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

[Elegiac]

Let's say that Bernie Sanders becomes President. Okay. Congratulations. Now what?

You assume keeping the Republicans out of the White House is not an end in of itself.

The Third Way movement is finally and fortunately running out of steam since it has revealed itself to be a crock of shit. Younger people are realizing how much better it was under the old left rather than the product of the Reagan/Thatcher era.

[Deleted]

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.

I'm patronizing him because it isn't his opinion. He got it from some newspaper. I know what right-wing newspapers think, which is whatever their proprietor tells them to think.

if you did actually remember Kinnock, you'd know that he was widely perceived as being a modernizer who sold out by the Left after the expulsion of the millitants. If you remember Foot you'd know that he was more successful than Ian Duncan Smith who didn't even last until the election. Strangely no one mentions the latter as an example of how right-wing policies are electoral suicide.

[breadisfunny]

england is a bit less conservative than the states.

[Deleted]

[QUOTE=Skroe;36163279]

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

[QUOTE]

A bit late for that surely? The numbers he is polling and the numbers at rallies suggest that Americans are now OK with the word. He may not win (he's long odds to get the dem nominantion) but it seems to me he has legitimized the word already regardless of what happens now.

- - - Updated - - -

england is a bit less conservative than the states.

If Sanders won it would actually place the US to the left of every country in Europe apart from Greece and France. I don't expect that to happen, but it is interesting that this is even a possibility. The US is like Mecca for freemarket capitalists.

[Kasierith]

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.

A pretty big difference that I can see is that Obama really didn't focus a lot on what he would actually change; he pushed a big concept, but didn't really establish any sort of objectives for it. And when he did enter office, he was so relatively new to the scene that he spent two years trying to be a mediator as opposed to anything else which lost him the required momentum. Sanders is far, far more experienced, and he appears to be establishing some measure of definitive goals. The only problem with him is that he's going to be highly dependent on the many battleground seats from the Republicans coming up for grabs to be flipped to blue; I don't see him being able to accomplish much with a Republican dominated Congress. His positions are too far to the left for compromises.

- - - Updated - - -

If Sanders won it would actually place the US to the left of every country in Europe apart from Greece and France. I don't expect that to happen, but it is interesting that this is even a possibility. The US is like Mecca for freemarket capitalists.

Him becoming president would not automatically turn the country socialist. There are numerous political aspects present that would balance it out.

[Deleted]

The Third Way movement is finally and fortunately running out of steam since it has revealed itself to be a crock of shit. Younger people are realizing how much better it was under the old left rather than the product of the Reagan/Thatcher era.

I kind of bought the third way stuff to begin with because you have to be in power to change anything.

The problems with it:

1) It was sold as being a compromise on some ideological principles in exchange for more votes. In fact the there was no compromise, the policies were really just conservatism with window-dressing. Tony Blair invaded Iraq. Clinton deregulated the financial system and blew up the global economy.

2) It didn't really increase the share of the vote either. Sure, Blair and Clinton won. Because they were charismatic and good communicators. Most people had no idea what their policies were. Their successors Gore and Brown lacked charisma and did not appeal to the electorate at all.

3) The third way destroyed the core voting infrastructure. If you appeal to the centre people on the left won't campaign for you and may not even vote at all, or will vote for a fringe party.

- - - Updated - - -

A pretty big difference that I can see is that Obama really didn't focus a lot on what he would actually change; he pushed a big concept, but didn't really establish any sort of objectives for it. And when he did enter office, he was so relatively new to the scene that he spent two years trying to be a mediator as opposed to anything else which lost him the required momentum. Sanders is far, far more experienced, and he appears to be establishing some measure of definitive goals. The only problem with him is that he's going to be highly dependent on the many battleground seats from the Republicans coming up for grabs to be flipped to blue; I don't see him being able to accomplish much with a Republican dominated Congress. His positions are too far to the left for compromises.

- - - Updated - - -



Him becoming president would not automatically turn the country socialist. There are numerous political aspects present that would balance it out.

Not automatically but I think you may underestimate Bernie. He's unbelievably tenacious.

Sure you have congress and all the checks and balances. But If he wins he'll by definition have an army of populist support that will be able to railroad anything that gets in his way. Teddy Roosevelt did it, it is not impossible.

[Shadowmelded]

if you did actually remember Kinnock, you'd know that he was widely perceived as being a modernizer who sold out by the Left after the expulsion of the millitants. If you remember Foot you'd know that he was more successful than Ian Duncan Smith who didn't even last until the election. Strangely no one mentions the latter as an example of how right-wing policies are electoral suicide.

Also worth noting is that Kinnock left the labour party 3.1m votes better off than he inherited, and Blair (who ran on a fairly left wing platform before changing tune after getting into power) left the party 2m votes worse off than he inherited. Which is also pretty charitable towards Blair considering the direction of travel (Kinnock increasing his share of the vote while Blair lost around 4m from his initial campaign)

[breadisfunny]

[QUOTE=advanta;36170257][QUOTE=Skroe;36163279]

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

A bit late for that surely? The numbers he is polling and the numbers at rallies suggest that Americans are now OK with the word. He may not win (he's long odds to get the dem nominantion) but it seems to me he has legitimized the word already regardless of what happens now.

- - - Updated - - -



If Sanders won it would actually place the US to the left of every country in Europe apart from Greece and France. I don't expect that to happen, but it is interesting that this is even a possibility. The US is like Mecca for freemarket capitalists.

that is a complete and total lie. also the u.s. is a mecca for crony capitalism not free market capitalism.

[Deleted]

[QUOTE=breadisfunny;36170532][QUOTE=advanta;36170257]

that is a complete and total lie. also the u.s. is a mecca for crony capitalism not free market capitalism.

What is a lie?

I'm not really sure what the difference between free market and crony capitalism is. If you let the market do what it wants you inevitably end up with cronyism.

- - - Updated - - -

Also worth noting is that Kinnock left the labour party 3.1m votes better off than he inherited, and Blair (who ran on a fairly left wing platform before changing tune after getting into power) left the party 2m votes worse off than he inherited. Which is also pretty charitable towards Blair considering the direction of travel (Kinnock increasing his share of the vote while Blair lost around 4m from his initial campaign)

Interesting. I've never seen those stats before.

[Deleted]

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

Labour lost because they were trying to overturn Tony Blair's legacy after just one parliament out of power, an incredibly difficult thing to do at the best of times.
And Milliband did well in the circumstances, but he failed by trying to be too middle ground, he did best when he veered left.
Add in the Tory scaremongering over the SNP, which played right into SNP hands, and thats why labour lost, not because it was not Tory enough.

That arguement that labour was too left, is idiotic, the party was a far right as its ever been, and at that point there is no point voting Labour over Tory or lib dem.

[Shadowmelded]

Interesting. I've never seen those stats before.

Taken from here; http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-dea...of-tony-blair/ (I know it's wings but it's all pretty well sourced, the numbers are about half way down the article and afaik are taken from wiki)

[Grummgug]

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.

I've wondered a lot about why voters think liberalism or socialism works to any degree. I've been watching politics for decades now and its always the same. Liberal candidates lie like crazy to get elected and offer dreams of magic unrealistic policy. Liberal voters just turn into zombies and vote for them. If elected, they ultimately either fail miserably or start governing as conservatives to get anything done.

California has a total liberal government. The state budget was a mess. Governor Jerry Brown fixed the state economy BY TURNING INTO A REPUBLICAN with supermassive rollbacks of pension benefits to state workers.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17694

LOS ANGELES – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today outlined a sweeping pension reform agreement that saves billions of taxpayer dollars by capping benefits, increasing the retirement age, stopping abusive practices and requiring state employees to pay at least half of their pension costs.

“These reforms make fundamental changes that rein in costs and help to ensure that our public retirement system is sustainable for the long term. These reforms require sacrifice from public employees and represent a significant step forward,” said Governor Brown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1878662.html

he changes affect the state and most local governments, many of which participate in the state's pension programs. CalPERS estimates the fund will save between $42 billion and $55 billion over 30 years while CalSTRS pegged its savings at $22.7 billion over 30 years.

If Jerry Brown was a republican, the media would have SKEWERED him over this idea. Actually republican governor Arnold Schwarzenneger tried to pass a pension reform and got attacked for it. But Brown is a democrat so the media not ONLY backs off but REWRITES history. The liberal media showers Brown with praise for fixing the budget and just refuses to report he cut pensions.

This first 2 articles were from 2012. Fast forward three years to 2015 and this article describes Brown balancing the budget and omits the pension issue:

Gov. Jerry Brown orchestrated the successful push for temporary sales and income taxes on Californians three years ago to help ease the state out of recession and close a multibillion-dollar budget gap.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/01/25/...ats-gov-jerry/

You see, they just STOP reporting it. They will start asserting with lies of omission that Jerry Brown fixed the state budget PURELY with liberal policies (sales and income taxes). They no longer say a word about the massive pension cuts, which was the conservative plan to fix the state budget. Its up to YOU to dig and find out he turned into a conservative to actually get anything done. And then you get kids in their late teens and early 20s who won't recall the pension issue, read articles like that, and get brainwashed into thinking liberal policy works.

And that is why they do stupid things like voting for Obama and Bernie Sanders. They trust a media that is LYING to them.

The media lying to the public in this case is NPR. NPR is trash. Look what its doing! Its using lies of omission to rewrite history and pretend that Jerry Brown fixed the state budget on tax hikes alone!

[Wells]

Not sure where you got this notion that cutting spending makes something "republican".

[Deleted]

I've wondered a lot about why voters think liberalism or socialism works to any degree.

In order to make that judgement you'd have to show you know the difference between the two things, you'd also have to show evidence that you'd studied a socialist politician in the US, which is almost impossible because there are virtually none.

[Common Sense]

Not sure where you got this notion that cutting spending makes something "republican".

They have the monopoly on fiscal responsibility remember?

[Deleted]

Britain is a very centrist country and Corbyn just wont appeal to that. Britain is left wing on some things e.g. socialized healthcare and right wing on others e.g. immigration. The party that wins elections is usually the one closest to the centre e.g. blair, cameron, brown. Times in which the parties have veered from that have just ended in defeats. e.g Ian Duncan Smith or Ed Milliband. Atleast the tories had the self reflection to realise they had to be more left wing, Labour just lost an election for being to left wing and elect a hardcore left winger

[Masark]

Not sure where you got this notion that cutting spending makes something "republican".

Simple.

Anything good = Republican

Anything bad = Demoncrat.

[Grummgug]

They have the monopoly on fiscal responsibility remember?

LOL

Anytime a republican talks about cutting spending, every liberal jumps up and down screaming class warfare.

Don't deny it.

[Wells]

LOL

Anytime a republican talks about cutting spending, every liberal jumps up and down screaming class warfare.

Don't deny it.

Which has everything to do with how they want to cut spending.

[Sky High]

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

yes, like tell us something we don't know, holy shit.