UK Labour party elects Jermy Corbyn, will the same happen with Bernie Sanders?

[Deleted]

Jeremy Corbyn, the veteran campaigner perceived by the media as being of the far left, was just elected leader of the UK Labour party with 60% of the vote, winning outright on the first ballot. It is the most astonishing political event I can remember.

Corbyn is a very similar personality to Bernie Sanders in the US. Both are quite old for politicians (Corbyn is 66, Sanders 74). Both have lived outside the political mainstream and have had the same essentially the same ultra-consistency of message over the years. Both seem to be totally incorruptible.

Interestingly both of them have precisely the opposite problem. Corbyn's leadership election was a walkover: his big challenge will be to actually win a general election and take control of government where Labour lags behind the ruling conservative party in the polls. Sanders however still has an enormous challenge to beat Hilary to Democratic candidate (he's 20 points behind), but if he can do that he beats all Republican candidates in hypothetical match-ups.

Something is clearly changing in the world. The Sanders and Corbyn developments came completely out of the blue and surprised the political establishment and the media, whose feeble attempts to stop both bandwagons are having no effect as yet.

.

[Zoranon]

Well Labour party has just committed electoral suicide, I cannot really understand why would someone in that party want to return to the years of Michael Foot.

As for Sanders, well he along with Trump is the only candidate which is undoubtedly worse than Obama the coward from my point of view so I hope not.

[Afrospinach]

Something is clearly changing in the world. The Sanders and Corbyn developments came completely out of the blue and surprised the political establishment and the media, whose feeble attempts to stop both bandwagons are having no effect as yet.

Nothing has changed at all, labour lost for being far too left in the last election.

There are happy tories everywhere as this party will continue to distance itself from reality, just look at the last election results.

[Deleted]

Well Labour party has just committed electoral suicide, I cannot really understand why would someone in that party want to return to the years of Michael Foot.

They may or may not win the next election. However the "electoral suicide" thing is something the papers have been repeating endlessly. Ordinary people just don't talk like that. Try again with an opinion of your own. Please. Media thought control is depressing.

[Skroe]

What i'm about to say isn't anti-Sanders. I like Sanders. I'd never vote for him, but I respect him for his sincerity. I support some of his positions. I understand why people like him. But we've also seen this movie before. And it ends badly. Very adly.

I think the Bernie Sanders support crew is a glutton for punishment. Why do I think this? Because we've been here before, with a man named Barack Obama, a long time ago in an election far far away. The year was 2008 and we were promised Change.

How'd that work out for us? How much Change did we really get? Because all we've heard, since 2011 or so, is how let down Obama's supporters that "President Change" became "President Deals with John Bohner" and "President Drone War".

Let's say that Bernie Sanders becomes President. Okay. Congratulations. Now what? He would face a Senate that will probably be Democratic for 2 years, before going Republican again in 2018 due to what states are up that year (the same ones as 2012, which Republicans decisively won). He would face a House that is going to be Republican until at least the 2020 census and redistricting, and likely well after that as well if we are looking at how state houses look right now. Oh and it's likely to get more conservative, not less, as this country ages.

How much change can President Sanders deliver with a Senate that will be faced with a tough reelection in 2018, and a House that will call him a "Socialist", because he professes to be one, at every turn, and refuse to work with him? Zero. The number will be zero. There will be no change. And nothing will happen. It will be gridlock that will make Obama look productive. Budgets under Obama pass sometimes. Budgets under sanders, would be Continuing Resolution after Continuing Resolution, because they'll - Democrats and Republicans in Congress alike - will never sign off on a Democratic Socialists' priorities, and Sanders will never sign off on theirs.

In the end, electing Sanders is a protest vote. It's a feel good exercise. But it accomplishes precisely nothing. That's not cynical. That's factual. Our system is specifically designed to prevent a figure like Sanders (or a far right analog) from doing what Sanders supporters - like Obama supporters before them - think he has a prayer of doing.

Want legit change in this country? Hope the 2020 census is better for Democrats and redistricting doesn't keep the House as uncompetitive as it is today. It will take a Progressive Democratic President at the same time as a Democratic Senate that can fiddle with the rules and a House that has a Democratic majority. We know this because briefly, we lived this too, with Obamacare, that happened, even in it's compromise form, after decades of talking about it, because the stars aligned from 2008-2010, however briefly.

Without a House that plays ball, Without a Senate that at least can use procedure to get below the 60 vote filibuster threshold, President Sanders is President Nobody, and his supporters get to watch it happen. And then they'll whine on the internet, for years, about how betrayed they feel that the the Democratic Socialist President is signing off on $700 billion defense budgets, just to keep government open.

The problems not with Sanders. He's a good guy. A sincere guy. The problem is his supporters, who want a miracle, because they'll show up in 2016. But they'll find more interesting things to do election night in 2018. The only thing happening here is frustration with compromise against the political opposition is leading to extremist, protest candidates, because in leiu of winning, at least everyne involved can feel good at losing while sticking to their principles.

Personally, I prefer what Douglas MacArthur said: There is no substitute for victory. Sanders, like Corbyn, is a feel good cul-du-sac.

[Northern Goblin]

Nothing has changed at all, labour lost for being far too left in the last election.

What? They lost because people saw them as red Tories with a weaker leader.

Labour hasn't been far left since the early 90s.

[Puremallace]

Just make it far more simple people.

. Conservative: pay down debt then pass out tax breaks to a selected few and only rely on private investment you agree with. That cocksucker David Cameron passed p a 8.6 BILLION dollar investment because he said it would mess up the view.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...from-edf-eneco

This is a long term trend of Cameron to avoid solar/wind power and invest in fossil fuels only.

Liberal/Socialist: Believe that by lifting all boats you can create prosperity. If everyone is working then by definition everyone should be paying some level of taxes which offsets government spending. Socialist believe in focusing the tax breaks on the top 1% only and going after corporations.

[DarkAmbient]

They may or may not win the next election. However the "electoral suicide" thing is something the papers have been repeating endlessly. Ordinary people just don't talk like that. Try again with an opinion of your own. Please. Media thought control is depressing.

That's very patronising. Perhaps you should accept that is his opinion instead of asking for one that you prefer.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember Labour under Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock. Hint: they lost elections.

[Ripster42]

Let's say that Bernie Sanders becomes President. Okay. Congratulations. Now what? He would face a Senate that will probably be Democratic for 2 years, before going Republican again in 2018 due to what states are up that year (the same ones as 2012, which Republicans decisively won).

If a party wins more seats in a senate replacement cycle than they 'normally' do, the trend is actually a regression to mean. When the republicans took more than they usually do in 2012, it follows that they'll lose some of the advantage in 2018 that they gained in that election. Especially because we won't have a black democrat as president if Bernie is elected. I'm not sure what you think about Obama's affect on elections, but no small part of the push back is because he's black. The 'black, Kenyan Muslim' rabble rousing isn't going to be as effective against an old white man who believes there's too much money in elections.

[Skroe]

If a party wins more seats in a senate replacement cycle than they 'normally' do, the trend is actually a regression to mean. When the republicans took more than they usually do in 2012, it follows that they'll lose some of the advantage in 2018 that they gained in that election. Especially because we won't have a black democrat as president if Bernie is elected. I'm not sure what you think about Obama's affect on elections, but no small part of the push back is because he's black. The 'black, Kenyan Muslim' rabble rousing isn't going to be as effective against an old white man who believes there's too much money in elections.

You really think that Republicans are going to have a shortage for weaponry after the election of a self-professed Socialist? The push back against Obama for his race will be quaint by comparison I think. Bernie Sanders will be under assault for being un-American from day one in a way Obama never experienced.

Socialism is a very dirty word in this country and Bernie Sanders will not change that.

And Republican's didn't over-perform in 2012. Democrats lost seats they always had trouble holding on to, and then once again in 2014.

[Ripster42]

You really think that Republicans are going to have a shortage for weaponry after the election of a self-professed Socialist? The push back against Obama for his race will be quaint by comparison I think. Bernie Sanders will be under assault for being un-American from day one in a way Obama never experienced.

Socialism is a very dirty word in this country and Bernie Sanders will not change that.

And Republican's didn't over-perform in 2012. Democrats lost seats they always had trouble holding on to, and then once again in 2014.

Those are seats the republicans always have trouble holding onto as well, or democrats wouldn't have had them. And yes, I think a black president will have had it worse than Bernie could have it. We're still more racist than we are anti-socialist. And the talking points against "get money out of politics" just make republicans look bad. "Corporations are people too" and "47%" lost Mitt that election.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Nothing has changed at all, labour lost for being far too left in the last election.

There are happy tories everywhere as this party will continue to distance itself from reality, just look at the last election results.

Labour lost because their leader was a fucking idiot and their policies were "we're actually tories, but we don't like wearing blue ties".

[Ripster42]

Labour lost because their leader was a fucking idiot and their policies were "we're actually tories, but we don't like wearing blue ties".

There's another thread about the labour party in the UK. This isn't that thread.

[want my Slimjim]

No I would not vote for a democrat ever.

[GennGreymane]

UK parties =/= U.S parties.

[Sunseeker]

Listening to Conservaties talk about how they would never support Liberals is always entertaining.

[Hyve]

The reason Corbyn won was because people believe his delusional bullshit. It's easy to spew and say anything when you're not actually running for anything.

[Puremallace]

The reason Corbyn won was because people believe his delusional bullshit. It's easy to spew and say anything when you're not actually running for anything.

No the reason he won is because people have two eyes and two ears in most cases and can see that what David Cameron is selling is not working for the 99%.

[Hyve]

No the reason he won is because people have two eyes and two ears in most cases and can see that what David Cameron is selling is not working for the 99%.

Believe whatever nonsense you want...

[Ripster42]

No the reason he won is because people have two eyes and two ears in most cases and can see that what David Cameron is selling is not working for the 99%.

The reason Corbyn won was because people believe his delusional bullshit. It's easy to spew and say anything when you're not actually running for anything.

You two are looking for this thread.