Democrats, do you have any better reason to oppose Bernie's nomination than fear about him winning?

[NolanVoyd]

Ya, Clinton's crime bill, good policy! Clinton's telecommunications act, good policy! Clinton's repealing of banking regulation, good policy! Clintons destruction of the welfare system, good policy! Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill, good policy! Leaving nearly all of the Republican tax cuts for the rich in place, good policy!

I could post a long list where Hillary's policies fell short of Bernie's for the country. Republican-lite is much better than Republican, but it still has the country becoming an oligarchy.



First of all, no it's not. *If* electing a person with bad Republican policies was the 'most electable', that's not the best way to get good policies. But that's not the case. You ignored the evidence on who was 'most electable', as the evidence pointed to Bernie doing better than Hillary or Biden, yet Democrats opposed the best policies and who the evidence suggested was most electable, to irrationally say someone else was.



Obviously you think that, that's the point of the thread, how you oppose the best policies based on that fear. Of course we know for a fact that your 'electable' candidate, Hillary, LOST. And Biden nearly did. What we have is you baselessly having that opinion. That's the point, and it prevents the country getting to have good Democratic policies. It's not guaranteed Bernie would win, but you have no solid based he wouldn't.



Heck of an argument after Hillary's loss. That's approaching traitor trump ignoring the results level of irrational. Let's see, Bernie doing better in polls BEFORE the boost a campaign when he was nominated would give him, getting twice as many independents who have more voters than Democrats, unelectable! Congrats to President Hillary, the electable.

Whose fault do you think it is that the majority of Americans that vote in Democratic primaries don't think Bernie Sanders is electable?

 

[Bucky]

I can't take your post seriously enough to read after that absurdity. It's as bad as the traitor trump cult posting.

 

[Craig234]

we do have good democratic policies.

No, we don't, and I'm not going to retype ten examples of not having them because you refuse to read.

Biden is a good democrat.

Surprisingly better than expected, but still falls short in some areas, and the other 'centrist' Democrats are much worse - Republican-lite. Progressives better support Democratic values and better policies.

if young people want the candidates they like best they need to come out and vote in much higher numbers in every election, not just presidential elections, and only if their first choice wins the prinary - they are an unreliable voting block.

You're making my point. You think, 'we should give young voters Republican-lite choices and they should turn out in high numbers to vote for them'. Instead of, 'we should give young voters better choices, which would increase their turnout'.

Independent voters were far more comfortable with Biden.

Bernie got two independent voters for every one independent Hillary got. "Bernie outperforms Biden with... self-described independent voters", and Bernie performed better against traitor trump than any other candidate, including Biden, in the 2020 primary:

Why Bernie Sanders Is Electable, Too

A new Morning Consult poll tracking the strength of the top Democratic contenders against President Trump in hypothetical matchups found Bernie Sanders performs better than his rivals, including front-runner Joe Biden, with groups viewed as key to beating the unpopular incumbent.

morningconsult.com

 

[Craig234]

Whose fault do you think it is that the majority of Americans that vote in Democratic primaries don't think Bernie Sanders is electable?

The issue is less whose fault it is, than that they're wrong to oppose the Democratic policies the country needs by voting on an irrational fear of Bernie being elected. As for blame, there's plenty to go around - human nature, ignorance, Bernie, the Democratic Party, corrupt Democratic donors who don't want good policies, the media, for some. But that's secondary to understanding the problem exists.

 

[Galactic Spin]

The issue is less whose fault it is, than that they're wrong to oppose the Democratic policies the country needs by voting on an irrational fear of Bernie being elected. As for blame, there's plenty to go around - human nature, ignorance, Bernie, the Democratic Party, corrupt Democratic donors who don't want good policies, the media, for some. But that's secondary to understanding the problem exists.

The issue is that this is 'Murrica! and Bernie is too vulnerable to the "S word". Simple as that.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No, we don't, and I'm not going to retype ten examples of not having them because you refuse to read.

Yes we do.

And I do not "refuse to read".

Lie about me and this conversation is over.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The issue is less whose fault it is,

its Bernie's fault that he hasnt convinced the majority of people that vote in democratic primaries that he is electable.

than that they're wrong to oppose the Democratic policies the country needs by voting on an irrational fear of Bernie being elected.

The fear is not irrational. It is the epitome of rational thinking.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Ya, Clinton's crime bill, good policy! Clinton's telecommunications act, good policy! Clinton's repealing of banking regulation, good policy! Clintons destruction of the welfare system, good policy! Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill, good policy! Leaving nearly all of the Republican tax cuts for the rich in place, good policy!

I could post a long list where Hillary's policies fell short of Bernie's for the country. Republican-lite is much better than Republican, but it still has the country becoming an oligarchy.



First of all, no it's not. *If* electing a person with bad Republican policies was the 'most electable', that's not the best way to get good policies. But that's not the case. You ignored the evidence on who was 'most electable', as the evidence pointed to Bernie doing better than Hillary or Biden, yet Democrats opposed the best policies and who the evidence suggested was most electable, to irrationally say someone else was.



Obviously you think that, that's the point of the thread, how you oppose the best policies based on that fear. Of course we know for a fact that your 'electable' candidate, Hillary, LOST. And Biden nearly did. What we have is you baselessly having that opinion. That's the point, and it prevents the country getting to have good Democratic policies. It's not guaranteed Bernie would win, but you have no solid based he wouldn't.



Heck of an argument after Hillary's loss. That's approaching traitor trump ignoring the results level of irrational. Let's see, Bernie doing better in polls BEFORE the boost a campaign when he was nominated would give him, getting twice as many independents who have more voters than Democrats, unelectable! Congrats to President Hillary, the electable.

You are making a shitload of assumptions here.

Historically and statistically, Bernie is gonna get killed in the Midwest and the South. CA and NY aren't enough for him to win a general election. I live in CO, and I can tell you that from what I remember hearing around town in the run up to the 2016 election, Bernie didn't have a chance in hell of winning the state, even though we are pretty reliably blue, save a few rural areas with Republican representation (thanks District 3 for Hillbilly Barbie).

I think the most baffling part about his campaigns is his desire to be called a socialist, democratic or otherwise. That word turns off A LOT of people, and A LOT of those people vote.

Oh, and his largest support block is also the least reliable voting block in the country when it comes to primaries, thus making it hard for him to get the nomination in the first place. Were his biggest backers reliable, he might actually be able to make the case for getting the nod....alas, they seem to think the only time to show up and vote is mid terms and presidential elections, and then they sit around and wonder why the guy they WANT to vote for isn't the nominee.

 

[Craig234]

Yes we do.

And I do not "refuse to read".

Lie about me and this conversation is over.

I listed many examples where centrist Democratic policies are Republican-lite or even worse policies. You ignored all of them to repeat the false statement that we have the good policies Bernie and progressives offer, ignoring the list I posted. That's not lying about you. You're welcome to not participate, but won't get away with that as an excuse.

 

[Craig234]

its Bernie's fault that he hasnt convinced the majority of people that vote in democratic primaries that he is electable.

Your commentary is a joke. It's almost as bad as arguing the election wasn't stolen with traitor trump supporters. I listed Bernie as one of many factors - you ignore all the rest that are far more to blame. It's like talking to a wall.

The fear is not irrational. It is the epitome of rational thinking.

Person with irrational thinking says it's rational. Got it. Ya, ending this 'discussion' seems best.

 

[Craig234]

The issue is that this is 'Murrica! and Bernie is too vulnerable to the "S word". Simple as that.

No, it's not. He's vulnerable to *ignorant Democrats who won't support Democratic values and policies*. The evidence shows Bernie winning despite any 'S word' attacks, except that *Democrats* don't understand that and oppose him. Democrats killing the chance for Democratic policies and wins based on a baseless fear. Baseless not meaning it's guaranteed wrong, but which they have no reason to treat as a guarantee, evidence saying the opposite.

 

[Craig234]

And I do not "refuse to read".

In that very post you replied to I posted evidence that you were wrong in your claim about independents and Bernie and that Bernie was performing better than any other Democrat against traitor trump. You completely ignored that, did not respond, I'll call that "refuse to read".

 

[NolanVoyd]

I listed many examples where centrist Democratic policies are Republican-lite or even worse policies. You ignored all of them to repeat the false statement that we have the good policies Bernie and progressives offer, ignoring the list I posted. That's not lying about you. You're welcome to not participate, but won't get away with that as an excuse.

It is not a false statement that we have good democratic policies.

I ignored some of your points because they were tangential and not accurate.

Blaming Clinton for the Gramm- Leach-Bailey act for example, Gramm Leach and Bliley were the authors, all Republican, and it passed through a Repuican congress with a Repuican majority.

Of course Clinton deserves a little blame for not vetoing it, but the lions share of the blame goes to Republicans who wrote it, and passed through a Republica congress.

Putting the blame on Clinton is just silly.

You seem dismissive of the realities of governing in a country where the president isn't a king, can't just do what he wants, but must work with the congress the American people elected.

 

[Galactic Spin]

No, it's not. He's vulnerable to *ignorant Democrats who won't support Democratic values and policies*.

Nah, total fantasy. If they thought he could win, they would nominate him. But he can't win in this country. Because of the S word. Simple as that.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Proving the thread's point. We can't have good Democratic policies, Democrats demand we give Republicans lot of what they want and the country can only have Republican lite or Republican. With no idea about how a good Democrat could increase Democratic turning from the largest group - non-voters - and get independent votes - the second largest group, bigger than either party.

It's gone that way in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn A lefty rebel type added to the labour leadership candidates almost as a joke, who won in a landslide and faced a firehose of criticism, not least from the right of the party, until they unseated him after he lost the election to Johnson. The fact that his policies achieved the highest Labour vote since Blair was elected was ignored, "Because he was never electable".
New leader Starmer is almost indistinguishable from the Tory Government as he roots out leftists from the socialist party!

 

[NolanVoyd]

No, it's not. He's vulnerable to *ignorant Democrats who won't support Democratic values and policies*. The evidence shows Bernie winning despite any 'S word' attacks, except that *Democrats* don't understand that and oppose him. Democrats killing the chance for Democratic policies and wins based on a baseless fear. Baseless not meaning it's guaranteed wrong, but which they have no reason to treat as a guarantee, evidence saying the opposite.

"Ignorant democrats who won't ".....vote for your favorite choice and have the audacity to vote for the candidate they want, based on reasons they think matter.

Some advice:

If your goal is to convince people and bring them over to your way of thinking, that kind of crap leads to failure.

If your goal is to drive people away from your way of thinking you that is a great tactic.

 

[iguanaman]

The most popular politician with the most popular policies, if that's the only reason you have, isn't that surrendering to Republicans on policy? Isn't it irrational to assume that Democrats wouldn't turn out more votes than they'd lose?

There's an analogy between Democrats who sabotage by demanding a 'centrist' and Republicans who sabotage by demanding radical traitor trump candidates. If the Democrats are going to do better than Republican-lite, they'll need to get over this and support better Democrats.

Bernie failed twice to get a majority of DEMOCRATS votes so his chances in the general are not very good. He has limited appeal and a ton of embarrassing baggage that would overshadow any good ideas he has. That is the truth about Bernie and we cannot afford to lose the Whitehouse ever again.

 

[Craig234]

It is not a false statement that we have good democratic policies.

It is when good Democratic policies were defined as progressive policies. If you want to define keeping the tax cuts for the rich that have helped redistribute $50 trillion to the rich, instead of repealing them, as 'good Democratic policies', we'll disagree on what good Democratic policies are. If you want to argue we have *some* good Democratic policies but falling far short, I'll agree.

I ignored some of your points because they were tangential and not accurate.

Nothing was not accurate that I've seen and we'll disagree on the other.

Blaming Clinton for the Gramm- Leach-Bailey act for example, Gramm Leach and Bliley were the authors, all Republican, and it passed through a Repuican congress with a Repuican majority.

Of course Clinton deserves a little blame for not vetoing it, but the lions share of the blame goes to Republicans who wrote it, and passed through a Republica congress.

A little blame for not vetoing it? What a joke of a comment. Clinton's defense lawyer called to say 'you're laying it on a bit thick'. Are Republicans worse? Of course, that's been clear all along, and isn't the topic. Clinton signing that into law instead of vetoing it with many other policies shows how bad non-Progressive Democrats have been.

Putting the blame on Clinton is just silly.

NOT putting huge blame on Clinton is silly and wrong, and pretty clearly radically partisan.

You seem dismissive of the realities of governing in a country where the president isn't a king, can't just do what he wants, but must work with the congress the American people elected.

He doesn't have to be a frickin' king to exercise his veto power, to not support terrible policies. You as well are proving my point how DEMOCRATS are preventing the country from having good Democratic policies for no good reason.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Bernie failed twice to get a majority of DEMOCRATS votes so his chances in the general are not very good. He has limited appeal and a ton of embarrassing baggage that would overshadow any good ideas he has. That is the truth about Bernie and we cannot afford to lose the Whitehouse ever again.

Craig keeps balking at the simple and obvious reason.

He's wrong of course. We can actually check. We asked the primary voters "why not bernie?".

They consistently gave one of two answers:

1) A sociaist cannot beat trump.
2) I won't vote for a socialist

One example:

Not So Fast on the New Poll That Says Bernie Can Beat Trump

“Socialist” is still a problem.

slate.com

 

[Craig234]

Some advice:

Some advice back: stop being irrational, learn your errors especially when they're laid out, and stop being the enemy of the country's interests for those irrational reasons. Sugar coating that won't help you learn.

 

[NolanVoyd]

In that very post you replied to I posted evidence that you were wrong in your claim about independents and Bernie and that Bernie was performing better than any other Democrat against traitor trump. You completely ignored that, did not respond, I'll call that "refuse to read".

No I wasn't wrong.

That is my opinion and it carries just as much weight as yours.

That is how elections work, Bernie has failed to convince the majority of people that vote in democratic primaries that he is electable.

That is not my fault, nor is the fault of the majority that didn't pick him.

If he wants to win a primary he needs to convince the majority that he is electable.

So far he hasn't been able to do that.

 

[iguanaman]

Craig keeps balking at the simple and obvious reason.

He's wrong of course. We can actually check. We asked the primary voters "why not bernie?".

They consistently gave one of two answers:

1) A sociaist cannot beat trump.
2) I won't vote for a socialist

One example:

Not So Fast on the New Poll That Says Bernie Can Beat Trump

“Socialist” is still a problem.

slate.com

Not to mention that if he was nominated we would have see endless movies of his honeymoon in Moscow from the Republicans. Putin has them all ready to go I'm sure. Why do you think Trump was so desperate to get him nominated in 2020?

 

[Craig234]

Craig keeps balking at the simple and obvious reason.

He's wrong of course. We can actually check. We asked the primary voters "why not bernie?".

They consistently gave one of two answers:

1) A sociaist cannot beat trump.
2) I won't vote for a socialist

One example:

Not So Fast on the New Poll That Says Bernie Can Beat Trump

“Socialist” is still a problem.

slate.com

Your article's entire premise is a lie, that Bernie's position was that he is "a socialist". One that Bernie and the Democratic campaign would easily be able to debunk, as the country further recognized, as it already did, that they supported his policies more than anyone else's.

As your own article says, ALREADY, before a campaign addressed the issue, "The good news for Sanders is that DFP’s survey dispels the worst-case scenario. The poll could have found that if Trump were to call Sanders a socialist, most people would vote against Sanders. It didn’t. "

 

[NolanVoyd]

Some advice back: stop being irrational, learn your errors especially when they're laid out, and stop being the enemy of the country's interests for those irrational reasons. Sugar coating that won't help you learn.

I am not being irrational.

Not voting for a candidate you don't think can beat the Republican is the epitome of rational thinking.

And now you are calling me "the enemy of the country's interests" because I don't support your favorite candidate?

If you were trying to convince me you failed miserably.

Insults are not a good debate strategy.

This conversation is over.

 

[Craig234]

No I wasn't wrong.

That is my opinion and it carries just as much weight as yours.

Yes, you were.

It's a *fact* that the evidence showed Bernie was getting two independents for every one Hillary did, and that he outperformed Biden with self-described independents. I'm done wasting time on your repeated false statements.