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

[Skroe]

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.

No offense, but this is a very elaborate way of saying "I hope".

Obama had an army of populist support. Hey I voted for him twice. It didn't work for him. This is the key thing that I think Bernie and Obama supporters (in 2008) completely missed. Our system is entirely designed to prevent exactly what you're describing. You want change? You need to win in about three consecutive elections... maybe two if you're lucky. Bernie Sanders in the White House will see him having to work with a Republican House which will be even more anti-Bernie than anti-Obama. He will have a Senate that will be a close split between Democrats and Republicans - and many of those Democrats will never support his more liberal tendencies.

No amount of "army of populist support" will change that. Obama tried that. It was Organizing for Action. They're not successful.

Teddy Roosevelt was fortunate. He appeared on the scene at a time when the Political landscape in this country was changing. There is zero evidence that is happening here. Everyone hates the Senate and the House, except for their own Senator and their own Representative. Competitive states are few. The timescale for change is structurally designed - between the classes in the senate and the census for the house - to be very slow.

Fundamentally, I think Bernie supporters if nothing else, don't get this. "What do we want? Change! When do we want it? Now!". Well sorry friend, but your definition and my definition of change may be entirely different. Sorting that out is called politics.

Obama, to his IMMENSE DISCREDIT - and this is probably his greatest failing as a politician - does not and will not get this. He is too cerebral... too logical. That "Vulcan mindset" comment about him is not a compliment. Obama's central political belief is that through reasoned argument and clear selling of points, the logical strength of certain policies will prevail and illustrate why the policy is intrinsically desirable and should be passed. It makes loads of sense... if we're a nation of rational and logical computers. We're not. We're organic beings filled with prejudices and beliefs. Obama never understood that he could make the most sound argument ever and on the basis of belief, many Americans will never want to buy what he's selling. The most effective Presidents - like Johnson, Reagan and Clinton - knew this and made it work for them. Obama either pressed on with his original "logical argument" strategy or avoided making an argument whatsoever... neither of which work.

Some of what Bernie Sanders says makes immense amounts of logical sense. But that isn't nearly enough. Facts are pliable things in politics and whining about how people ignore facts is like whing about the rules of the game. That may not be ideal (it's not), but it's the system we have and the terrain on which the political battle must be fought. For Bernie Sanders, that means "What do we want? Change. When do we want it? In 10-14 years!". Realistically, that is what it will take to transform a society. Hell i'd call that a lower bound.

Bernie Sanders it the President you want at year 14, not a year 1. Obama true believers didn't get that in 2008 and I really think the Bernie circle jerk society is missing that now. I certianly think Bernie is better equipped to be President than Obama - Obama is not a fighter by any stretch of the imagination, and Bernie is. But merely fighting isn't enough. The most effective President's were black belts in the art of politics. There is nothing in his career to indicate Bernie is that. Being well meaning isn't enough.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

At it's core, it's a high drama philosophical debate. It's worth noting that the true believers on either side - left or right - are relatively few. Loud mouthed, but a distinct minority. Most people are certainly center-right or center-left, which is why historically Parties in the US (and the wider Western world) lived there. It does represent a type political consensus that there are boundries on the far right and far left.

The single dumbest debate in America is over the size of government. Big government. Small government. Outside of the true believers, nobody gives a fuck and the question itself is stupid. Why do I say that? Because polls have consistently shown that regardless of states political affiliation, Americans LIKE Government services that are intriniscally socialist in nature - Social Security, medicare, some degree of regulation, roads, public schools, public universities that kind of things. But Americans also have concerns about too intrusive a government or a wasteful government.

What does that tell you? Big Government versus Small Government misses the point. Americans want efficient government. A lean, mean fighting machine that doesn't do too much, but also not too little.

The true believers on bothsides though... they live in this highly dramatic and philosophical world that is much more adherent to a consistent and rigid political orthodoxy. You saw this when Republicans tried, stupidly, to blame the financial crisis on government overspending rather than a decade and change of deregulation. You see this when Obama's solution to universal health care in this country turned out to be largely bureaucracy and paperwork factory that has done barely anything positive for the 85% of Americans that already had Health Care.

There is a direct line between Bernie/Obama supporters (at their respective times) believing their champion here can really change anything, and Republican true believers who sincerely believe that a Republican President will get this country one step closer to overturning gay marriage, banning abortion or cutting spending. Let say Ted Cruz got elected. Now personally, I think the man is a monster who shouldn't be Senator, let along President. But if he did, the internet would lose their shit over Ted Cruz being President.

But nothing bad would happen. Because he'd have a Sympathetic House, and but a Senate that may be Democratic, or at the very least, could Fillibuster. It took a massive financial crisis for Democrats to gain a fillibuster proof-majority, and it lasted about a year (until Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican). Republicans at the end of Ted Cruz's term would likely be as disappointed with the results as progressives are of Obama.

The thing is, this shouldn't be terribly surprising. I talk a lot about NASA in the forum, but it's a very instructive example as a government agency, because NASA's footprint is in a very interesting set of states that is geographically and economically diverse, but more than that, is pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. In this particular case, it's instructive because since 2010 when Obama cancelled the Constellation Program, Democrats and Republicans have teamed up, against the Obama Administration, in defining the next steps of this country's space program. It isn't Democrats versus Republicans. It's Obama versus Congress. It's very, very strange to have Liberal Democrats vote with Ted Cruz just because they're all from NASA-heavy states.

This will extend out throughout the entire political spectrum. Let's say for example, Bernie actually becomes President and tries to cut defense spending. Never going to happen. First it won't happen, because the political consensus that exist, even embraced this year by Obama, that Defense spending needs to go up by about 10% per year (if Congress passes a budget this year and not a year long continuing resolution, it will get a 10% boost). Because that Consensus exists in Congress, a Bernie proposal will fall flat. He might expect liberal democrats to side with him, but consider even a neighboring state to his own, my state, Massachusetts, major Defense Contractor Raytheon is one of it's largest employers and billions in defense money is added to our state. Sure a representative from Cape Cod might vote against raising defense spending. But Northern or West-of-Boston? Not a chance.

One just has to look at Obama's historic lack of failure in getting "his budget" passed to see how unsuccessful Bernie or anyone like him, right or left, will be. Presidents always have a hard time getting "their budget" passed, but Obama's been uniquely a failure at that. He submits a budget, and on pretty much everything, Congress ignores what he wants. Way less than his Predecessors. Even Clinton with a divided government had far more success.

What Bernie wants - like what Obama wants, would require a revolution in a Congress going along with the President on spending, that even with Barack Obama, except for something like Obamacare, even Democrats were plainly unwilling to do. That is why the true believers on the far right and the far left never win and never will: because for all their beliefs, parochial state concerns that tac towards the center will always win. President Ted Cruz would never see his Mega Cuts that would sap money from many states, and President Bernie will never see a mass reorganization of what American spay for to suite his social-democratic agenda. He may be all about "butter", but huge swathes of America are perfectly happy having factories for "guns".

[The Penguin]

Simple.

Anything good = Republican

Anything bad = Demoncrat.

Boil down the feeling in the USA atm and Masark has nailed it flawlessly. That's what most people I talk to seem to feel too, and I reckon that's why Republicans took the House, the Senate and will take the White House.

Obama was very bluntly told not to pass the ACA, and he did so against the will of most people save the die-hard left. Now his party is reaping the whirlwind of his bad decision making and defiance. Hillary was supposed to be this amazing second coming, and now she's in some serious campaign trouble. In short, it's all finally unraveling.

And before anyone says "Well he did something right, he was re-elected". No, everyone knows he only got reelected because people didn't want to hear bitching from uninformed rioters ranting and howling like morons about how racist America was. America thought about it long and hard, and barely by less than 1% decided they would give him one more shot after spaying and neutering Pelosi and Reid. The hope was he'd wake up, lead and take his party's shellacking with humility. Instead he got all vindictive and testy, and went Executive Order Mode for governing. Oh and then he went into full on troll mode insulting the people that were elected by his own constitutes. In short, Obama and Reid made the Tea Party and Ted Cruz something powerful, in the same way Vader and Palpatine made the Rebel Alliance something powerful. It was inadvertent, but they done goofed and the results are now knocking on their door.

And.. there's also that beeeautiful Iran deal. It's like a conservative dream come true. Republicans with all three Houses is practically guaranteed at this point, and with it the removal of basically all of the last eight years of his policies, much like what happened to Millard Fillmore in the 1800s.


In short as Hades from Hercules would say..






I just wonder if Trump will be the one to win. If he is, damn it'll be awkward for the Huffington Post to have their "Entertainment Candidate" the leader of the free world. Though if Carson is the nominee, you can expect the Democrats and almost all liberals to go batshit crazy with rage and enter full on race warfare, at levels that make you wonder which side has the Grand Dragons of the KKK in it. I mean that's basically what they did when Herman Cain announced in 2008.

[Skroe]

I just wonder if Trump will be the one to win. If he is, damn it'll be awkward for the Huffington Post to have their "Entertainment Candidate" the leader of the free world. Though if Carson is the nominee, you can expect the Democrats and almost all liberals to go batshit crazy with rage and enter full on race warfare, at levels that make you wonder which side has the Grand Dragons of the KKK in it. I mean that's basically what they did when Herman Cain announced in 2008.

There aren't many Democrats I'd vote for under any circumstances anymore. On the fence with Trump. I like a lot what I hear on things not-related-to immigration.

But Carson is an easy no. A very, very easy no. I'd for for Clinton over him.

You presume, far too liberally, the mood of the electorate. The media interviews people at Trump rallies who say "I was Clinton supporter, until Trump cam along", and the media is perplexed by it. I for one, don't think it's perplexing at all. But don't mistake Trump's popularity as a symbol of anything about the other Republicans. There is no chance Ted Cruz will be President. Carson is this weak nice guy who believes some particularly crazy shit.

If what you were saying had merit, the top of the pile would have been Scott Walker, or more notably, now ex-candidate Rick Perry. The "three houses of government" being Republican thing is far from a sure bet, especially when Republicans face a very tough Senate race in 2016 due to who and where is up for reelection.

[Zarc]

As a liberal I can only hope that the Liberal Democrats will surge above and beyond Labour and re-take the role as the main left party in UK politics. In 2010 they got 23% vs. Labour's 29% although they got very little seats for it. With Labour going far-left and, the Conservatives getting governing fatigue a Liberal party positioned in the center have a splendid opportunity to catch a lot of votes in 2020, and end up above Labour in enough seats that whatever percentage they get would translate to very few seats. Would be so awesome. Not sure this Tim Farron dude is the right guy to spearhead that opportunity though.

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.

No. That kind of reasoning is what is idiotic. Labour clearly was positioned left of the Conservatives, even if they were shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the political spectrum. The idea that the people who picked the right-most of these two, in your view, similar options would've picked an option much further to the left or that some people effectively let the right-most option win by abstaining to vote when they could have nudged the UK even a tad to the left is idiotic and patronizing. The reason Labour lost is simple. The policies of the parties was preferred by voters at a share of 37% Conservative, 30% Labour, 13% UKIP, 8% LibDem, 5% SNP and 4% Green distributed in a specific manner across individual seats in a first-past-the-post electoral system giving the Conservatives a majority victory. Simple.

And as far as the actual topic goes.. if I have to make a prediction it will be that no, the same will not happen with Bernie Sanders.