Bernie 2024 rumors

[beancounter]

BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE!

 

[Surrealistik]

Enough numbers that it cost Bernie the primaries both times.

Well, let's be realistic on what happened the second time round; conservative Dems absolutely lost their shit in a full on panic when they saw the polling going in to ST, and scrambled to get Klob and Pete behind Biden at the literal last second (the latter being bribed with a cabinet position he had no qualifications for), knowing that the winner of ST would probably take the rest of the primary on the basis of momentum; they were right. Biden won ST by less than the total delegates Klob and Pete were expected to win, and the rest was history.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, let's be realistic on what happened the second time round; conservative Dems absolutely lost their shit in a full on panic when they saw the polling going in to ST, and scrambled to get Klob and Pete behind Biden at the literal last second (the latter being bribed with a cabinet position he had no qualifications for), knowing that the winner of ST would probably take the rest of the primary on the basis of momentum; they were right. Biden won ST by less than the total delegates Klob and Pete were expected to win, and the rest was history.

ST ???

 

[Surrealistik]

ST ???

Super Tuesday.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

McConnell’s been spewing this the whole century!!

If so, it is one of the few truths that he’s told.

How many House seats are in play in your VA?

All of them. Same as every other state.

 

[Mithrae]

The ideology of the voting majority is center right.

It's an understandable if naive tendency for people to think that standing between the two parties - in this case, between the center-right Democrats and far-right Republicans - automatically makes them 'moderates' or 'centrists.' Even more depressing is the tendency in a two-party system for the more moderate party to assume (with some justification) that they can optimize by being the slightly 'lesser evil' to left-leaning voters while courting the pseudo-centrists by remaining scarcely distinguishable from the far-right party on the most important issues... thereby perpetuating the rightward shift already enhanced by lax lobbying and brib donation laws.

The far left are as deluded as the far right.

Far anything is likely to be deluded more or less by definition, but as far as I can tell the policies of folk like Sanders, Warren etc. are obviously not socialist/far left by any stretch of the imagination. They're not even center-left, not even major overhauls of capitalism like a hard cap on total wealth or even a return to Eisenhower-era top marginal rates. They seem like very mild tweaks to the capitalist system, some extra bread (healthcare/college) for the poorest and rather mild tax hikes on the richest to pay for them.

Regardless of whether or not he wins, and even regardless of whether they are the best possible ideas, it's good for someone like Sanders to gain prominence promoting genuinely centrist policies; trying to normalize actually moderate ideas rather than letting 'normal' be perpetually defined as slightly more moderate than the increasingly far right.

A downside to Sanders is that his personal inclinations seem to be democratic socialist/far left, even though his policy proposals are social democrat/centrist, which heavily dilutes and in some ways counteracts the potential for perspective adjustment. I suspect that @Elmo has it right, and the aging Sanders should find a promising younger candidate with similar centrist or even center-left policies to throw his weight behind... one who won't describe themselves as a socialist.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It's an understandable if naive tendency for people to think that standing between the two parties - in this case, between the center-right Democrats and far-right Republicans - automatically makes them 'moderates' or 'centrists.'

Being in an ideological position between our two main parties is, by definition, “centrist” or “moderate”.

It is ignorant to assert otherwise.

Even more depressing is the tendency in a two-party system for the more moderate party to assume (with some justification) that they can optimize by being the slightly 'lesser evil' to left-leaning voters while courting the pseudo-centrists by remaining scarcely distinguishable from the far-right party on the most important issues... thereby perpetuating the rightward shift already enhanced by lax lobbying and brib donation laws.

Playing to the middle in American politics, where the majority of voters are, has historically been the winning strategy for candidates.

Far anything is likely to be deluded more or less by definition, but as far as I can tell the policies of folk like Sanders, Warren etc. are obviously not socialist/far left by any stretch of the imagination.

You’re making the mistake of viewing Sanders, and Warren to a lesser extent, based on your own country’s standards, which are quite a bit more liberal on social issues.

By our standards, both are irrefutably far left. Sanders even declaring himself to be a socialist.

They seem like very mild tweaks to the capitalist system, some extra bread (healthcare/college) for the poorest and rather mild tax hikes on the richest to pay for them.

You misjudge the general resistance from the right against any new proposed social program in American politics, and greatly misjudge the mountains of resistance and bureaucracy that would have to be overcome to change cost/funding of our healthcare and college systems.

Regardless of whether or not he wins, and even regardless of whether they are the best possible ideas, it's good for someone like Sanders to gain prominence promoting genuinely centrist policies; trying to normalize actually moderate ideas rather than letting 'normal' be perpetually defined as slightly more moderate than the increasingly far right.

A downside to Sanders is that his personal inclinations seem to be democratic socialist/far left, even though his policy proposals are social democrat/centrist, which heavily dilutes and in some ways counteracts the potential for perspective adjustment. I suspect that @Elmo has it right, and the aging Sanders should find a promising younger candidate with similar centrist or even center-left policies to throw his weight behind... one who won't describe themselves as a socialist.

Sanders’ rhetoric can be viewed as beneficial to left wing causes because he challenges the status quo. Many of his ideas have zero chance of becoming reality in the foreseeable future though.

And as for another Sanders run for president is concerned, it would be the best chance for Republicans to take back the White House.

 

[Mithrae]

Being in an ideological position between our two main parties is, by definition, “centrist” or “moderate”.

It is ignorant to assert otherwise.

If we wanted to suppose that a hard left ideology (but not far left) in Stalin's USSR and a hard right ideology in Mussolini's Italy were somehow both moderate, centrist ideologies, sure. But IMO such extreme relativism doesn't seem very useful for any purpose besides normalizing, well, the extreme views which are just a little bit beyond the arbitrarily-determined 'moderate' ones. An approach based on the actual continuum of political views - rather than just those hoping to maintain a transient ascendency - is obviously a more useful and more importantly objective perspective.

Playing to the middle in American politics, where the majority of voters are, has historically been the winning strategy for candidates.

Of course, and you can see how - if there is a broader left- or right-ward influence overall, such as lax lobbying/donation laws - that inevitable political pull towards the pseudo-centrists greatly undermines any anchoring effect that more moderate politics might otherwise have had. The slightly more moderate party is consistently pulled to the right courting the pseudo-centrists, just as the pseudo-centrists are consistently pulled to the right following the right-wing party.

You’re making the mistake of viewing Sanders, and Warren to a lesser extent, based on your own country’s standards, which are quite a bit more liberal on social issues.

By our standards, both are irrefutably far left. Sanders even declaring himself to be a socialist.

We're not really; marijuana is still illegal pretty much everywhere here, gay marriage was only widely legalized sometime after the US SC decision if memory serves, anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies are just as common and vicious. Liberal isn't the same as left-wing in any case, though they go together for many folk. I gather most Democrat politicians could be considered center-right liberals.

Liberal/conservative wedge issues, while they have some significance, are really quite trivial compared with the big left/right issues of staggering concentration of wealth and power, climate breakdown, corporate externalizing of environmental and human costs, over-exploitation of both 'renewable' ecosystems and non-renewable resources, and the inherent contradiction of an economic system demanding infinite growth on a finite planet. As I said, no doubt Sanders personally wants to see socialism democratically instituted in America as a response to some of these issues, but his actual policies obviously are not socialist; inasmuch as he and others compare them to the social democracies of Scandinavia, they are fairly tepid centrist policies at most.

 

[Winston]

And as for another Sanders run for president is concerned, it would be the best chance for Republicans to take back the White House.

We have very little data on this. And the data we do have indicates Sanders winning with Independents over Trump. Which tips the election in a head to head matchup in his favor.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the Republicans have no problem going as far right as they want. Abortion bans. Christian extremist ideology and touting Trump’s big lie. And they don’t have a problem winning elections.

Most voters really don’t care about moderate or not. They aren’t into politics like political junkies are. Most people vote based on if they like what they hear regardless of how “far left” or “far right” anyone is.

 

[Mithrae]

Liberal/conservative wedge issues, while they have some significance, are really quite trivial compared with the big left/right issues of staggering concentration of wealth and power, climate breakdown, corporate externalizing of environmental and human costs, over-exploitation of both 'renewable' ecosystems and non-renewable resources, and the inherent contradiction of an economic system demanding infinite growth on a finite planet.

Accidentally hit post far too soon, and missed the window for a final edit. Wanted to add:
I'm not sure it's possible to understand American politics of recent decades (not that I'm an expert) without recognizing the role of increasing polarization and shrillness over these 'authorized' social wedge issues, serving as a necessary distraction from the far more important issues (and in many cases, causative of those social issues) facing Americans, future generations, and humanity as a whole.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

We have very little data on this. And the data we do have indicates Sanders winning with Independents over Trump. Which tips the election in a head to head matchup in his favor.

Not sure what data you’re referring to, but I don’t doubt that many Independents would choose Sanders over Trump.

Question is, by what margin? And would those votes have been enough to put Sanders over the top in a face off with Trump? Personally, I doubt it.

Biden trounced Sanders in the primaries largely because voters recognized that Biden had a much better chance of defeating Trump.

A representative view expressed in numerous polls; “Among Biden voters, 57% say they are happy that their choice won, but even more (73%) are happy that Trump lost.”

More Americans Happy About Trump Loss Than Biden Win | Monmouth University Polling Institute

Most confident that election was fair

www.monmouth.edu

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the Republicans have no problem going as far right as they want. Abortion bans. Christian extremist ideology and touting Trump’s big lie. And they don’t have a problem winning elections.

I see it, too. Far right wingers are currently winning in greater numbers than in previous years.

Most voters really don’t care about moderate or not. They aren’t into politics like political junkies are. Most people vote based on if they like what they hear regardless of how “far left” or “far right” anyone is.

Yep, a sad truth.

 

[KevinKohler]

Sanders is the only potential candidate who can bring fresh ideas? Literally the only one?

So far as I've seen...yes.

Hillary = more of the same.
Biden = more of the same.
Trump = Eh...not more of the same, but...not fresh, either.

 

[Perotista]

Bernie, since his campaign in 2016 has been the obvious choice for a candidate. He has the correct policy platform to face the world as we know it today. And he has the credibility to show he’s not just paying lip service to transforming DC and our politics. Bernie is the real deal. Trump was never serious about changing things. He was a fraud. Trump’s politics were an odd melange of conflicting ideologies anyway. And he never meant what he said about fighting corruption. Bernie did and he would. If he runs again he’ll have my full support for the third time.

Sanders will be 83 in 2024. It’s time to go looking for a fresh, younger face for the Democratic nomination. It’s time to pass the torch to a much younger generation.

 

[Craig234]

Enough numbers that it cost Bernie the primaries both times.

Wait a second, we're talking about people who would vote FOR Bernie in the primaries. If their numbers were large he'd have won.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Look, folks like Ojeda, Fetterman, and many more, are capable of connecting with progressive ideas just fine.
Bernie is not the original progressive nor is he the only one, and he's not even necessarily the most popular one.
And we're seeing conservatives right here saying that, aside from some of his edgier ideas, they like most of what he has to say.

Conserv-A-Dems? You mean like Manchin and Sinema? Yeah, they lose their shit about a paper clip if it helps Dems.
Seriously, bring in a more accessible and pragmatic person

Wait a second, we're talking about people who would vote FOR Bernie in the primaries. If their numbers were large he'd have won.

Not disputing that, I'm saying that Bernie's numbers looked good going in but when the primaries happened, a lot of folks
who were expected to be Bernie voters simply did not show up.
And AFTER the primaries, a lot of folks who would vote for him either sat out the election, or wrote him in anyway, and SOME
(not an insignificant amount) even voted for Trump in a fit of pique.

 

[Craig234]

Not disputing that, I'm saying that Bernie's numbers looked good going in but when the primaries happened, a lot of folks
who were expected to be Bernie voters simply did not show up.
And AFTER the primaries, a lot of folks who would vote for him either sat out the election, or wrote him in anyway, and SOME
(not an insignificant amount) even voted for Trump in a fit of pique.

I agree with the first part, but you were arguing there were a large number of them by pointing out he lost, which is an argument the other way.

Again, what's your basis for claims like a 'not insignificant number' of *left* supporters who voted for trump? As I explained before, Bernie attracted some people who would normally never vote for a Democrat, but they're not who we're talking about. You didn't respond to my previous post which went into this in a little more detail.