EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
NEW YORK, June 3 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.

Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3
Click to expand...
What do Sanders numbers against Trump look like?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
NEW YORK, June 3 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.

Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3
Click to expand...
Double digit that quick?

Clinton is not Mother Theresa.

You don't think Trump is going to keep quiet, do you?

:lol:
 
Aeroknow

Aeroknow

Well-Known Member
Bernie showed up at 7pm yesterday about 20 min from here. Bill Clinton showed up at the same time in Redding.
My nephew graduated at the very same time:-(


I most likely would have checked out Bernie.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
This is the place where a policy-oriented Washington commentator like myself is supposed to offer Bernie Sanders supporters some sort of olive branch. For example, I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too. In other words, I am supposed to indicate that I get why Sanders has a movement.

But the truth is that Sanders does not deserve a movement, and his losing campaign does not deserve unusual deference and concessions. His tale about American oligarchy is simplistic, his policy proposals are shallow, his rejection of political reality is absurd, his self-righteousness and stubbornness are unbecoming. And, yes, he has lost. Here are some simple points worth repeating:

• Sanders’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination is essentially nonexistent. His only hope rests on convincing Democratic “superdelegates,” nearly all of whom back Hillary Clinton, to swing his way. They will not do that. It is incoherent for Sanders to ask them to do so, given that he has attacked superdelegates as non-democratic actors in the nominating process and that Clinton will almost certainly end the cycle with more votes and more pledged delegates. It is also staggeringly arrogant that Sanders would think that superdelegates, the Democratic “establishment” sorts that he has spent the whole campaign cartoonishly attacking as tools of Wall Street, would be open to his entreaties.

• It is politically reasonable for the superdelegates to stick with Clinton. The poll numbers Sanders cites to argue that he would be a stronger nominee do not reflect the impressions voters would have after the Republicans engaged in a sustained anti-Sanders assault — the sort of thing Clinton has endured for decades. Polling shows that Sanders does not, in fact, do unusually well among true independents and that many of these crucial swing voters have not formed an opinion of him.

• A Clinton nomination would be wholly legitimate. Sanders zealot Seth Abramson writes, “While not rigged, there is no question that the Democratic Party’s primary process — which uses superdelegates to create an appearance of pre-election electoral inevitability and closed primaries and onerous registration requirements to exclude many new, independent, and party-switching voters — has dramatically favored Mrs. Clinton.” This is nonsense, considering that Sanders has benefited from weird, anti-democratic quirks of the nominating process. FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers and found that “Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.”

So, enough with the reality-denial. Enough with the sanctimony. Enough with the attitude that only Sanders’s agenda counts. Enough with the dream that his movement is broader and more powerful than it has proved to be at the ballot box. Enough with the paranoid conspiracy theorizing, the lazy attacks on the “establishment,” the platitudes about the right to health care and the right to free college without realistic plans to realize them, the delegitimization of those who disagree, the scorning of practicality, the outrageous negativity about the state of the country and the simplistic narrative of evil 1 percenters who are to blame for everything that is wrong. Enough with the excuses for half-baked policy proposals (It is the direction, not the specifics, that matter!). Enough with the “political revolution.”

Berners can accept reality or sink deeper into delusion. Only one of these options would be good for them and good for the country.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/enough-with-bernie-sanders/ar-BBtK0XD
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too.
Click to expand...

Let's see..
But the truth is that Sanders does not deserve a movement, and his losing campaign does not deserve unusual deference and concessions. His tale about American oligarchy is simplistic, his policy proposals are shallow, his rejection of political reality is absurd, his self-righteousness and stubbornness are unbecoming. And, yes, he has lost. Here are some simple points worth repeating:
Click to expand...
I'm afraid Stromberg isn't the one who get's to decide who or what deserves a movement. Maybe he's confused, the rest of this article would seem to confirm that..

Does it sound to you like Stromberg is very concerned about income inequality when he criticizes Sanders for "His tale about American oligarchy"? Sounds to me like he just dismisses it like other media establishment shills who try to make it sound like a crazy idea. Not as crazy as it seems..

Do you think America is a meritocracy, where everyone can just work hard and they'll succeed? Really? Because there are probably dozens of different threads where you either argue or agree with the opposite position. Why is Stromberg's criticism valid all of a sudden when it's aimed as Sanders?

Yeah, "he has highlighted some real issues." ... but "his rejection of political reality is absurd"... If his rejection of political reality is absurd, why is he the most popular sitting senator? Maybe that's exactly what it is - his rejection of what Stromberg and the rest of the mainstream media establishment call the "political reality" that is currently infecting Washington. American's are sick and tired of that and they see what's going on behind the scenes which is why you see it reflected in the popularity of both Sanders and Trump, and against Clinton because that's exactly what she represents.
• Sanders’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination is essentially nonexistent. His only hope rests on convincing Democratic “superdelegates,” nearly all of whom back Hillary Clinton, to swing his way. They will not do that. It is incoherent for Sanders to ask them to do so, given that he has attacked superdelegates as non-democratic actors in the nominating process and that Clinton will almost certainly end the cycle with more votes and more pledged delegates. It is also staggeringly arrogant that Sanders would think that superdelegates, the Democratic “establishment” sorts that he has spent the whole campaign cartoonishly attacking as tools of Wall Street, would be open to his entreaties.
Click to expand...
Stromberg doesn't seem to understand the fact that this movement he earlier brushed off as irrelevant and undeserving is bigger than Senator Sanders. Maybe he hasn't seen his campaign poster?



It doesn't matter if he wins, he's fighting until the convention to earn more political leverage for progressive platform changes as is his democratic right. If Clinton supporters think fighting for more progressive policy changes for the democratic party somehow hurts her in the general election, I would love to hear why!
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
• It is politically reasonable for the superdelegates to stick with Clinton. The poll numbers Sanders cites to argue that he would be a stronger nominee do not reflect the impressions voters would have after the Republicans engaged in a sustained anti-Sanders assault — the sort of thing Clinton has endured for decades. Polling shows that Sanders does not, in fact, do unusually well among true independents and that many of these crucial swing voters have not formed an opinion of him.
Click to expand...
Oh! Ha, I see! Stromberg can apparently tell the future! He knows what impression voters would have after the same old republican talking points that have already been aimed at Sanders this cycle... were aimed at Sanders this cycle, as if they already haven't been. Funny, that. What the hell is he doing working at the Washington Post? He should be buying winning lotto tickets and such with his amazing political clairvoyance!
• A Clinton nomination would be wholly legitimate. Sanders zealot Seth Abramson writes, “While not rigged, there is no question that the Democratic Party’s primary process — which uses superdelegates to create an appearance of pre-election electoral inevitability and closed primaries and onerous registration requirements to exclude many new, independent, and party-switching voters — has dramatically favored Mrs. Clinton.” This is nonsense, considering that Sanders has benefited from weird, anti-democratic quirks of the nominating process. FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers and found that “Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.”
Click to expand...
Is Stromberg retarded or does he just believe his readers are retarded?

Closed Caucuses Sanders won:

41 - Colorado
23 - Kansas
15 - Nebraska
17 - Maine
13 - Alaska
7 - Wyoming

Closed Primaries Sanders won:

9 - Democrats Abroad

Total = 125

Closed Caucuses Clinton won:

20 - Nevada
4 - American Samoa
4 - Northern Marianas
4 - Guam

Closed Primaries Clinton won:

37 - Louisiana
141 - Florida
42 - Arizona
139 - New York
28 - Connecticut
12 - Delaware
60 - Maryland
106 - Pennsylvania
28 - Kentucky

Total = 625

So how exactly has "Clinton been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries"? Even if you throw in the other open caucuses Sanders won: MN, ID & WA, the total only comes out to 263 delegates for Sanders, 2.3 x's less than Clinton

Maybe Stromberg can't add or subtract all that well..
So, enough with the reality-denial. Enough with the sanctimony. Enough with the attitude that only Sanders’s agenda counts. Enough with the dream that his movement is broader and more powerful than it has proved to be at the ballot box. Enough with the paranoid conspiracy theorizing, the lazy attacks on the “establishment,” the platitudes about the right to health care and the right to free college without realistic plans to realize them, the delegitimization of those who disagree, the scorning of practicality, the outrageous negativity about the state of the country and the simplistic narrative of evil 1 percenters who are to blame for everything that is wrong. Enough with the excuses for half-baked policy proposals (It is the direction, not the specifics, that matter!). Enough with the “political revolution.”

Berners can accept reality or sink deeper into delusion. Only one of these options would be good for them and good for the country.
Click to expand...
That's cute, Stromberg cites his own article that references the TPCs analysis on Sanders universal healthcare plan that fails to take into account the benefits said plan would provide to American citizens, namely the additional $3,500 take home pay 95% of American households would enjoy, as Warren Gunnels explains;

"However, the analysis was fundamentally disingenuous, as it analyzes the tax increases in a vacuum and does not account for the tremendous amount of savings that would be realized by families using public health insurance and colleges. It also does not account for the overall economic benefit of 13 million new public sector jobs and the resulting flow of new money into the economy."

“We do not account for the effects of the new government programs on income,” -TPC co-founder Leonard Burman, adding "We’re not really experts on the spending component.”

Economists Who Bashed Bernie Sanders’ Tax Plan Admit They’re Clueless: “We’re Not Really Experts”




Obviously Stromberg hasn't done much homework, obviously he lied in the beginning of the article when he said

"I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too."

and it's obvious he's part of the same media establishment that has a beneficial symbiotic relationship with the political establishment, which is why he's arguing strawmen and thoroughly debunked claims and misinformation.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
This is the place where a policy-oriented Washington commentator like myself is supposed to offer Bernie Sanders supporters some sort of olive branch. For example, I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too. In other words, I am supposed to indicate that I get why Sanders has a movement.

But the truth is that Sanders does not deserve a movement, and his losing campaign does not deserve unusual deference and concessions. His tale about American oligarchy is simplistic, his policy proposals are shallow, his rejection of political reality is absurd, his self-righteousness and stubbornness are unbecoming. And, yes, he has lost. Here are some simple points worth repeating:

• Sanders’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination is essentially nonexistent. His only hope rests on convincing Democratic “superdelegates,” nearly all of whom back Hillary Clinton, to swing his way. They will not do that. It is incoherent for Sanders to ask them to do so, given that he has attacked superdelegates as non-democratic actors in the nominating process and that Clinton will almost certainly end the cycle with more votes and more pledged delegates. It is also staggeringly arrogant that Sanders would think that superdelegates, the Democratic “establishment” sorts that he has spent the whole campaign cartoonishly attacking as tools of Wall Street, would be open to his entreaties.

• It is politically reasonable for the superdelegates to stick with Clinton. The poll numbers Sanders cites to argue that he would be a stronger nominee do not reflect the impressions voters would have after the Republicans engaged in a sustained anti-Sanders assault — the sort of thing Clinton has endured for decades. Polling shows that Sanders does not, in fact, do unusually well among true independents and that many of these crucial swing voters have not formed an opinion of him.

• A Clinton nomination would be wholly legitimate. Sanders zealot Seth Abramson writes, “While not rigged, there is no question that the Democratic Party’s primary process — which uses superdelegates to create an appearance of pre-election electoral inevitability and closed primaries and onerous registration requirements to exclude many new, independent, and party-switching voters — has dramatically favored Mrs. Clinton.” This is nonsense, considering that Sanders has benefited from weird, anti-democratic quirks of the nominating process. FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers and found that “Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.”

So, enough with the reality-denial. Enough with the sanctimony. Enough with the attitude that only Sanders’s agenda counts. Enough with the dream that his movement is broader and more powerful than it has proved to be at the ballot box. Enough with the paranoid conspiracy theorizing, the lazy attacks on the “establishment,” the platitudes about the right to health care and the right to free college without realistic plans to realize them, the delegitimization of those who disagree, the scorning of practicality, the outrageous negativity about the state of the country and the simplistic narrative of evil 1 percenters who are to blame for everything that is wrong. Enough with the excuses for half-baked policy proposals (It is the direction, not the specifics, that matter!). Enough with the “political revolution.”

Berners can accept reality or sink deeper into delusion. Only one of these options would be good for them and good for the country.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/enough-with-bernie-sanders/ar-BBtK0XD
Click to expand...
This post was great. Dang I wish a conservative could put together an organized set of ideas and discuss them as you did.

I think it overlooks the political background. Bernie is doing his bit to gain as much leverage in the Democratic Party congress as possible to prepare for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Right now, Bernie's interests are best served by holding a somewhat adversarial position to Hillary. I don't see the other stuff, such as sanctimony that you alude to. Right now, it looks to me that Bernie is setting up to be an influential senator during the first term of Hillary Clinton's presidency.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
This post was great. Dang I wish a conservative could put together an organized set of ideas and discuss them as you did.

I think it overlooks the political background. Bernie is doing his bit to gain as much leverage in the Democratic Party congress as possible to prepare for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Right now, Bernie's interests are best served by holding a somewhat adversarial position to Hillary. I don't see the other stuff, such as sanctimony that you alude to. Right now, it looks to me that Bernie is setting up to be an influential senator during the first term of Hillary Clinton's presidency.
Click to expand...
I didn't do that. Some guy named Stromberg did. I just happen to agree with a few points he made. He also lists his citations and heavily relies on 538 polling. I'm a big fan of Nate Silver
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top