The main reason I'm voting for Bernie Sanders...

[korijenkins]

So democratic of you to say the thread should be locked because you don't like the discussion going on inside of it. Just face it, the democratic party continues to devour themselves. It's funny how badly the left controls their emotions anymore, everything is offensive...and if it's offensive we need to censor it! It's hilarious how the left calls the right nazi's but the right have done nothing to take peoples rights away like the left continues to try to do every year.

I was going to vote for Bernie in 2016 and then he just let the democratic party step all over him. He didn't fight back against their unfair treatment of him. He let a bunch of BLM protesters come up and steal the microphone away from him to sprout racist rhetoric. And then after all of this HE ENDORSED HILARY! That's what sealed it for me. Bernie is all talk and no action. He is weak and can not be a leader. I refused to vote for Hilary or Trump in 2016 but seeing how the left continues to get crazier and crazier each year I'm likely going to end up voting for Trump in 2020.

Sanders isn't weak. A weak person who "isn't a leader" would've vanished like Al Gore.

Sanders remains in politics, helping others like him win seats in local, state, and federal elections. None of the organizations like Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, etc. would exist if Sanders didn't run.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if you guys ever fix your broken 2 party system and we all know that won't happen ever with the current 2 parties in place. You'd need so apocalyptic trigger for that to happen during our life-times.

Yeah both parties decide the format for debates, and the polling numbers required to participate in them.

It's really a sham.

[mvaliz]

Nah. Millennials care about the environment, GP has the same ideals as Bernie Sanders has. Literally same rhetoric.

And Millenials are instead shifting to change the Democratic party, and it's far easier to simply adopt the Democratic party to adhere to GPs ideals than it is to try to get the GP to be anything more than it is. Shit, that worked for the Tea Party and the Republicans...

Most Millenials I know that voted for Stein last election because "Hillary Sux!" regret the FUCK out of that decision and won't repeat that same mistake anytime soon, especially when Dumbass Dump is still going to be on the ticket.

[Daara]

Sanders isn't weak. A weak person who "isn't a leader" would've vanished like Al Gore.

Sanders remains in politics, helping others like him win seats in local, state, and federal elections. None of the organizations like Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, etc. would exist if Sanders didn't run.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah both parties decide the format for debates, and the polling numbers required to participate in them.

It's really a sham.

Sanders would have won if he got the picked by the DNC. But instead of fighting back against them for choosing Hilary who wasn't the popular choice, he just rolled with it. That's weakness. I don't want a president who is just going to let people get away with taking advantage of us.

[kichigaijin]

Only if you guys ever fix your broken 2 party system and we all know that won't happen ever with the current 2 parties in place. You'd need so apocalyptic trigger for that to happen during our life-times.

It's the one thing that both sides agree on (behind the scenes), to keep them in business.

[korijenkins]

And Millenials are instead shifting to change the Democratic party, and it's far easier to simply adopt the Democratic party to adhere to GPs ideals than it is to try to get the GP to be anything more than it is. Shit, that worked for the Tea Party and the Republicans...

Most Millenials I know that voted for Stein last election because "Hillary Sux!" regret the FUCK out of that decision and won't repeat that same mistake anytime soon, especially when Dumbass Dump is still going to be on the ticket.

Most Millennial I know that voted for Stein weren't stupid enough to vote for Stein in a swing state, and instead did it in a state like California or New York. Like, if you voted for Stein in New Hampshire, I think you're an idiot.

I would also make the argument that 4 years of Trump followed by a "progressive who gets things done (lul)" is potentially a better long term result than 8 years of a centrist who wants to reward donors.

But I can only speculate as to how the latter would've gone.

[Vollus]

The last thing we need is Bernie running as an independent which would make it so that no one candidate gets the number of votes needed to win the election and put it in the hands of a republican congress that could simply hand the election to Trump even if he had the 3rd most votes.

I would really be up for the Republican leadership getting rid of Mitch McConnell and growing a backbone and denying Trump the party's nomination for the general election. This would probably lead to a closer race and would help us find the right replacement for the current dumpster fire that is the current administration.

=V=

=========================================================

From an article on NPR

When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination?

It only happened once to an elected president. That was Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, who was elected as a Democrat in 1852. His pro-Southern sentiments and his policy of failing to lead on the divisive issue of slavery badly hurt his standing with the voters. Especially damaging was his support for the pro-slavery Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which backfired on him as Kansas was overrun by pro-slavery forces, mostly from the slave state of Missouri. The events angered Northerners everywhere and helped lead to the creation of the Republican Party. When Democratic delegates gathered in Cincinnati for their convention in 1856, it was clear that they had had enough of Pierce. James Buchanan, who had been defeated by Pierce for the nomination four years earlier, won the nomination on the 17th ballot.

Four other presidents were denied the nomination of their party, but none of these were elected in their own right. They were:

John Tyler, Whig, 1844. Tyler became president in 1841 following the death of William Henry Harrison. Tyler, a conservative Southerner, was out of step with many in the Whig Party, which instead nominated Henry Clay for president.

Millard Fillmore, Whig, 1852. Fillmore also ascended to the presidency following the death of the incumbent. In this case it was Zachary Taylor, who died in 1850. Taylor's death left the Whigs in disarray, and the party convention chose Gen. Winfield Scott over Fillmore and Daniel Webster.

Andrew Johnson, Democrat, 1868. Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, was chosen to be part of a Republican unity ticket led by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. Following Lincoln's assassination the following year, Johnson tried in vain to win the support of the late president's allies; in fact, he was impeached and nearly convicted by a GOP Congress. The Democratic nomination went to Horatio Seymour.

Chester Arthur, Republican, 1884. Arthur was picked for VP by James Garfield in 1880 in order to help the GOP carry New York. Following Garfield's assassination in 1881, Arthur alienated his erstwhile allies by attacking the patronage system that had helped his career until that point. Arthur lost the GOP nomination to James Blaine.

[korijenkins]

Sanders would have won if he got the picked by the DNC. But instead of fighting back against them for choosing Hilary who wasn't the popular choice, he just rolled with it. That's weakness. I don't want a president who is just going to let people get away with taking advantage of us.

What could he realistically have done? Sued them?

There was no path forward at that point for him that didn't involve directly letting Trump win. Personally, I think if he ran as a third party candidate he would've won, as both Trump and Clinton's unfavorable ratings broke records.

But that was never the goal. Winning wasn't his goal when he set out. Influencing and bringing change and starting movements was his goal. It's why he spoke more about a political revolution than his potential cabinet or VP pick.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

look to the younger candidates, democrats. that will be the only way you can win.

[korijenkins]

The last thing we need is Bernie running as an independent which would make it so that no one candidate gets the number of votes needed to win the election and put it in the hands of a republican congress that could simply hand the election to Trump even if he had the 3rd most votes.

That depends more on the scenario than anything. Sanders probably could've won as a third party candidate in 2016 if he had run, merely because the alternatives had record breaking unfavorables.

I don't think he could in 2020 though. None of the announced candidates are nearly as unlikable as Clinton was. (except maybe Booker)

- - - Updated - - -

look to the younger candidates, democrats. that will be the only way you can win.

The younger candidates with no policy substance?

I think not.

[mvaliz]

The last thing we need is Bernie running as an independent

Bernie will not run as an indipendent. He didn't run last time as an indipendent for the very same reason he supported Hillary in the end - because, in his own words, Trump is THAT bad!

Bernie will know damn well not to split the vote because this isn't about his personal pride, it's about getting Dump out of office at this point - and I'm certain Bernie would gladly take an imperfect Democrat (just like he did in 2016) over another 4 years of Dump.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

The younger candidates with no policy substance?

I think not.

many would say the same thing about the current president. except the younger part.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie will not run as an indipendent. He didn't run last time as an indipendent for the very same reason he supported Hillary in the end - because, in his own words, Trump is THAT bad!

Bernie will know damn well not to split the vote because this isn't about his personal pride, it's about getting Dump out of office at this point - and I'm certain Bernie would gladly take an imperfect Democrat (just like he did in 2016) over another 4 years of Dump.

splitting the vote with an independent typically benefits the democrats.

[mvaliz]

Also, just noticed (as I went ot this thread via the main page topic listings...)

THIS

BELONGS

IN

POLITICS

FORUM!

[korijenkins]

Also, just noticed (as I went ot this thread via the main page topic listings...)

THIS

BELONGS

IN

POLITICS

FORUM!

While this is true, it should be noted that the US spent 3.5 trillion on healthcare in 2017, whereas the Sanders M4A plan is projected to cost half that.

[Leadsop]

The Democratic Party is almost completely fractured in 2 pieces right now. The Democratic Socialists vs the Capitalists. Kamala Harris came out just today saying she doesn't support Socialism.

They're going to eat each other alive for the next 12 months and give Trump all the ammunition he needs going into the election.

[mvaliz]

splitting the vote with an independent typically benefits the democrats.

No, it doesn't. It only helped with Clinton back in the day once because the two people who split the vote were sharing Conservative Values, and you damn well know that.

In short, it helps whomever candidate has the least competition when their competition is split, and that doesn't matter which side is what. Again, you damn well know that. I'd argue that Dump got the vote in the primaries that way because it was so torn up between 8 establishment Republicans and Dump. I think Dump rarely ever went above 40% in the total votes in each state durring the primary until it was down to him and/or Cruz.

There was enough missinformation out there to get one section of the voters to give up voting, and another section to go green... that hurt in Dems in 2016

- - - Updated - - -

Kamala Harris came out just today saying she doesn't support Socialism..

Source Plz

Also, Democratic Socialist isn't the same as Stalinistic Socialism. If she did say that, she's talking about Stalinism... not Democratic Socialism.

[korijenkins]

No, it doesn't. It only helped with Clinton back in the day once because the two people who split the vote were sharing Conservative Values, and you damn well know that.

In short, it helps whomever candidate has the least competition when their competition is split, and that doesn't matter which side is what. Again, you damn well know that. I'd argue that Dump got the vote in the primaries that way because it was so torn up between 8 establishment Republicans and Dump. I think Dump rarely ever went above 40% in the total votes in each state durring the primary until it was down to him and/or Cruz.

There was enough missinformation out there to get one section of the voters to give up voting, and another section to go green... that hurt in Dems in 2016

- - - Updated - - -



Source Plz

Also, Democratic Socialist isn't the same as Stalinistic Socialism. If she did say that, she's talking about Stalinism... not Democratic Socialism.

In defense of the misinformation, (that sounds weird) it was in no way the reason she lost. Her opponent was a blithering idiot. She should've landslided him by 30 points regardless. It just wasn't a well run campaign (neither was Trump's, but the Republican base doesn't care).

Also splitting the vote doesn't benefit Democrats. I can't fathom how anyone would believe that.

[IIamaKing]

The problem with Sanders is that while he might only be slighly older, he looks like he is about to fall apart in the next 5 minutes. Having seen how the job aged Obama and others before him, not many will believe he will be able to make it.

I dont think people understand how much this matters.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

Also splitting the vote doesn't benefit Democrats. I can't fathom how anyone would believe that.

as a person who is slightly right of the middle, an independent could sway my vote from the far right pretty quickly. this is me, personally.

[korijenkins]

I dont think people understand how much this matters.

I think people underestimate the value of policy substance, which took an elderly Jewish/Atheist Democratic Socialist from Vermont from 1% in the polls to winning 23 states against the biggest political juggernaut since the Kennedys.

[Monster Hunter]

In defense of the misinformation, (that sounds weird) it was in no way the reason she lost. Her opponent was a blithering idiot. She should've landslided him by 30 points regardless. It just wasn't a well run campaign (neither was Trump's, but the Republican base doesn't care).

Also splitting the vote doesn't benefit Democrats. I can't fathom how anyone would believe that.

^this, the guy spent 90% of the election talking about the size of his hands and penis, the size of a wall and then defending him self for saying something directly on camera that would have sunk any other politicians career.

its like....if you cant beat that you really are shit.

inb4 Hillary gets nominated again, to lose again. that would be funny.

but im not a US citizen so im biased towards what ever is the most entertainment. crack on lads i have got the pop corn ready.