Both and more... specifically that the first 4 sentences were exactly the response I expected from you.
2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter GoodEnoughForMe
- Start date
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
So you agree Bernie is on the the path that the party must take to survive.
I would have voted for him over Trump. Much as I disagree with his socialism, I respect the man for being true to his principles. He reminds of D Patrick Moynihan, which is high praise
J
Last edited:
Gen.Mannerheim
Grand Moff
If things continue on their course, I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where the ruling party will abandon their own sitting president. This has happened before, when the Whigs abandoned John Tyler, and didn't support him to be their candidate in the 1844 election.
Or, If the GOP doesn't abandon Trump, I could see a situation like 1912 where the GOP is handicapped by the party officials backing an unpopular candidate (Taft) while their electorate support a more popular choice (Teddy).
Of course who a "more popular" Republican candidate would be is another question...
Or, If the GOP doesn't abandon Trump, I could see a situation like 1912 where the GOP is handicapped by the party officials backing an unpopular candidate (Taft) while their electorate support a more popular choice (Teddy).
Of course who a "more popular" Republican candidate would be is another question...
danjuno
Cole Phelps, Badge 1247
Negative partisanship, or rather, the rapid increase in it in the last decade or so, is the only major factor that really holds the two major parties together at this point.
VicRatlhead5199
King
Because of name recognition and super delegates. With proper coverage, a fair debate schedule and delegates that voted with their constituency instead of against we might have avoided putting someone as unpopular as Hillary up for the nomination. Shocking that pushing an unpopular candidate didn't work out huh?
I can give you reasons why the 49ers lost the Superbowl to the Ravens... lots of reasons... they still lost... reasons notwithstanding, and the reasons that they lost then are just as applicable now as they were then.
In other words... in 2020, name recognition will still be a major, make-or-break factor... super delegates will still behave as they did this cycle... there will not be "proper" coverage, at least not in the sense that I'm guessing you mean "proper"... there will not be a "fair" debate schedule, at least not in the sense that I'm thinking you mean "fair", and delegates will still vote as they wish according to their own personal, selfish, self-serving incentives rather than "with their constituency".
If we want to win a game of Civ... we're going to have to be good at Civ and win according to the way the game is. Saying we would have won if the game was different, with different rules, that would have made it easier for us to win... is well... "We would have won if we were playing with tech trading turned off!" Maybe... but tech-trading was on and its going to be on next game, so...do you see what I'm saying?
In other words... in 2020, name recognition will still be a major, make-or-break factor... super delegates will still behave as they did this cycle... there will not be "proper" coverage, at least not in the sense that I'm guessing you mean "proper"... there will not be a "fair" debate schedule, at least not in the sense that I'm thinking you mean "fair", and delegates will still vote as they wish according to their own personal, selfish, self-serving incentives rather than "with their constituency".
If we want to win a game of Civ... we're going to have to be good at Civ and win according to the way the game is. Saying we would have won if the game was different, with different rules, that would have made it easier for us to win... is well... "We would have won if we were playing with tech trading turned off!" Maybe... but tech-trading was on and its going to be on next game, so...do you see what I'm saying?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I call BS. They stacked the deck for Clinton. Some things should be treated as obvious.
J
Who is "they"? Anyway, your point and mine are not mutually exclusive and its BS to treat them as if they are.
This is because the "stacking of the deck" argument is fatally flawed, in the manner characteristic of Trumpspeak/Trumpthink (contradictory positions) that @Gori the Grey has so eloquently outlined. Trump won not Hillary, so either Trump was the beneficiary of "deck stacking" too, which cancelled Hillary's "stacked deck" out... or (and) Trump was able to beat her in spite of the "stacked deck"... which completely contradicts the idea that Bernie lost because of the "stacked deck". If Trump beat her "stacked deck", why couldn't Bernie? It's either that there is no "stacked deck", there's just "politics"... or the "stacked deck" is ineffectual and thus, no excuse for Bernie's loss.
Last edited:
VicRatlhead5199
King
"They" are the DNC heads and the media that cooperated with them. "They" wanted Trump to run against Hillary so they gave him millions of dollars worth of free publicity by showing Trump's empty podium rather that good candidates talking actual policy. "They" thought Trump would be the easiest to beat. Republicans don't have the "failsafe" super delegate system the Dems do that allows them to prop up their choice over the people's. "They" have a primary schedule that runs in red states first which gives an early lead to a centrist like Hillary. "They" were caught leaking debate questions to the favored candidate and spreading false stories about "violent Bernie Bros." I hate sounding like a paranoid right-wing nutter but the machinations of the powerful were and are increasingly transparent in the DNC and the media.
At any rate, regardless of all that stuff, 2016 and 2020 are entirely different animals. In 2015 only a small minority of voters even knew Bernie Sanders' name. In 2019 everyone not living under a rock knows his name and what he stands for. Now he actually has the name recognition. He also has something that Trump pretended to have, actual populism coupled with legit freedom from corporate influence. That's the thing that will pull independents and even some Republicans because people are sick of that. Put him against Trump or even Pence who've proven to be very visably corrupt and its a stroll to victory
At any rate, regardless of all that stuff, 2016 and 2020 are entirely different animals. In 2015 only a small minority of voters even knew Bernie Sanders' name. In 2019 everyone not living under a rock knows his name and what he stands for. Now he actually has the name recognition. He also has something that Trump pretended to have, actual populism coupled with legit freedom from corporate influence. That's the thing that will pull independents and even some Republicans because people are sick of that. Put him against Trump or even Pence who've proven to be very visably corrupt and its a stroll to victory
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Please. The DNC at the behest of Clinton machine. Everything was stacked to prevent a repeat of Obama's 2008 charge. Forget Trump. The DNC did not have the same degree of control.
J
I know who your "they" is. You already spelled it out clearly and concisely and we were discussing it in detail. I was asking who J's "they" is, because I've heard the "I didn't say XYZ, someone else did" used as a defense enough times to know that his "they" may or may not be the same as yours, and the only way to know for sure is to hear it straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.
As for your main point, it seems like you are conceding that Bernie lacked the name recognition to win in 2016, regardless of the other factors. That's why you're calling 2020 an "entirely different animal". Because if name recognition was just one minor factor of many, then name recognition alone wouldn't make it "an entirely different animal", right? If I am understanding you correctly... It seems like you are saying that Bernie will beat Trump (or Pence) if he runs in 2020, because he will have the name recognition he lacked in 2016. Is that right? The other virtues you pointed to are things he already had in 2016 and they did not propel him to victory, so the only new factor in his favor is the name recognition, and it seems like you're thinking that will be enough. If so, I have to disagree. Bernie will never have more name recognition than Trump. Frankly, I actually think it would be just as hard for him to beat Pence as Trump, because against Pence, he is the Washington insider that represents the past, he's also older, and looks alot older than Pence, so I think Pence beats Bernie in 2020, assuming Bernie could win the primary.
But I am also skeptical that Bernie could even make it past the primary, let alone win in the general. The primary presents another YUGE problem for Bernie. In 2016, as you say, Hillary was the chosen candidate. But what you overlook, is that Bernie was the chosen opponent. He made a deal with the DNC to join the party in order to be Hillary's main foil. She desperately needed a passable opponent to counter the "coronation" dynamic, but no Democrat of any consequence wanted to run this cycle, since everyone knew it was Hillary's "turn". So the DNC had to look outside the party to get her a patsy who would put up an actual fight. That's where Bernie came in. In 2020, that dynamic will be gone and the field will be flooded with younger, more attractive candidates that Bernie has little hope of defeating, regardless of name recognition.
This just makes my point more concisely. You're saying that for you "they" is the DNC and the Clintons and that they conspired to defeat Bernie, but they didn't have the same control over the general that they had over the primary, so they couldn't use their power to defeat Trump...Fine... But that means that they wouldn't have had enough control to defeat Trump if Bernie had won either. If they didn't have the power to manufacture a Hillary win, they certainly didn't have the power to manufacture a Bernie win. And I'm skeptical that the few votes Bernie possibly gains from college kids and conservative-leaning white males, cancels out the lost votes from disinterested black voters and anti-socialist older voters. I'd speculate it was probably a wash. So either way... Trump wins the general.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Give it up. Clinton could have beaten Sanders on a level field, but they put in a big tilt at the 2012 convention, when they wrote the rule. All the big money and endorsements were gone. The Superdelegates were gone. Everything was stacked to give Clinton an easy win. Bernie didn't get the memo.
J
J
Narz
keeping it real
Superbowl is a fair fight. Bernie had the system, multiple systems, rigged against him.
That said, he shouldn't run in 2020, he's too old
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Charlie Sheen 2020 Make America Awesome Again
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Legal weed I can get behind. Just make it subject to smoking rules I hat the smell of the stuff.Charlie Sheen 2020 Make America Awesome Again
J
danjuno
Cole Phelps, Badge 1247
Age alone is not a problem. However, he has picked up some baggage since last time that would make things more difficult. The bench for progressive democrats is small though. Keith Ellison is great, but his religion will almost certainly drive turnout for Trump's base. Tulsi Gabbard is also a solid progressive, but she met with the guy the Military-Industrial Complex arbitrarily decided was the worse of two evils, so now the establishment shills want her head on a pike. Jeff Merkely doesn't seem like to type to seek something out in front like the Oval Office.
Last edited:
Give what up? The bolded completely undermines any argument that the "deck stacking" had any impact on the result of the election. So once again, you've made my point.
And why would Bernie, a non-Democrat, "get the memo" from the Democratic National Committee? We've been through this already... your argument has more holes than a colander.
Going back to the point of the thread... 2020... As others have said, he's too old for 2020, and he has additional baggage... the albatross of losing in such a high profile manner is often a tough stigma to shake, even for the younger candidates.
Lexicus
Deity
I hope you're right about this.
