You’re not going to play cheerleader for Sanders for the next 12 months, right? I was kind of okay with it when you were campaigning for Obama because Yay, Obama!, but even I got tired of it then.
Um, what’s wrong with supporting a particular candidate?
I first read this as a rhetorical question, and it sort of makes sense that way:
Sure, Sanders is electable! At least here in America! Maybe not in Sweden, but that’s not where we are!
Sanders’ concerns about immigration and its effect on wages is being portrayed as a “problem with Hispanics.”
https://gma.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-problem-hispanics-140430661--abc-news-topstories.html
I really hope that Sanders talking about these issues helps to get rid of the stigma of well, talking about these issues, rather than stigmatizing Sanders himself.
Sorry about the Ebola. I’m living with rabies and it affects my thinking sometimes.
I agree with Chronos, what’s wrong with supporting a particular candidate? Especially in a thread specifically about that candidate?
This is a thread providing support or opposition to the candidacy of Sen. Sanders. What is the point of your post? Do you intend to follow various posters around for the next 15 months complaining that they support one candidate or another? Is this disapproval of a specific poster’s participation?
In either event, such actions will not be appropriate to this forum.
Knock it off. If you have an overwhelming need to engage in that behavior, take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Bernie Sanders is to speak at Liberty University
Personally, I think its great that Liberty was willing to invite Senator Sanders as well Sanders’s willingness to accept. If the Senator is to achieve a great populist majority (if not for him than for a future mass movement), Evangelicals need to be part of it and the best way to start winning them over is finding a common ground for action on socioeconomic issues.
I agree that it was inappropriate to bring it up in this thread and I apologize, Shayna.
Sanders is running for the party’s nomination for President but is still unwilling to say he’s a Democrat. Feh: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181.html
[shrug] Ralph Nader never self-ID’d as a Green. I even asked him a question once at a campaign event and he said, “I’m not a member of the Green Party, BTW.” Even though he was running as their candidate.
Third parties are different. They all wind up nominating someone who is not actually a member most of the time.
I like to listen to Bernie do interviews, and I’m glad he’s increasingly getting a voice as a national statesman.
But he’s not electable because he takes positions that essentially make funding his campaign impossible. As the last two election cycles showed, you don’t necessarily need more money than the other guy to win a race, but you need enough to be competitive. When you’re getting out-raised by, what, 10 to 1? You’ve got no chance.
As much of a shocker as Hillary’s last loss was in 2008, losing this one would be almost incomprehensible, unimaginable. Obama at least had something sort of ‘Whoa, cool, I’ve never seen this before’ going for him. Bernie’s got some of that factor, but not enough.
Is he at least willing to commit to the concept of democracy? 
Sanders did a public event last night here in Portland, OR. It was estimated that the overflow crowd numbered about 28,000, which is a huge turnout. My neighbor went to it. I assumed that Sanders is popular with the senior set, but my neighbor (who is retired) said that he was very surprised at the huge number of younger people who showed up for the event. 28,000 is a lot of people, especially considering that part of the public transit system was down at the time. If Clinton expects to garner that sort of public support, she really needs to start appearing in, you know, public. My neighbor said that he never went after other candidates, but rather stuck to issues and platform.
I think he’s electable, but he’ll never get his cradle-to-grave agenda through Congress.
He doesn’t have to get his legislative agenda passed to be a good President, but he does have to eventually answer the question about what his new priorities will be when his current priorities die in Congress. That means talking more about foreign policy and how he’ll deal with the public’s fading confidence in government. As a socialist, he should want government to work well, and that means he should be cribbing off O’Malley and calling for measuring government effectiveness and making that data public and easy to access to voters can see how their government is performing.
If he just spends 4-8 years railing against the upper class and Republicans, he’ll get the same thing Obama got: even more states with Republican governors and legislatures and Congress with even more Republicans.
A few asterisks on that ‘Bernie Sanders leads in New Hampshire’ poll - Philip Bump for the Washington Post
This is a mildly interesting article; it has several graphs. With Warren out of the race, many of her supporters (in NH) have gone to Sanders, and he now has a small lead over Mrs Clinton. He leads among most age cohorts, with strikingly strong leads among the 25-34 and 55-64 demographics. So if turnout is heavily over 65-year-olds, Sanders “won’t win.” (Otherwise, he will.)
These are presented as “asterisks,” but each chart basically shows that Sanders really is leading in New Hampshire.
The one big asterisk is, well, it’s New Hampshire, what does that prove?
Bump closes with this:
Yuh-huh. I think “no chance” has been put paid.
I’m calling it now. Sanders will win the New Hampshire primary and may already have it in the bag. The question is, what else does he have?
Obama was a reach-across-the-aisle centrist, with Clintonesque policies and voting record, without being [del]Evita[/del] Hillary herself. That’s “best of both worlds” from a certain point of view. On the other hand, he was a very cautious, middle-of-the-road candidate to nominate ideologically.
(And then he was immediately tagged as a dangerous extremist by troublemakers and rabble-rousers. Then we got the TEA Party, Ted Cruz, & Tom Cotton, who really were trouble. Nominating a “post-culture-war” centrist got us little to no relief from culture war, I think.)
Sanders is not a Clinton type. He’s not a “centrist,” though he’s willing to make deals with the right to get elected (as on gun issues). He’s not a machine Democrat, he doesn’t seem to come with adorable ten-year-olds in tow, and he’s brazenly ideological and leftist. And he’s not wasting his time with a vanity candidacy as a Green, but playing for the Democratic Party!
I don’t think I’ve seen the like in my life. Not even from John Edwards, and Bernie is no Ken doll.
Obama is important, but Bernie represents a sea change, if he can lead the party. The question is, is there enough Left left in the party to follow him?
Historically, winning one of the two early primaries tends to lead to doing well elsewhere. Sanders is also gaining in Iowa. If Sanders was to win the first two, I don’t see how Clinton’s candidacy can avoid being fatally compromised.
Sure, she’ll stick it out, win big state primaries while Sanders dominates in the more ideological caucuses while staying competitive enough in the big states to stay just ahead of her in delegates.