• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Things Have Been Different If Bernie Was The Nominee?

RetiredUSN said:
Nothing in the ACA did anything to improve the situation either.

It only provided a BS insurance where a good many of users couldn't afford the co-pays.

So, if that is your argument, then I don't know what to tell you. The system sucks............and I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Was Sanders a fan of the ACA? I don't know what his specific policies were, I'm just talking generally. The situation really isn't about "earning" something, but whether and how essential services are made available to society: Monopolization by profit-driven entities isn't the only approach, and introducing public components to the system (in whatever form) paid for by tax dollars isn't the same thing as handing out freebies.
 
Geoist said:
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was the kicker.


Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
Click to expand...

Nationwide favourability polls as one of the most reliable predictors of electoral performance would have seen him with a substantial lead over Trump, so yes:

Bernie Sanders Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster

Hillary Clinton Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster (Hillary for contrast/comparison)

Donald Trump Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster

We told the Hillarites that they were sacrificing the Dem party's best chance at taking the White House; that their baseless claims about such a controversial, unpopular, politically damaged candidate being the more electable choice were completely absurd. In the end, it seems that we were almost certainly right.

All that shameless skullduggery, corruption and nepotism undermining a good man like Bernie only to lose to a raging dumpster fire. Was it worth it you neoliberal 'third way' failures?
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
Bernie would have beaten Trump. Crazy Bernie would have been President if he had only done what Trump did, believed in himself and jumped in with the intent to win.

But he didn't.

So now he is a loser.
Click to expand...
No way, if Bernie was running as the dem candidate Trump would have won by a landslide.
 
PoS said:
No way, if Bernie was running as the dem candidate Trump would have won by a landslide.
Click to expand...

Bernie would have lost to Rubio or JEB!, but Trump was the perfect matchup for him. Trump and Sanders both said so and they are both right.
 
Mithrae said:
Was Sanders a fan of the ACA? I don't know what his specific policies were, I'm just talking generally. The situation really isn't about "earning" something, but whether and how essential services are made available to society: Monopolization by profit-driven entities isn't the only approach, and introducing public components to the system (in whatever form) paid for by tax dollars isn't the same thing as handing out freebies.
Click to expand...

Free college?

Forgiving loans for the idiots who majored in useless degrees?

That was why Bernie was popular with the young....................free stuff.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Free college?

Forgiving loans for the idiots who majored in useless degrees?

That was why Bernie was popular with the young....................free stuff.
Click to expand...

And really, it's a cover for failed policy anyway. The government getting involved in student loans already pushed college costs up.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Bernie would have lost to Rubio or JEB!, but Trump was the perfect matchup for him. Trump and Sanders both said so and they are both right.
Click to expand...

The only people Bernie had on his side were the hipsters, millenials and the socialists, Trump would have trounced him.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Free college?

Forgiving loans for the idiots who majored in useless degrees?

That was why Bernie was popular with the young....................free stuff.
Click to expand...

He was popular because he was an outsider saying stuff that people wanted to hear, same as Trump. Young people generally were not fans of the second Bush presidency, and they (and as it turns out, most Americans) had little reason to desire a second Clinton administration either. No doubt looking at crushing debt for higher education was one of Sanders' selling points, but it's not exactly free stuff when it's being paid for in a lifetime of taxes. And as I've mentioned, in theory at least it is beneficial to society in general that quality education is available to those willing to apply themselves to it. Whether and how much individuals should contribute up front for the benefits they personally receive from education is debatable, but some degree of public involvement is a lot more sensible than complaining in a few decades about unemployment, full jails and all the high-end jobs and scholarship being done overseas.
 
Mithrae said:
He was popular because he was an outsider saying stuff that people wanted to hear, same as Trump. Young people generally were not fans of the second Bush presidency, and they (and as it turns out, most Americans) had little reason to desire a second Clinton administration either. No doubt looking at crushing debt for higher education was one of Sanders' selling points, but it's not exactly free stuff when it's being paid for in a lifetime of taxes. And as I've mentioned, in theory at least it is beneficial to society in general that quality education is available to those willing to apply themselves to it. Whether and how much individuals should contribute up front for the benefits they personally receive from education is debatable, but some degree of public involvement is a lot more sensible than complaining in a few decades about unemployment, full jails and all the high-end jobs and scholarship being done overseas.
Click to expand...

He was popular with millennials and Gen X'rs

68%

The free stuff crowd.

Bernie's pie in the sky promises were not affordable to begin with.
 
Bernie wasn't the nominee so why waste time on him?

This chapter is finished,let's move on and keep our fingers crossed.
 
RetiredUSN said:
He was popular with millennials and Gen X'rs

68%

The free stuff crowd.
Click to expand...

There've been enough millennial-bashing threads on the forum that I really shouldn't have to point out what an unsubstantiated generalization that is ;) Maybe it depends on how you look at it: Baby boomers in America reaped all the benefits of being the biggest and least-damaged economy coming out of WW2 and the global political and economic systems set up to maintain US interests - would you say that qualifies them as a "free stuff crowd"? Granted, millennials have been subjected to even more intense brainwashing into extrinsic values of consumerism and image, so there's plenty of me-me-me in that generation too. But on the other hand, they are inheriting not only an economy still staggering out of arguably the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression (with many predicting another, potentially bigger crash on the horizon), but dramatically depleted global ecosystems and unpleasant, perhaps even severe consequences of global climate change unfolding over the century. Maybe they deserve a bit of a break? :lol:

RetiredUSN said:
Bernie's pie in the sky promises were not affordable to begin with.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but from what little I've gathered his policies in the primaries were no more nebulous or impractical than Trump's were (and to hear some tell it, still are). Fortunately (or not) you've got a Congress to represent the interests of the status quo against overly idealist presidents, but there's every possibility that Sanders' policies would have matured over time in any case.

Meanwhile, his faults and scandals were far less numerous and obvious than either Clinton or Trump, and for all his bluster even the billionaire couldn't realistically have as much "non-establishment" credibility as the longtime independent 'socialist' Sanders. I reckon he probably would have won it.
 
Last edited:
From what I saw, there was no stopping the whitelash. Thats the backlash white people tired of perceived minority pandering from the dems, otherwise they would have taken the senate. Bernie would have lost.
 
Mithrae said:
Odds are he would have won. Shame he didn't run as an independent.
Click to expand...

he very well may have won. shame he wasn't allowed to run as a Democrat.
 
Mithrae said:
There've been enough millennial-bashing threads on the forum that I really shouldn't have to point out what an unsubstantiated generalization that is ;) Maybe it depends on how you look at it: Baby boomers in America reaped all the benefits of being the biggest and least-damaged economy coming out of WW2 and the global political and economic systems set up to maintain US interests - would you say that qualifies them as a "free stuff crowd"? Granted, millennials have been subjected to even more intense brainwashing into extrinsic values of consumerism and image, so there's plenty of me-me-me in that generation too. But on the other hand, they are inheriting not only an economy still staggering out of arguably the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression (with many predicting another, potentially bigger crash on the horizon), but dramatically depleted global ecosystems and unpleasant, perhaps even severe consequences of global climate change unfolding over the century. Maybe they deserve a bit of a break? :lol:



Possibly, but from what little I've gathered his policies in the primaries were no more nebulous or impractical than Trump's were (and to hear some tell it, still are). Fortunately (or not) you've got a Congress to represent the interests of the status quo against overly idealist presidents, but there's every possibility that Sanders' policies would have matured over time in any case.

Meanwhile, his faults and scandals were far less numerous and obvious than either Clinton or Trump, and for all his bluster even the billionaire couldn't realistically have as much "non-establishment" credibility as the longtime independent 'socialist' Sanders. I reckon he probably would have won it.
Click to expand...

Believe what you like, but grown up democrats saw Bernie for what he was. A guy who couldn't keep a job all through his life until he somehow weaseled his way into politics.
 
Mithrae said:
There've been enough millennial-bashing threads on the forum that I really shouldn't have to point out what an unsubstantiated generalization that is ;) Maybe it depends on how you look at it: Baby boomers in America reaped all the benefits of being the biggest and least-damaged economy coming out of WW2 and the global political and economic systems set up to maintain US interests - would you say that qualifies them as a "free stuff crowd"? Granted, millennials have been subjected to even more intense brainwashing into extrinsic values of consumerism and image, so there's plenty of me-me-me in that generation too. But on the other hand, they are inheriting not only an economy still staggering out of arguably the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression (with many predicting another, potentially bigger crash on the horizon), but dramatically depleted global ecosystems and unpleasant, perhaps even severe consequences of global climate change unfolding over the century. Maybe they deserve a bit of a break? :lol:



Possibly, but his policies in the primaries were no more nebulous than Trump's were (and to hear some tell it, still are). Fortunately (or not) you've got a Congress to represent the interests of the status quo against overly idealist presidents, but there's every possibility that Sanders' policies would have matured over time in any case.

Meanwhile, his faults and scandals were far less numerous and obvious than either Clinton or Trump, and for all his bluster even the billionaire couldn't realistically have as much "non-establishment" credibility as the longtime independent 'socialist' Sanders. I reckon he probably would have won it.
Click to expand...

Thank you, as a millennial thats held a job since I was sixteen, and although at one time qualified for food stamps I didn't take them because I believed myself to able bodied. I find myself constantly having to defend my generation from one that has to have our help turning on a computer or setting up a ringtone. And think because we focus our energies on less conventional things, we are lesser. No, the world is changing, we are adapting. That's all it is.
 
Geoist said:
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was the kicker.


Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
Click to expand...

I think the Democratic voters would have turned out in far greater numbers, and he very possibly would have won.
 
Hypothetical said:
he very well may have won. shame he wasn't allowed to run as a Democrat.
Click to expand...

This is probably my favorite post today. I'm going to guess some people won't get it at first, but what you said here sums up the election in spades.
 
There is no question. Sanders would have won. He would have neutralized Trump's outsider appeal, and exposed him as a fraud, by putting him up against an actual populist, as opposed to a racist demagogue. Clinton is the second, rather, make that the most reviled politician in America. Sanders is now the most popular politician in America. Countless times during the primary, I told the Hillary boosters that they were whistling past the graveyard, that Clinton was, as I often put it, 'shockingly vulnerable.' It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I told you so.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Thank you, as a millennial thats held a job since I was sixteen, and although at one time qualified for food stamps I didn't take them because I believed myself to able bodied. I find myself constantly having to defend my generation from one that has to have our help turning on a computer or setting up a ringtone. And think because we focus our energies on less conventional things, we are lesser. No, the world is changing, we are adapting. That's all it is.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your generation dropped the ball.
 
Sanders would have defeated Trump easily.



Think about the debates. Sanders would have handled him like a teacher handles a child.
 
RetiredUSN said:
People didn't have the sense of entitlement back then, as many do today.

FDR was the right man for the times.
Click to expand...

If more people have a sense of entitlement today, then Bernie may have done far better than Hillary. Bernie was promising far more free **** than Hillary ever did.

I'm not sure that I understand your logic in thinking that Bernie would have done worse because people feel entitled today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom