You can vote for him in the primaries, and just switch to supporting Hillary if he doesn't get the nomination. Better Hillary than literally any of the republican candidates.
I don't see him winning the primary, but I don't see why he wouldn't be able to beat a Republican.
I see it more of a crap shot depending on who he runs against, BUT the big issue is with someone like Trump/Carson/Cruz you are literally rolling the dice and I think with someone like Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Christie you are giving the D's a further disadvantage that they will already have going into the 2016 election (mainly that we tend to not elect a president from the same party as the one before). If Foreign Policy starts to become an even larger chuck of the national conversation and the economy continues it's strengthening... sorta plays against Bernie's strengths...
I don't see him winning the primary, but I don't see why he wouldn't be able to beat a Republican.
I see it more of a crap shot depending on who he runs against, BUT the big issue is with someone like Trump/Carson/Cruz you are literally rolling the dice [...]
I don't find that point especially convincing. In fact, it may well be the case that Sanders is actually a less risky proposition against Carson or Trump, because he can compete with Trump for populist appeal. Besides, a Trump, Carson, or Cruz victory in the general election is rather unlikely regardless of who the Democratic candidate is, so I don't see how there's a real concern there.
[...] and I think with someone like Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Christie you are giving the D's a further disadvantage that they will already have going into the 2016 election (mainly that we tend to not elect a president from the same party as the one before).
Bush, Kasich and Christie are "moderates" who could potentially beat Sanders, but even added together their odds of actually getting the nomination are pretty low.
Of all the Republicans you've raised as potential threats to Sanders as a Democratic nominee, Rubio is the only one worth taking seriously; he's also the most likely Republican nominee at the moment anyway. However, unlike Bush, Kasich, and Christie, Rubio is most definitely not a moderate, so that line of attack doesn't work.
Insofar as the Democrats are disadvantaged by having had the presidency since 2008, I would think that if anything Hillary is much more vulnerable to that problem than Sanders is. Unlike Hillary, Sanders is clearly not an establishment figure and is not directly associated with the Obama presidency.
If Foreign Policy starts to become an even larger chuck of the national conversation and the economy continues it's strengthening... sorta plays against Bernie's strengths...
The only way I see the economy playing into the Republicans' hands is if the opposite happens, and there is a major recession before the next election. Also, in that situation I think Bernie would actually be less hurt by the fallout than Hillary would be.
I think the only solid point you've made is that Sanders could lose to Rubio on foreign policy in a way that Hillary would not, but I still think that warrants further discussion.
All that being said, while I don't agree at all that Sanders is sure to lose against Rubio, I can agree that Sanders is a significantly riskier proposition against Rubio than Hillary is.
I'll probably vote for Sanders in the primary if I can. If he loses that then I'll probably find some 3rd party nominee I like since Michigan usually ends up going with the Dems every presidential election anyway.
Wow, so much wrong with that. So far the statistics have generally shown that while more white people are killed by police, a higher percentage of black people are killed by police. And unless it was ruled a homicide, police shootings probably wouldn't show up on a crime statistic, would they? And yeah, people are often murdered by those of the same race, because often those are the majority of the people around them. Even if its its being shown by racist motivations and the percentage is too high, the "blacks killed by blacks" number isn't what gets me. 81% "Whites killed by Blacks." Just no. Its mostly just other white people, see above.
Turns out that graphic was first posted on Twitter by a neo-nazi who, in his twitter profile, says we should have listened to Hitler, and uses a Swastika-like symbol for an avatar. So yeah. Trump.
Trump is going full force on branding himself as the next fascist dictator, promising to bring back torture enhanced interrogation, watchlists for muslims and mosques and of course the racist rhetoric.
Trump's popularity stems primarily from being "willing to tell it like it is" and catering pretty openly to the deeply racist and xenophobic streak in American society. It's also populist, catering to the myth that "I'd be a lot better off if the damn gubment wasn't giving all my tax dollars to black people/immigrants/cities dagnabbit!"
My mom just told me an interesting theory she had: Trump is destabilizing the republican camp and snatching the spotlight from other republican candidates so that Hillary has a chance. When he abandons his run, the Republicans will be left with underexposed candidates that don't inspire their base, while Hillary will have the Democratic vote. I think Sanders vs Trump would be ideal (two polarizing figures that will shock the stagnant two party system into life), but chances are it will be Clinton vs Bush and more disillusionment and feelings of disenfranchisement among the population.
My mom just told me an interesting theory she had: Trump is destabilizing the republican camp and snatching the spotlight from other republican candidates so that Hillary has a chance. When he abandons his run, the Republicans will be left with underexposed candidates that don't inspire their base, while Hillary will have the Democratic vote. I think Sanders vs Trump would be ideal (two polarizing figures that will shock the stagnant two party system into life), but chances are it will be Clinton vs Bush and more disillusionment and feelings of disenfranchisement among the population.
At this point in time, it's more likely to be Clinton vs Rubio, Clinton vs Cruz, Clinton vs Trump.
I think Trump would be fine with a Hillary win. She's as bought as any GOP candidate. Voting for her as a Dem... I can't fathom the mindset that leads to that, and so I'll stop short of saying something truly uncomplimentary and just say that I wonder how much people are really aware of her history vs Bernie's.
Pragmatism w.r.t. Bernie's candidacy is out the window once you accept that there's no practical difference between a Hillary presidency and a Carson/Bush/Trump/Cruz presidency. Especially because Congress and gerrymandering.
Pragmatism w.r.t. Bernie's candidacy is out the window once you accept that there's no practical difference between a Hillary presidency and a Carson/Bush/Trump/Cruz presidency. Especially because Congress and gerrymandering.
If you can't see a difference between Bush vs Trump, let alone Trump vs Clinton. You need your eyes checked.
I think Trump would be fine with a Hillary win. She's as bought as any GOP candidate. Voting for her as a Dem... I can't fathom the mindset that leads to that, and so I'll stop short of saying something truly uncomplimentary and just say that I wonder how much people are really aware of her history vs Bernie's.
Pragmatism w.r.t. Bernie's candidacy is out the window once you accept that there's no practical difference between a Hillary presidency and a Carson/Bush/Trump/Cruz presidency. Especially because Congress and gerrymandering.
As I've said elsewhere in this threat, with the next President potentially nominating FOUR Justices to the Supreme Court, I think there's a tremendous difference between a Hillary presidency and a Carson/Bush/Trump/Cruz presidency. Imagine what the Supreme Court would look like with four more Antonin Scalias, John Roberts, Samuel Alitos, or Clarence Thomases, as opposed to four more Elena Kagans, Sonya Sotomayors, Stephen Breyers, or Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.
With Congress basically deadlocked into doing nothing, the Supreme Court will take on an even bigger role in government.
If you think that Clinton's appointments are going to materially differ from Bush or Cruz or insert GOP maniac here, then I direct you to Clinton's actual political record instead of the fictions she spouts on a daily basis.
Want a woman president? Warren would be grand. I'll even forgive her history of profiting off of foreclosed mortgages in her private life. :-P
If you think that Clinton's appointments are going to materially differ from Bush or Cruz or insert GOP maniac here, then I direct you to Clinton's actual political record instead of the fictions she spouts on a daily basis.
Dude, Clinton SCOTUS appointments would be centrist on some issues, and liberal on a lot of others. Any current GOP candidate would put anti-abortion nutjobs on the bench ASAP, and have a congress that would let them.
Comments
Of all the Republicans you've raised as potential threats to Sanders as a Democratic nominee, Rubio is the only one worth taking seriously; he's also the most likely Republican nominee at the moment anyway. However, unlike Bush, Kasich, and Christie, Rubio is most definitely not a moderate, so that line of attack doesn't work.
Insofar as the Democrats are disadvantaged by having had the presidency since 2008, I would think that if anything Hillary is much more vulnerable to that problem than Sanders is. Unlike Hillary, Sanders is clearly not an establishment figure and is not directly associated with the Obama presidency. The only way I see the economy playing into the Republicans' hands is if the opposite happens, and there is a major recession before the next election. Also, in that situation I think Bernie would actually be less hurt by the fallout than Hillary would be.
I think the only solid point you've made is that Sanders could lose to Rubio on foreign policy in a way that Hillary would not, but I still think that warrants further discussion.
All that being said, while I don't agree at all that Sanders is sure to lose against Rubio, I can agree that Sanders is a significantly riskier proposition against Rubio than Hillary is.
I'll vote for him if he's still in the race on Super Tuesday. I expect to vote for Clinton next November, though.
Screencap in case it's deleted:
Now see the real statistics.
Which (obviously) hasn't been compiled yet. So Trump is a liar. Shocking.
Pragmatism w.r.t. Bernie's candidacy is out the window once you accept that there's no practical difference between a Hillary presidency and a Carson/Bush/Trump/Cruz presidency. Especially because Congress and gerrymandering.
With Congress basically deadlocked into doing nothing, the Supreme Court will take on an even bigger role in government.
http://www.democracyspring.org/
Want a woman president? Warren would be grand. I'll even forgive her history of profiting off of foreclosed mortgages in her private life. :-P
If it's not Sanders, I'll take Trump over Hillary any day. At least then the bullshit's on the label.