretly voting for Trump.
People look at their Twitter feed and hate Trump. They come home from work and turn on the news and hate Trump. They read the paper and hate Trump.
But they don’t think about how they much hate Trump when they’re sticking their credit card in the gas pump. They don’t think about how much they hate Trump when they pay for groceries. They don’t think about how much they hate Trump when they open their account statement or pay their mortgage.
This is going to be a problem.
It would probably be a problem without the FBI and SEC investigations into Jane Sanders and Vermont College that will soon be launched. It would be a problem even without Trump’s extralegal investigations into the allegations that Sanders is a deep cover Communist plant wth financial ties to Iran and the incredible amount of unbelievable evidence that is uncovered. Investigations that the DOJ will coyly validate.
And if you don’t think this stuff is coming, you haven’t been paying attention.
Trump is promoting Bernie now because he has everything lined up to take him down.
Of course, I am completely jaded and cynical at this point. Maybe you idealists will run your little low budget election based on honesty and integrity and fairness* and you will win. I hope you do. But I fear you won’t.
I am not going to use the words fair or unfair in anymore in any election rated context this year. We are past that. We need to play by the rules as they are and not follow non-existent “rules” about the way things are “supposed to be done”. If it’s legal, it’s fair. No more whining.
Click below.
^ This.
Bernie’s political instincts work great with the minority of voters who adore the drama of Hating the Rich and feeling all righteous and virtuous in comparison with the Evil Rich, and thinking about What We’ll Do Come the Revolution.
Bernie’s political instincts do not work at all with everyone else. And ‘everyone else’ is the group that is going to decide the election.
Here’s the dangerous scenario that I potentially foresee with Sanders as the nominee: Sanders would probably run up the score in solidly left and even purple states that have leaned left. But I worry - a lot - that he would flop in certain counties where ‘Merikuns’ just decide that they can’t vote for a communist. I know that’s not what Bernie is, but he’s setting himself up for that label and they’re going to not only hit Sanders but every Democrat down ballot over their heads with it. Sanders might not only lose the presidency; he most cost Democrats in congress, too. He will have no impact in centrist congressional districts such as those won by Connor Lamb of PA, except a very negative one.
Me, I will be ok, crash or no crash. But who says we’re running on Bernie causing a crash (even a little one)?
-
Opinions vary, but if you ask me “the market” is outrunning increases in production. The fed is buying a ton of bonds to support these $1T deficits, and the bonds end up sold and in stocks, driving them up kind of ETF style. That may just pop in July. Or September. Or April. Who knows? Some people think it can just go up forever, but I think there is a point at which too many people won’t want to get more leveraged, or get their leverage back in their faces. How does it look if/when Trump’s Potemkin economy gets exposed?
-
I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t admit Bernie’s policies will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor(er). But that is good for an economy, people with unmet demands and needs get some money and spend it, creating all kinds of economic growth. A clever administration could calibrate the corporate tax increases to encourage steady, sober growth. As an upper bound: what’s the 21st century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule?
Hello? Bernie isn’t an economic terrorist. [checks forum] What the fuck, guys?
This is the part that even well informed people keep missing.
Sanders (or Biden or Buttigieg or whoever) can’t actually enact those policies without buy-in from both House and Senate. Assuming the House is on board (and this is quite the assumption on its own), there’s no way a likely Republican Senate or even one which has a slim majority of Dems would pass laws enacting those policies.
Where POTUS will matter most is judicial appointments, trade agreements, foreign relations, and actually staffing the administration with competent people. POTUS has a place in setting a legislative agenda, but that will be tempered by the reality that Congress cannot always be relied upon to simply rubberstamp anything POTUS proclaims.
Totally in agreement with Great Antibob on what any candidate can do. But debating what they can do or how they will get it passed in Congress it isn’t must-watch television and so why it isn’t asked in the debates or pressed in interviews.
I get why that would fly on a Sanders-hating subreddit, but not why you would post it here. It’s merely a kid who had a brain fart and got some people’s names mixed up. All it suggests is youthful inexperience at most.
The message, that stop-and-frisk is horrible and should be denounced, is 100% correct. That Bloomberg supports it is a strike against him, and I would hope that anyone I was going to vote for would not agree with him.
It’s definitely not a reason to get angry at them for. It’s a harmless mistake, not malevolence.