Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh, and yes it was obvious that Bernie was cheated out of the nomination in 2016. It's pathetic for Adam to try and argue otherwise... although not really surprising though.
I've already posted a reply to Adam_Poe's argument with credible coverage of the topic but he ignores me most of the time.
Literally millions of Bernie voters voted for Trump partly because of the DNC-Pro-Hillary corruption thing. Ignoring the positions of millions of his fellow Democrats is not a good look for the Democratic Party. It is part of why I think the party is fracturing.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What SquallX means is that Sanders has never held a private sector job. He has worked for government his entire adult life. Hence, his criticism of Sanders being a millionaire, because no one should become rich working for the government.Now, you may argue that most of his wealth did not come from his government salary, and you seem suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for him to have amassed a small fortune in 10 years, but that would suggest that the current system is working quite well for him and others, so why should it be changed? Your agument in support of his circumstances is an argument against his platform.
Which brings us to Socialism. You know precisely what he means by "pro-Socialism," and while that may not be an issue for you and me, let us not pretend that it is not disqualifying for a large swath of the American electorate, whether you want to draw "Democratic Socialism" distinctions or not.
It is true that one cannot change the system by himself, which is why his legislative record matters. The best indicator of future behavior is relevant past behavior, and if he has no demonstrated success of implementing his policies as a legislator, then there is no reason to believe he will be any more successful at it as president.
On some level, you must recognize that his legislative record is indefensible, which is why you did not even attempt it. Anyone can hold correct and consistent beliefs, but correct and consistent beliefs do not make one a good or effective public servant, his actions do. Policies that are never enacted are indistinguishible from ones that do not exist. Constituents cannot live on his policy ideas, they live on his policy results.
Dammit, I can't find the upvote button! 😠
Originally posted by NewGuy01
The analogy is completely valid, you're just not treating it as an analogy for some reason. Running races are contests of speed, getting shot in the kneecaps impairs speed, that's why I chose that mechanism. Why are you acting as if I argued Bernie lost in 2016 because he was literally shot in the kneecaps? 😬In any case, you're missing the point. The fact that HRC won the race has no bearing on whether or not the race was conducted fairly. "She got more votes, therefore there was not a conspiracy?" That's absurd logic.
Because "fairness," whatever that is supposed to mean in this context, has no bearing on the number of his supporters and whether they show up to vote.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not that significant, because the top four are all polling within the margin of error.
CNN poll: Bernie Sanders surges to join Biden atop Democratic presidential pack(CNN) - Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has improved his standing in the national Democratic race for president, joining former Vice President Joe Biden in a two-person top tier above the rest of the field, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
The poll marks the first time Biden has not held a solo lead in CNN's national polling on the race.
Overall, 27% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents back Sanders, while 24% favor Biden. The margin between the two is within the poll's margin of sampling error, meaning there is no clear leader in this poll. Both, however, are significantly ahead of the rest of the field, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14% and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 11%. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lands at 5% in the poll, while Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and businessman Andrew Yang each hold 4% support. Businessman Tom Steyer has 2%. No other candidate reaches 1% support.Sanders has gained 7 points since the last CNN poll on the race in December. Since that survey, the Vermont senator has also made gains in early-state polling, including CNN's survey with the Des Moines Register in Iowa, where the first caucuses of the cycle will be held in less than two weeks.
Sanders has made gains nearly across the board, clearly pulling away from Warren among liberals (33% back Sanders, while 19% support Warren in the new poll), a group where the two had been running closely through much of the fall. Sanders has also pulled about even with Biden among voters of color (30% for Sanders, 27% for Biden).
As the campaign has taken a more negative turn, Democratic voters remain about as enthusiastic about a potential Sanders nomination as they were earlier this fall (38% say they would be enthusiastic should he win the nomination, on par with the 39% who felt that way in October), while his chief rivals have seen enthusiasm waning (enthusiasm for a Biden nomination has dipped 9 points to 34%; for Warren, it's fallen 12 points to 29%).
Sanders is also most often seen as the candidate who agrees with voters on the issues that matter most to them (30% say that's Sanders compared with 20% for Biden, 15% for Warren and 10% for Buttigieg), and as the candidate who best understands the problems facing people like you (29% name Sanders as best on that measure, 18% Biden, 17% Warren and 9% Buttigieg).
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/politics/cnn-poll-sanders-biden-january-national/index.html
That is all well and good, but another poll conducted with the same methodology and during the same window shows Biden first, Warren second, Buttigieg third, and Sanders fourth, but all within the margin of error.
With the contest so close, there is no reliable way to know who is in the lead from moment-to-moment, which is why I am more inclined to trust polls that reflect that nuance, than ones that declare distinct placements.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is all well and good, but another poll conducted with the same methodology and during the same window shows Biden first, Warren second, Buttigieg third, and Sanders fourth, but all within the margin of error.With the contest so close, there is no reliable way to know who is in the lead from moment-to-moment, which is why I am more inclined to trust polls that reflect that nuance, than ones that declare distinct placements.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
Fair enough point though. I don't consider the polls to be anything concrete, just as a measure of rising and declining interest in each candidate. The actual share of votes could be completely different, but it is exciting to see Sanders' popularity surging while just about everyone else is dropping.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Is that a national poll you're referencing, or a state poll? Closest recent poll matching the order you described is an Iowa poll.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
Fair enough point though. I don't consider the polls to be anything concrete, just as a measure of rising and declining interest in each candidate. The actual share of votes could be completely different, but it is exciting to see Sanders' popularity surging while just about everyone else is dropping.
We do not have national primaries, we have state primaries. So state-level polling is probably going to be more accurate at this stage.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We do not have national primaries, we have state primaries. So state-level polling is probably going to be more accurate at this stage.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Yes, but the more popular Sanders becomes nationally, the more it dispels the myth of him being unelectable, which could persuade someone who intends to vote for Biden out of fear of another Trump presidency to vote for Sanders in the state primaries instead.
Voters who are chiefly concerned with electability, i.e. someone who can defeat Trump, are seeking a return to normalcy. They want to turn on the television and not have to hear about what the president Tweeted today, or if he is going to start WWIII.
And that is the miscalculation of the 10–15% of Americans who sit firmly to the left where Sanders sits. Independent voters who object to the political pendulum having swung to the far-right, do not think the answer is to swing it just as far in the other direction. They want it to return to the middle, which is why center and center-left candidates are so popular.
Sanders is holding his popularity with people with whom he is already popular, but will he be able to convert considerably more conservative voters to pull the lever for him? Biden can. Buttigieg can. I do not think Sanders can.
Sanders is holding his popularity with people with whom he is already popular, but will he be able to convert considerably more conservative voters to pull the lever for him? Biden can. Buttigieg can. I do not think Sanders can.
Sanders could pick up a running mate like Tulsi Gabbard to broaden his appeal.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Voters who are chiefly concerned with electability, i.e. someone who can defeat Trump, are seeking a return to normalcy. They want to turn on the television and not have to hear about what the president Tweeted today, or if he is going to start WWIII.And that is the miscalculation of the 10–15% of Americans who sit firmly to the left where Sanders sits. Independent voters who object to the political pendulum having swung to the far-right, do not think the answer is to swing it just as far in the other direction. They want it to return to the middle, which is why center and center-left candidates are so popular.
Sanders is holding his popularity with people with whom he is already popular, but will he be able to convert considerably more conservative voters to pull the lever for him? Biden can. Buttigieg can. I do not think Sanders can.
When has Trump ever hinted a WW3? It was the weasels on the left that claimed such bullshits.
This is the problem with your side, you say shits like that, and when people calls you out, you try to turning around by name calling.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
He said his VP pick would be a progressive woman of color. While that doesn't rule Tulsi out, I think he has Nina Turner in mind.
He needs to choose someone who is healthy and will be an effective PotUS that represents his platform because he has a significant chance of kicking the bucket while in office, if he wins.
Originally posted by dadudemon
He needs to choose someone who is healthy and will be an effective PotUS that represents his platform because he has a significant chance of kicking the bucket while in office, if he wins.
I think Tulsi would be a bad choice, considering how divisive she's been this past year.