9 years ago
38
'Bernie Sanders Can Become President' Has Replaced 'I Like Him, But He Can't Win'
How many time have you heard the phrase,
Continue Reading
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Additional Contributions:
-
+6Submitted 9 years ago by Triseult
-
+4Submitted 9 years ago by AdelleChattre
-
+1Submitted 9 years ago by Jaspreetzing
Join the Discussion
I'm glad that Bernie is finally being taken seriously. Yesterday the Clinton team said that they were worried about Sanders, too. It's about time that Clinton supporters realize that Bernie is real and that his message may just be louder than Hillary's.
Is he actually real though? Or is he like Ron Paul - who polled pretty well and had the internet presence but when it came time to vote he was seemingly invisible?
I hope that he is real - I just have a hard time believing he will excite people enough to actually vote in the primaries.
He was able to gather a crowd of 10,000 in Madison last week, and a crowd of 7,500 last night in Maine. Of course his rally turnouts are not definitive prove of his validity, but it is a good start. With his polling numbers growing every week, Bernie will be likely be a direct contender to Hillary by the time of the primaries.
I too hope that Sanders wins the Democratic nomination (and if he does, likely the election), but it has been historically shown that those who gather crowds are still often outvoted in the actual election. NPR discussed how this happened years back in one of Nixon's campaigns - his major opponent gathered humongous crowds while he got later, but he yet ended up getting elected.
When Ron Paul ran, he ran a rather moderate, sensible platform at a time it seemed like his party's base wanted crazy, loud, angry and hateful. And they ended up running the most electable version of crazy, loud, angry and hateful (which was more duplicitous, out of touch, and rich but Romney's another story entirely). He picked a bad time to run.
Bernie Sanders is running at a time when democrats are sick of tea party ideology, hate, and inability to govern. He's got a solid, consistent voting record in a time of deep distrust of politicians and the government in general. I believe he picked a good time to run, where his base is receptive to his message, or maybe when we're simply sick of picking the lesser of two evils, or maybe we just want to know what we're getting when we vote for someone. I believe that he picked the right time to run, and he's got a much better shot than Ron Paul did.
He also doesn't have about 12 big names running against him and splitting the vote. Which helps. Ron Paul wasn't so lucky there either.
Is Bernie really polling well though? He has a strong internet presence, but my program based purely on latest polls has Sanders at ~1% of receiving the Democratic nomination.
No, he is not. As others here have noted, he is polling at numbers comparable to people who aren't running. His winning the nomination with the way his campaign is currently running is all but impossible: short of a giant scandal or massive unforeseen event, his winning would be absurdly unlikely. Like Ron Paul, he has a small, very vocal group of supporters who have a very strong Internet presence, and push him very aggressively on social media.
Whether this form of campaigning can actually translate into meaningful gains in polling is, I think, dubious. I'm particularly curious as to whether such aggressive social media campaigning could end up being harmful, causing audience fatigue or even backlash; the latter, I think, may have been a significant problem for Ron Paul, with his supporters coming off as so fanatical and aggressive that even people who would have agreed with Paul's stances were driven away. The same may happen with Sanders. On snapzu, for example, despite having all politics tribes removed from my subscriptions, I still am subjected to two of these Sanders posts, and on reddit, r/politics has been taken over the extent that a majority is either Sanders puffery or Clinton-bashing. The comment here by radixius of "I tell everyone... for some reason the don't buy it" makes me wonder whether this sort of fatigue and backlash is at play in their campaigning.
I have to wonder about the Clinton campaign's view of Sanders' campaign. It may well be that they are happy about it, and may well support it, as it could be useful for the Clinton campaign.
Unlike Warren, who may have had a slight chance, Sanders has no realistic chance of winning the nomination (see Triseult's comment, for example). At the same time, he does have a small group of very vocal supporters, has some real support behind his views, is running a mild campaign, and is actually a sane candidate. Since they share many policy positions, debates between them could allow Clinton to explain her policy positions, to a receptive audience, more strongly and widely than she would otherwise, and there may be a benefit in being able to agree with some of Sanders' positions rather than bringing them up herself. She may well be able to position herself in debates as the candidate who can take Sanders ideas and realistically implement them, drawing energy and support from the dedicated Sanders supporters without needing to build up that same level of fanatical support, with its drawbacks, for herself. At the same time, the rabid Sanders supporters who are ignoring his calls for a clean campaign and trying to bash Clinton online will make it very likely that many anti-Clinton talking points and potential scandals will already be old news by the time of the real campaign.
There was, if I recall, polling suggesting that a significant number of Democrats wanted Clinton to win the nomination, but didn't want her to do so unchallenged. Sanders allows her to have the benefits of a good challenger with comparatively little risk.
Without Sanders, the Democratic Convention would just be a coronation for Clinton. Boredom-ville. Sanders makes the debates interesting. It also keeps the liberals engaged so that they don't stay at home during the primaries or, worse yet, support the Green Party.
Why is supporting the Green Party a bad thing? I voted for Jill Stein last time around.
What I mean is it's bad for the Democrats.
Well, that's the democrats fault. If they want me to vote for them they should be more... democrat. In the meantime I'll vote for the green party. ^_^
Oh, same here. I usually vote for the Green candidate if there's one available.
As much as I love Bernie (and I do), I do think we should set our expectations realistically. Bernie Sanders in the White House is the dream outcome of this, and it may even be a real possibility, but people also need to realize what's at stake if he doesn't win the nomination so that we don't end right back in the mess we were in before.
If Hillary wins the nomination, people still need to vote. The supreme court is one of the biggest reasons why, with control of the court for decades being decided in the next 8 years. Progress with LGBT+ rights, labor unions, healthcare, affirmative action, privacy rights, discrimination law, abortion and birth control rights, campaign finance, and more is at risk if a Republican wins the White House.
Not to mention a Republican president, with a republican house and even still a possible Republican Senate if people don't vote can undo every single inch of progress we've made over the last years.
Sanders is the dream, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture if it doesn't pan out. We need to at a minimum protect the gains we have made.
I actually had no idea that Bernie was running under the Democrats ... and that makes me sad. I really wish he was running as Independent, leaving Hilary for Democrats, and god knows who for Republican. The fact that we still seem to have this weird need to stick to a two party system is mind-boggling. I suppose hoping for three parties this time around would be just too much for the American public to handle.
I truly fear a fully Republican government.
It would be a huge mistake for Bernie to run as an independent. That would in essence hand the presidency to the Republicans, undoing any progress that has been made in the past few years towards progressive goals. He knows that, that's why he's running in the primaries.
Our system is certainly not perfect, but for anyone to run as a third party candidate right now with the first past the post setup would be a death sentence to either the left or right depending who they are.
Oh I know, but it's extremely unfortunate that that is the case.
What do you think would need to happen in order for there to be a viable and proper multi-party system?
Without changing to a proportional representation system, which would require a complete redo of the constitution and government and has its own MAJOR drawbacks, the only real option I see would be instant runoff voting or even possibly more jungle primaries (though I would want to see more testing of those in more states before considering it nationally).
Instant runoff voting would be perfect in my opinion because it lets you choose your favorite candidate without risking handing the win to the other ideology, like you see in some multi party nations. It is still giving victory to the candidate with the most broad support base, but it allows for more flexibility and choice for voters.
You need a different voting system. This is a good explanation if you haven't seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
I had a feeling it would be a CGP Grey video. He does a really fine job of explaining complex matters in an easy to understand way.
There's some good alternatives out there, here's one explained in a video. I imagine that in order to change to something better there would need to be a political revolution in which the people unanimously push it.
He caucuses with the Democrats. Besides, we are much more likely to see a lively and meaningful debate from the left instead of silence during primary season now. He'll need DNC money to run for president. He is preparing for success instead of striking out on his own with no chance of winning at all.
At the very least, Sanders running as a democrat means if he wins the nomination, he has a place in the debates. That wouldn't be possible if he was an independent, the two big parties colluded after Ralph Nadier made it to the debates during his run that only the two big parties are allowed spots in the national debates.
This is one of the best posts that I've seen about this. Yes lets try to get Bernie the nomination if we can but Hillary is better than the alternative if he doesn't get it.
Alright, I'm gonna be a party pooper, but there's an elephant in the room when it comes to Bernie Sanders:
He's highly unlikely to get the democratic presidential nomination.
Quote FiveThirtyEight:
To grasp how much of a lead Clinton has despite not having launched her campaign yet, check out the aggregated poll results on RealClearPolitics. Not only is Clinton a staggering 48.5 points ahead, but Sanders polls a mere 1% ahead of Biden, who might not even be in the running at all.
Now, there's nothing wrong with hope. One thing Bernie's campaign is doing wonderfully is set the tone and the message. By being #2 in the race, he will force Clinton to acknowledge certain issues instead of just ignoring them. There's also nothing wrong with doing all the efforts you can to get the underdog voted in for the nomination.
What I feel is counterproductive, though, is posting links that give a false impression of Sanders' chances. By claiming he has a chance as things stand, you create a false impression of reality in the hopes of fooling people into thinking he's a credible candidate. This is both misleading, and ultimately counterproductive as it creates a false sense of complacency.
I'm really hoping Snapzu will take a more pragmatic stance on Sanders. Sanders supporters, don't try and bullshit us with cherry-picked data... Give us the real picture. Sanders' principles and ideas are good enough to stand on their own. That, ultimately, will rally others like it rallied you.
I agree with this. I will vote for Sanders in the primary and will, in all likelihood, then vote Clinton for the Presidential election. I think Bernie himself is fully aware that he has little chance in the election. Would I love him to win? Of course, and I'll vote for him as soon as I can. But, yes, we should focus more on what he is doing, which is getting Hilary and the other Dems to start owning up to actual liberal policies instead of playing footsie in the center and only fighting over pointless, fringe issues. Bernie is not a dumb man and clearly knows what he wants out of this, so it's discredit to him to pretend otherwise.
I like Bernie. I'm voting for Bernie. I tell everyone that says they're leaning towards Hillary that Mr. Sanders never waffles. He's always voted the way he says he's going to vote. But for some reason they don't buy it, and most of the time it's because they think that the GOP is going to come out with this crazy dark horse and that Hillary is "a sure thing" in that case.
It's depressing and I hope it changes during the eventual debates.
Bernie's voting statistics are refreshing to see and I truly hope that translates to a very transparent presidential nominee whom we can accurately predict his voting, or can trust his word when he says he will or will not be in favor of something. I think we need someone who we don't have to second guess, or be leery of what they're really going to do or what their motivating factor is. And unfortunately, I would be leery of Hilary and what she would do once in office.
I absolutely agree. I don't trust Hillary personally, she never takes a hard stance on anything, so I have to assume that would translate to her role as President if she were to get it. My biggest worry is that a vast majority of the electorate that are considering voting for her are only doing so because she'd be the first woman President. Which would be great, but only if the foundation of her policy is rock solid. Otherwise it's just a waste of four years.
I really hope he keeps this momentum! I think my greatest fear is the democratic vote being split in 2016 and the country ending up with another chapter in the Bush trilogy.
If Clinton or Bush wins, from 1988-2020 (32 years) either a Bush or Clinton would have been POTUS with an 8-year Obama break.
However, if the choice comes down to those two it is clear Hillary has to win the election. At worst, Hillary can protect the gains that have been made under Obama. At least she's not a blood relative of Bill either, so technically its slightly less dynastic. And if we have to compare what the Clinton presidency was like vs either of the Bush presidencies, there's one obvious answer which was best.
I don't think we need to worry about that. By the general election, either Clinton or Sanders will have dropped out -- most likely Sanders -- because of losing the democratic primary.
I doubt any Democrats will start voting Republican just because their favorite candidate didn't make it past primaries
I am glad to see this. It is nice to hear his message and consistency on the topics.
This is the unlikely win the world needs, not just U.S. I'm not a citizen so I can't vote but most people I am close with are voting Bernie!
If this guy pulls an Obama, it's going to be crazy!
He's nowhere near where Obama was at this stage in the campaign in 2008, unfortunately. A Sanders nomination is unlikely according to everything we know about U.S. elections.
I really hope that Bernie become's president. I'll definitely be voting for him in the primaries.