Why Bernie Sanders is Actually Winning

[Skroe]

"Revolution" is pretty boilerplate campaign rhetoric. I don't see any reason to take it so seriously.

I've never seen a major campaign in my life spam the word and the concept as much as the Sanders campaign.

[Wells]

I've never seen a major campaign in my life spam the word and the concept as much as the Sanders campaign.

Ron Paul was pretty big on the term and "Change the system" is about as much of a political cliche as you can get.

[Skroe]

There's times when I think "shouldn't have said that Bernie" or "should have brought up X" or "should have called out Y" or "why not just cut the crap, Bernie". It's frustrating at times.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with my support for his platform vs his opponents. Again, as a Bernie supporter, I'm neither death nor blind to it. And I don't see how it means I need to justify my vote.

This post automatically puts you in the top 5 of sensible sanders supporters at MMO-Champ OT.

Do yourself a favor though and don't try to engage in creative arithmetic like the others in order to create some scenario where he pulls off a win. The fact we have guys doing that in a threat about a CH clip that eviscerates that practice is just... special.

Lose with your dignity in tact.

- - - Updated - - -

Ron Paul was pretty big on the term and "Change the system" is about as much of a political cliche as you can get.

Ron Paul wasn't a major campaign. Parts of the internet loved him because he legitimized their Weed Hobby, but they also overlooked "Doctor Pauls" long history of racism, anti-abortion extremism and economic kookery. In the end, he was a fringe candidate who lost big

"Change the System" is different than "revolution". A "change" platform is almost steroetypical of campaigns. The word "revolution" is much more highly charged than "change". "Revolution" invokes a certain image that "change" doesn't.

It was deeply irresponsible for Bernie Sanders to use that word. This country needs reform. Modest someplaces. Major other places. I'm sure we'll greatly disagree as to the extent. But a 'revolution'? Fuck no.

[Alydael]

oh yes some out of context article on cigarette taxes and BAM bernie sanders IS IN DA POCKETS OF BIG LOBBYISTS!

How is it out of context?

[Wells]

Ron Paul wasn't a major campaign. Parts of the internet loved him because he legitimized their Weed Hobby, but they also overlooked "Doctor Pauls" long history of racism, anti-abortion extremism and economic kookery. In the end, he was a fringe candidate who lost big

"Change the System" is different than "revolution". A "change" platform is almost steroetypical of campaigns. The word "revolution" is much more highly charged than "change". "Revolution" invokes a certain image that "change" doesn't.

It was deeply irresponsible for Bernie Sanders to use that word. This country needs reform. Modest someplaces. Major other places. I'm sure we'll greatly disagree as to the extent. But a 'revolution'? Fuck no.

So is there like some threshold where you take silly campaign rhetoric literally or something?

[Celista]

I've never seen a major campaign in my life spam the word and the concept as much as the Sanders campaign.

Every politician has a campaign slogan and related buzzwords.

Obama = Change
Trump = plethora of moronic shit

"Revolution" stems from the campaign's socialist/Occupy underpinnings.

[Skroe]

So is there like some threshold where you take silly campaign rhetoric literally or something?

In context of the campaign, Sanders platform certainly jives with his "revolution" rhetoric (and the frequency of it). What he is proposing would be a political revolution for the US. He is absolutely being honest about that. What he is proposing is certainly not mild or large scale reform.

If Hillary Clinton used the word 'revolution' like Sanders does, nobody would believe her, because that's not reflected in her platform.

- - - Updated - - -

Every politician has a campaign slogan and related buzzwords.

Obama = Change
Trump = plethora of moronic shit

"Revolution" stems from the campaign's socialist/Occupy underpinnings.

As I said, Revolution is a much more charged word than "change."

Picture change in your head. What do you see? Probably very little. It's an abstraction.

Picture a "revolution". What do you see? In no particular order, the cliche scenes from The American Revolution, an abstraction of people in the streets protesting, and maybe if you're worldly, scenes from the post-Soviet and Iranian Revolutions.

It's a word that is recklessly used for an American political campaign.

But Sanders is screwed either way. Either it is a revolution as he says, and he didn't take it seriously enough by quitting his day job to lead it. Or it's just campaign rhetoric, that he was a damn fool to use because of it's connotations.

Frankly, I think Sanders actually cheapens the word by misusing it.

[Wells]

If he's proposing an actual revolution I must have missed it. The most "radical" part of his campaign is breaking up major banks. There's plenty to dislike about sanders with pearl clutching.

- - - Updated - - -

Picture a "revolution". What do you see? In no particular order, the cliche scenes from The American Revolution, an abstraction of people in the streets protesting, and maybe if you're worldly, scenes from the post-Soviet and Iranian Revolutions.

So what you're saying is that its more powerful rhetoric which counters our point....how?

[Kalis]

Creative use of numbers is not exclusive to Sanders' followers, e.g. the Yes voters for Scottish independence somehow thought that losing with 45% of the vote meant they were hard done by, 55% being a bigger number than 45% was apparently irrelevant.

Sanders' (and Trump) supporters come across as rabid partisans, you do not really see that with the other candidates, and rabid partisans have a tendency to not let reality cloud their judgement.

[Skroe]

If he's proposing an actual revolution I must have missed it. The most "radical" part of his campaign is breaking up major banks. There's plenty to dislike about sanders with pearl clutching.

You must have missed the $1.5 trillion universal medicare and pre-Reagan tax rates.

From the perspective of Modern Americans relations and beliefs about government, that is absolutely revolutionary.

I mean expanding Federal Spending by $1.5 trillion per year is on a scale of all its own. That'd remake society in a very fundamental way as employers dropped healthcare from their benefits packages and how Americans earned and spent money transformed overnight.

- - - Updated - - -

If he's proposing an actual revolution I must have missed it. The most "radical" part of his campaign is breaking up major banks. There's plenty to dislike about sanders with pearl clutching.

- - - Updated - - -



So what you're saying is that its more powerful rhetoric which counters our point....how?

I've actually said it about four times now. The rhetoric was irresponsible and/or he didn't take it seriously.

Either way.

[Celista]

Promises of change are very powerful as it instills hope, whether the word "change" or "revolution" is used. "Change" was what got Obama elected in '08.

Sanders' (and Trump) supporters come across as rabid partisans, you do not really see that with the other candidates, and rabid partisans have a tendency to not let reality cloud their judgement.

Go visit the Sanders thread and you'll find some quite rabid Clinton supporters.

[Wells]

Yeah I didn't count universal medicare as radical since its basically just what every other developed nation does.

Anyway, like I said, this is really just silly pearl clutching over the same silly rhetoric we see from campaigns all the time. I mean we have a GOP right now that's routinely running on "saving" america. Our elections are nuts. News at 11.

- - - Updated - - -

I've actually said it about four times now. The rhetoric was irresponsible and/or he didn't take it seriously.

How is it irresponsible? Has he inspired any insurrections I missed?

[Independent voter]

If anyone can make Trump president it's Bernie. Ralph Nader made George Bush president.

[Linkedblade]

Two reasons why Sanders isn't winning:

1) He has fewer delegates
2) The democratic party does not want him to be their candidate

And even if he wins Congress is majority Republican, and I doubt the actual constituency will vote in the coming years to change that. So, welcome back to deadlock.

[Skroe]

Yeah I didn't count universal medicare as radical since its basically just what every other developed nation does.

Anyway, like I said, this is really just silly pearl clutching over the same silly rhetoric we see from campaigns all the time. I mean we have a GOP right now that's routinely running on "saving" america. Our elections are nuts. News at 11.

How is it irresponsible? Has he inspired any insurrections I missed?

Now you're just being non-serious.

[xenogear3]

I thought there is a law that certain age cannot run for president.

[Kalis]

Go visit the Sanders thread and you'll find some quite rabid Clinton supporters.

Sanders' supporters come across as virtually all rabid partisans, most Clinton supporters do not appear to actually like her that much, just my view of the two camps.

Ditto with Trump/Cruz, where Cruz supporters do not generally seem that pleased to have Cruz as their primary choice.

[Celista]

@xenogear3 you must be 35 years or older to run for president.

[Budong]

I thought there is a law that certain age cannot run for president.

Don't trust anyone under 35.

[Wells]

Now you're just being non-serious.

...right. I think what's happening here is you don't like Sanders's policies, and that's fine, but you're letting that dislike fuel this silly nonsense about how irresponsible his rhetoric is.