Bernie Sanders is in trouble

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

[PartySick 172,444]

1 minute ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

 

Cool assumptions but you're wrong

I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp and you're trying to play games which is really annoying. The reason I supported Hillary in 2016 and why I support Warren now is that they are more pragmatic.

I don't dislike Bernie, if he ends up being the nominee I will enthusiastically vote for him. But in my eyes, he's simply just a great back seat driver.

Put him in the driver's seat with the plan of driving to the other side of town and he won't make it out the driveway. Warren will at least get us to the closest main road.

These analogies doing anything for you?

I don't believe he'd be capable of finding effective common ground with republicans or even other democrats. He'd sit in the oval office shouting about how things SHOULD be while being able to get nothing done. While literally any other democratic candidate, even Biden, would be able to sit across the table with opponents and say "alright, let's figure this sh*t out". I doubt not only his ability to negotiate but his willingness to do so. Especially after even his own aides say he's deadset in his ways. Even Trump can move from his position to get some of what he wants.

And so far you've done nothing but make assumptions and lash out at Warren. I know she's flawed, all politicians are, but at least she can do something. ANYTHING.

He's not a politician, he's a preacher. Which is great for building revolutions, great for driving the dems to the left, and again, if he's the nom then he's got my vote, but he would not be capable of actually DOING the job imo.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

http://www.highpoint.edu/blog/2019/09/hpu-poll-among-democratic-candidates-biden-sanders-and-warren-have-most-primary-election-support/

 

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-09/topline_reuters_trump_biden_ukraine_poll_w2_09_30_2019-v3.pdf

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS2fNicsNe95AS5ddWEqkuTA1jRNcILvZNdLMYs-b7uJtUS5cdMb6qS7dh5mSS76rXdZtHnID_uV3Ry/pubhtml/sheet?headers=false&gid=0

 

just some more polls to add. Yes, I cherry picked polls, but I did this to also point out that you can create your own narrative by picking polls. By the Nevada poll & the ones I just chose, you would argue that Warren/Bernie are neck and neck with biden the clear front runner, but that’s not what a lot of media articles are running (all of the polls I picked are recent as of today). So let’s also point out that polls need to be taken with context and a grain of salt. At this point what is clear is that Warren has risen to be the 3rd person in this 3 way race. The Q3 fundraising numbers and the amount of cash on hand the campaigns have as of today are going to be critical is determining how the rest of this plays out. The other factor will be the debates and whether or not enough people will drop out or not qualify so we can have thorough (as much as possible) discussions. There has yet to be a significant foreign policy discussion and that’s a big weakness for Warren and Biden tbh. 

[luckyanderson 379]

2 hours ago, AndyDWUW said:

Good videos to watch:

 

 

 

Thank you so much for sharing! These videos are so well done and informative. 

[Othon 34,299]

15 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp and you're trying to play games which is really annoying. The reason I supported Hillary in 2016 and why I support Warren now is that they are more pragmatic.

I've given you specific, policy based criticisms of Warren and you've responded with empty conjecture and speculative nonsense while refusing to engage with ANY of the legitimate criticisms any of the people that responded to your original post offered up. You've annoyed nearly every other person in this thread.

Politics isn't a game to me. It's a matter of life and death for countless people in this country, including members of my family. You're the one claiming, repeatedly, that you're going to support one candidate over a more progressive option for no substantive reason. When faced with pushback, you've resorted to the tired rhetoric Clinton supporters used back in 2016 pertaining to "pragmatism" and "realism." "Pragmatism" shifted the overton window sharply to the right over the last three decades and gave us Donald Trump. "Pragmatism" under Obama led to the deaths of millions of brown people in the Middle East and millions of deportations of undocumented Mexican immigrants. You can keep that lazy excuse. It means nothing.

14 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I don't believe he'd be capable of finding effective common ground with republicans or even other democrats.

He's done it for decades as one of the heads of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and broadly over the course of his time in the Senate. Countless Republicans have cited his ability to work to get things done, and he was called the "Amendment King" by his colleagues due to his ability to get progressive legislation through Congress via amendments. His refusal to go along with harmful legislation proposed by Republicans and Democrats over the course of his career is an asset, not a liability. You'd know any of this if you actually engaged with his record at all.

23 minutes ago, PartySick said:

And so far you've done nothing but make assumptions and lash out at Warren.

I, and everyone else in this thread, have repeatedly offered up substantive criticisms of Warren's record, her platform, and how her shortcomings harm the most vulnerable people in America and around the world. You've ignored all of it. The Sanders supporters here have engaged with you on policy grounds, while you've deployed empty rhetoric to try to paint us as villains. You're not a victim. You started something you aren't equipped to finish.

27 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I don't believe he'd be capable of finding effective common ground with republicans or even other democrats. He'd sit in the oval office shouting about how things SHOULD be while being able to get nothing done. While literally any other democratic candidate, even Biden, would be able to sit across the table with opponents and say "alright, let's figure this sh*t out". I doubt not only his ability to negotiate but his willingness to do so. Especially after even his own aides say he's deadset in his ways. Even Trump can move from his position to get some of what he wants.

He's not a politician, he's a preacher. Which is great for building revolutions, great for driving the dems to the left, and again, if he's the nom then he's got my vote, but he would not be capable of actually DOING the job imo.

All of this is your own personal speculation based on tired conventional wisdom offered up by pundits that got nearly everything about the 2016 election wrong and means absolutely nothing. Again, any Democratic president would be blocked relentlessly by Republicans unless said president were going to work with them to pass conservative legislation that would harm millions of people. We saw it under Obama after the Democrats lost their supermajority. You know this. You're wasting my time.

 

I'm not going to indulge this nonsense anymore. 

[LilyLark 10,213]

I don't dislike Sanders, but I really don't understand this virulent response by some of his supporters if you say you like Warren. I'm firmly in Warren's camp, and I'm not wealthy and I'm not white so no...it's not just wealthy white liberals supporting her. And when you start discussing demographics, look at how Bernie fares with 35+ POC voters...especially Black voters...it's not great. Neither he nor Warren do that well with POC voters overall, tbh, (yes, he has a lot of younger POC voters) and I say this as someone who supports Warren. Both badly need to work on connecting more with POC.

My issues with Bernie are the following:

1) Until about five years ago, he barely had any accomplishments to his name besides naming post offices. The only really significant thing he did pre-2016 was the Sanders-McCain Veterans Bill.

2) His terrible record on gun control. He voted for PLCAA twice, against the Brady Bill several times, and more. He comments after Sandy Hook were atrocious.

3) The hypocrisy. He voted for the Crime Bill, and yet railed against Hillary about it when she didn't even have a vote at the time. And up until the early 00s, he used to tout his "tough on crime" credentials.

4) Again, the hypocrisy. In 2009 he voted to block funds to close Gitmo. He voted to raise sentencing on crack back in the early 90s. It'd be one thing if he said he evolved (because we all change), but he doesn't really do that...instead he rails on others for being "bought" or "flip flopping" or so on when he  himself has changed dramatically on some points.

5) He's an economic reductionist to the point that some Black leaders in Vermont often felt ignored/belittled...because he would always switch the topic to income inequality when they tried to discuss the issues with him.

6) I just have a VERY hard time getting over the fact that he tweeted out, a few days before the election, that he thought Trump voters weren't deplorable racists.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-now-a-reformer-once-boasted-of-being-223600102.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/vermonts-black-leaders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders

(and yes, I have more links..these are just a few I have right at hand).

And I'm not denying Warren is flawed...especially in foreign policy....but she can work well with others (which is paramount) and is more pragmatic. What good is having a progressive president if they can't get anything passed? Plus, at the end of the day the electoral college is a ****ed up, racist beast and we need certain states. Bernie will never, ever win Florida with some of his comments on Castro, Maduro, etc. Liz can possibly put FL in the mix. I'm also really impressed with her work with the CFPB. The Smart Savings Act was a good move (and she was able to get it passed), and she's sponsored some great bills on trade and the work force. I really, really like her anti-corruption plan she put out a few days ago. And...to me this is really important...she very much does not come across as an economic reductionist. I think she's better at intersectionality in general.

TLDR: Basically, people have legitimate reasons for preferring other candidates to Bernie. Not everyone who chooses another candidate is a "neoliberal" or a "sell out" or whatever.  But if Bernie is the nominee, I'll happily vote for him.

 

[RAMROD 117,008]

17 minutes ago, LilyLark said:

I don't dislike Sanders, but I really don't understand this virulent response by some of his supporters

It is not surprising. They have been like that since the last time.

[Whispering 18,865]

The real movement lately has been Warren solidifying herself in the early states, building a case that she is a potent challenger to Biden. In a couple of the most recent early-state polls, she has even pulled ahead of the vice president to first place. 

Over the weekend, she led the gold-standard Des Moines Register poll of Iowa, with 22 percent of the vote to Biden’s 20 percent. A new Monmouth poll of New Hampshire actually put Warren in the lead there for the first time, 27 percent to 25 percent for Biden. In California, the biggest prize on Super Tuesday early in the primary season, the latest UC-Berkley/Los Angeles Times poll put Warren in first place. She came in second place in a new Suffolk survey of Nevada, the third primary state.

We still have a ways to go, but Warren is on an upwards trajectory!

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

Things are getting heated in the Untucked lounge...

Divide and Conquer is the Republican game this time around. All this infighting isn't going to help anyone. 

Notice how Trump's Campaign strategy is targeting women of color, calling them unamerican and nasty. He's advertising to the American people that these women of "The Squad" is the "evil" of America. 

We have to have a microscope on Policy because just attacking Trump puts people off.
The People know he's a disease that needs to be rid of already. 

[Babel 41,637]

Since when Americans started voting for “feelings” instead of policies and actual facts.  That was literally the mentality that lead to Trump. 

Can’t deny reading this thread was very disappointing. 

 

[Morphine Prince 109,650]

2 minutes ago, Diente said:

Since when Americans started voting for “feelings” instead of policies and actual facts.  That was literally the mentality that lead to Trump. 

Can’t deny reading this thread was very disappointing. 

 

Since always I feel. There’s always those voters that vote only based on the media they see/consume, sound bites, appearance, personality. 

Many Americans don’t take the time to do basic research about a candidate’s policies. 

[Babel 41,637]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Since always I feel. There’s always those voters that vote only based on the media they see/consume, sound bites, appearance, personality. 

Many Americans don’t take the time to do basic research about a candidate’s policies. 

I thought this didn’t happen as commonly on developed countries.  I guess it’s true when people say Trump is just a symptom of a bigger disease. 

[Morphine Prince 109,650]

Just now, Diente said:

I thought this didn’t happen as commonly on developed countries.  I guess it’s true when people say Trump is just a symptom of a bigger disease. 

The US has one of the lowest voter turnout numbers of the developed world. That right there shows a lack of interest/knowledge about civics, etc. 

Trump represents some people here VERY well. 

[Adakam 2]

Who cares? Just vote blue no matter what

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Diente said:

Since when Americans started voting for “feelings” instead of policies and actual facts.  That was literally the mentality that lead to Trump. 

Can’t deny reading this thread was very disappointing. 

 

Always.

Republicans fall in line. Democrats fall in love.