Bernie Sanders is in trouble

[Petie Estie 5,707]

14 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Two problems. 

 

1. Warren's coalition and donors are the whitest coalition out of all of the democratic candidates based on the most recent available data. I don't have the link handy but will edit my comment when I do. 

 

2. It's currently not clear whether or not she is beating Bernie with AA's yet. Many of the polls aren't showing the race breakdown by candidate but rather in aggregate. But below is a recent poll in SC that doesn't seem to line up with the idea that Warren's beating Bernie with AA voters. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/29/democratic-poll-biden-warren-sanders-1518187 

Forty-five percent of black Democratic primary voters said they support Biden. Sanders got 13 percent and Warren received 4 percent. But 29 percent of white voters in the state said they support Biden, compared with 28 percent for Warren and 8 percent for Sanders

I would also just state that it's perfectly fine if you believe that Warren's policies are as far left as you think is best; however, there is plenty of polling that suggest majority of people approve of Bernie's specific agenda (medicare for all, free college tuition, student debt cancellation, wealth tax, green new deal, etc etc). 

 

Edit: @SEANGTSee below link. && You can LMAO all you want but I'm providing all the receipts. 

https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/16/most-democrats-are-excited-by-several-2020-candidates-not-just-their-top-choice/pp_2019-08-16_2020-democratic-candidates_0-06/ 

 

the politico poll is from south carolina only. this national poll is showing what i'm talking about with Warren in the lead and leading bernie in every demographic: 

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3641

 

the people-press story is from almost 2 months ago & Warren has made gains in all demographics since then. 

[Fish 6,259]

Warren is highly problematic.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

17 minutes ago, SEANGT said:

the politico poll is from south carolina only. this national poll is showing what i'm talking about with Warren in the lead and leading bernie in every demographic: 

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3641

 

the people-press story is from almost 2 months ago & Warren has made gains in all demographics since then. 

Out of all of the most recent national polls released on the RCP average for democratic primary polls, this is the only one that shows a breakdown by race. So again, that's why I said it's unclear. If all pollsters adhered to the same standards and released the breakdowns like they should then we would be able to have a further discussion. But from the aggregate of polling I've seen, this is not consistent with other polls. 

 

Also, I understand it's 2 months ago; however, it's the most recent data available at that level and so it's the only data I can use. 

[Othon 34,299]

1 hour ago, SEANGT said:

That's my main issue with Bernie supporters. They can't imagine for a second that maybe Warren's positions -- while not being as far "left" as Sanders' positions, might be more popular and in some cases even...better. 

The best policies aren't always the most leftist policies. And at this point in American politics I consider myself radically left-wing. I just can't stand this weird purity politics with Sanders.

So much of this post is ridiculous, particularly the notion that you’d consider yourself “radically left wing” while voting for a capitalist with a right-wing foreign policy platform over a social democrat, but the most egregious bit might be the notion that Warren’s policy proposals are, in any way, better.

Warren’s foreign policy positions and her votes for Trump’s military budget will and have killed people in the Middle East. Her student loan debt plan leaves millions of people in crippling debt. Her healthcare plan isn’t Medicare for All and leaves intact a private healthcare industry that will continue to exploit those that are sick or injured for profit. It’s not tethered to a single payer structure. There are no guarantees that there would be no copays or deductibles. She has no plan to address medical debt, which has destroyed the lives of millions of Americans. She has no distinct, comprehensive plan to address HIV and AIDS. I could go on for hours listing the massive, serious distinctions that exist between her and Sanders. 

Once again, the Sanders supporters in this thread have offered up substantive, policy-based critiques of Warren’s policy proposals and her supporters have responded with conjecture, meaningless anecdotes about their own personal affection for her personality and baseless smears. Enough with the “purity” bs. We’re talking about issues that are life and death for countless people in this country and around the world. You’re belittling and dismissing the struggles of desperate, impoverished or otherwise marginalized people when you throw that tired line out.

[Robo Ga 15,614]

13 hours ago, PartySick said:

What's wrong with that?

I don't see this article posting anything but facts ans quotes. Warren is appealing to more voters, Sanders needs to do better of he has any hopes of winning.

Do better in the polls, I mean. What does Liz have that Bernie doesn't? Even I don't know and I'm a Warren supporter

"populist gospel" is an extremely bias way to describe his campaign, with the definition of "populist" being highly contested/controversial and the use of "gospel" meant to demean the content of his words and imply that it is a form of religious devotion to follow or support him. It's too bad  that I have to explain this to you bc it's very clear to most.

[Petie Estie 5,707]

36 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

So much of this post is ridiculous, particularly the notion that you’d consider yourself “radically left wing” while voting for a capitalist with a right-wing foreign policy platform over a social democrat, but the most egregious bit might be the notion that Warren’s policy proposals are, in any way, better.

Warren’s foreign policy positions and her votes for Trump’s military budget will and have killed people in the Middle East. Her student loan debt plan leaves millions of people in crippling debt. Her healthcare plan isn’t Medicare for All and leaves intact a private healthcare industry that will continue to exploit those that are sick or injured for profit. It’s not tethered to a single payer structure. There are no guarantees that there would be no copays or deductibles. She has no plan to address medical debt, which has destroyed the lives of millions of Americans. She has no distinct, comprehensive plan to address HIV and AIDS. I could go on for hours listing the massive, serious distinctions that exist between her and Sanders. 

Once again, the Sanders supporters in this thread have offered up substantive, policy-based critiques of Warren’s policy proposals and her supporters have responded with conjecture, meaningless anecdotes about their own personal affection for her personality and baseless smears. Enough with the “purity” bs. We’re talking about issues that are life and death for countless people in this country and around the world. You’re belittling and dismissing the struggles of desperate, impoverished or otherwise marginalized people when you throw that tired line out.

see this is what i'm talking about 

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

 

[HighwayGuy 1,498]

If Bernie doesn’t become president then we get much closer to the world collapsing from climate change... this is what we’re facing here. This is what matters more than anything else. 

[Matangi 3,050]

Lmao, how about google Bernie Sanders now, doesn't seem to be in much "trouble" as he has raised more in small dollar donations than Warren's first two quarters combined. Over 25 million dollars to be exact.

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

12 hours ago, scarlxrd said:

And you have people here talking about “vote blue no matter what.” They either didn’t learn a thing from 2016 or they are privilege enough to not care about who becomes president as long as it’s not a republican.

I mean I see what you're saying but at the end of the day any Democrat would be far better than keeping Trump in office. Too many important issues on the line, such as the Supreme Court, not having Trump-appointed judges in the judiciary, etc. 

That's why I reluctantly ended up voting for Hillary because I believed the issues that were at stake were just too important to not do what I could to help her win. There's a certain amount of privilege to not vote for a candidate just because they're not your preferred one, too. 

That said, Biden is far from my first choice and I don't think he'd do anything to really change or transform this country. At the very least though he'd prevent Trump from tearing away all the progress on the environment, equal right, judicial appointments, etc. and that is more than enough reason for me. 

Some things are just too important. I obviously want a progressive candidate and believe that will happen, but it's also important to be realistic and practical. If Biden were the candidate I'd (very reluctantly) vote for him because I recognize the privilege it takes not to do so when so many things are on the line including the rights of others that Trump and Co are after. 

 

Whether or not he'd win is another issue and there's reason to believe he wouldn't given he'll be Hillary and 2016 2.0.

Let's hope that same mistake doesn't happen, cause Bernie or Warren would stomp Trump due to their REAL populism and not that fake **** Trump does. 

[Whispering 18,865]

5 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

So much of this post is ridiculous, particularly the notion that you’d consider yourself “radically left wing” while voting for a capitalist with a right-wing foreign policy platform over a social democrat, but the most egregious bit might be the notion that Warren’s policy proposals are, in any way, better.

Warren’s foreign policy positions and her votes for Trump’s military budget will and have killed people in the Middle East. Her student loan debt plan leaves millions of people in crippling debt. Her healthcare plan isn’t Medicare for All and leaves intact a private healthcare industry that will continue to exploit those that are sick or injured for profit. It’s not tethered to a single payer structure. There are no guarantees that there would be no copays or deductibles. She has no plan to address medical debt, which has destroyed the lives of millions of Americans. She has no distinct, comprehensive plan to address HIV and AIDS. I could go on for hours listing the massive, serious distinctions that exist between her and Sanders. 

Once again, the Sanders supporters in this thread have offered up substantive, policy-based critiques of Warren’s policy proposals and her supporters have responded with conjecture, meaningless anecdotes about their own personal affection for her personality and baseless smears. Enough with the “purity” bs. We’re talking about issues that are life and death for countless people in this country and around the world. You’re belittling and dismissing the struggles of desperate, impoverished or otherwise marginalized people when you throw that tired line out.

Bernie has his own record on voting for bills that supported war. He voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq which had long lasting and devastating consequences in the nineties. He voted in favor of the war on Serbia: once, twice… and on April 28, 1999, he did it again. This was the astounding 213-213 tie vote, which meant that the House of Representatives repudiated the war on Serbia. Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization for Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which “pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted”. 

Sanders clings to his death-dealing F-35 Lightning II fighter jet. As Andrew Cockburn reported in Harper’s, Sanders and his Vermont colleague Patrick Leahy waged a fierce bureaucratic fight to bring the jet to the Burlington Air Base as the premier weapon of the Green Mountain Boys, the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard. At $191 million per aircraft, the F-35 represents a technological wish-fulfillment for the defense lobby. So, while Bernie Sanders is saying we should cut military spending to fund free college for everyone, his defense of the F-35 means that despite everything else, Sanders is still just a politician.

According to opensecrets.org, in the 2016 race, Sanders took $366,458 from the Defense Industry, only 8% less than Trump.

 

Personally, I prefer Warren’s plan to pay off college debt. The healthcare debate is going to need a dominant Senate and an evolution over the next decade or longer. It will take several steps along the way to get to anywhere close to M4All and Warren would be supportive of pushing for a better healthcare system for everyone. Her anti-corruption proposal is something that also sealed the deal for me. I see her as Presidential and I have confidence in her to be able to do the job at the highest level possible. She is incredibly intelligent and can handle vast amounts of detailed and complex information. Warren is an educator, she is open to learning and changing and has an innate ability to explain complex matters to help others around her understand what she knows and understands. I find all of these attributes to be important for the job of President and for a world leader. 

 

[Othon 34,299]

9 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Bernie has his own record on voting for bills that supported war. He voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq which had long lasting and devastating consequences in the nineties. He voted in favor of the war on Serbia: once, twice… and on April 28, 1999, he did it again. This was the astounding 213-213 tie vote, which meant that the House of Representatives repudiated the war on Serbia. Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization for Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which “pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted”. 

I was waiting for someone to pull something like this. Respond to a substantive critique of Warren's right-wing record on foreign policy by digging through some liberal anti-Sanders blog and going back 20 or 30 years to find something to copy and paste to create a false equivalency and to distract from a legitimate critique pertaining to CURRENT disastrous decisions and the positions she holds.  

It is absolutely undeniable that Bernie Sanders has the best, most anti-interventionist foreign policy record of nearly anyone in the Senate. If you contextualize the votes he made 30 years ago, you'd know that he was still far and away the most progressive person in the Senate on foreign policy. Most importantly, going after him on that issue makes no sense when he is, literally, the most progressive option in that area. There's nowhere else to go. He's better than his 2020 opponents. Period. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/foreign-policy-distinguishes-bernie-sanders-2020/583279/)

Nearly everything you just brought up is from 20+ years ago and in no way diminishes the fact that he is, by far, the most progressive candidate in the race on this issue. Over the last several years, Sanders was one of the only legislators to oppose the Iraq war, helped get a bipartisan resolution through the Senate to end the United States' involvement in Yemen (https://www.vox.com/2019/3/13/18263894/yemen-war-senate-sanders-murphy-lee) and he's repeatedly called for ending regime-change wars and he's the ONLY candidate calling for leveraging aid to Israel to attempt to stop them from occupying Palestinian settlements. 

Warren voted to give Trump nearly $1 trillion for his military NOW. Within the last couple of years. She's currently defending Israel's occupation of Palestine. Bernie isn't. There is no excusing that. He's the better candidate on foreign policy, just like he is on nearly every other issue. Period. 

What a ridiculous false equivalency. 

[whocares 2,122]

8 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

I was waiting for someone to pull something like this. Respond to a substantive critique of Warren's right-wing record on foreign policy by digging through some liberal anti-Sanders blog and going back 20 or 30 years to find something to copy and paste to create a false equivalency and to distract from a legitimate critique pertaining to CURRENT disastrous decisions and the positions she holds.  

It is absolutely undeniable that Bernie Sanders has the best, most anti-interventionist foreign policy record of nearly anyone in the Senate. If you contextualize the votes he made 30 years ago, you'd know that he was still far and away the most progressive person in the Senate on foreign policy. Most importantly, going after him on that issue makes no sense when he is, literally, the most progressive option in that area. There's nowhere else to go. He's better than his 2020 opponents. Period. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/foreign-policy-distinguishes-bernie-sanders-2020/583279/)

Nearly everything you just brought up is from 20+ years ago and in no way diminishes the fact that he is, by far, the most progressive candidate in the race on this issue. Over the last several years, Sanders was one of the only legislators to oppose the Iraq war, helped get a bipartisan resolution through the Senate to end the United States' involvement in Yemen (https://www.vox.com/2019/3/13/18263894/yemen-war-senate-sanders-murphy-lee) and he's repeatedly called for ending regime-change wars and he's the ONLY candidate calling for leveraging aid to Israel to attempt to stop them from occupying Palestinian settlements. 

Warren voted to give Trump nearly $1 trillion for his military NOW. Within the last couple of years. She's currently defending Israel's occupation of Palestine. Bernie isn't. There is no excusing that. He's the better candidate on foreign policy, just like he is on nearly every other issue. Period. 

What a ridiculous false equivalency. 

According to her, everyone on the debate stage is like Warren..

[Whispering 18,865]

1 minute ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

I was waiting for someone to pull something like this. Respond to a substantive critique of Warren's right-wing record on foreign policy by digging through some liberal anti-Sanders blog and going back 20 or 30 years to find something to copy and paste to create a false equivalency and to distract from a legitimate critique pertaining to CURRENT disastrous decisions and the positions she holds.  

It is absolutely undeniable that Bernie Sanders has the best, most anti-interventionist foreign policy record of nearly anyone in the Senate. If you contextualize the votes he made 30 years ago, you'd know that he was still far and away the most progressive person in the Senate on foreign policy. Most importantly, going after him on that issue makes no sense when he is, literally, the most progressive option in that area. There's nowhere else to go. He's better than his 2020 opponents. Period. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/foreign-policy-distinguishes-bernie-sanders-2020/583279/)

Nearly everything you just brought up is from 20+ years ago and in no way diminishes the fact that he is, by far, the most progressive candidate in the race on this issue. Over the last several years, Sanders was one of the only legislators to oppose the Iraq war, helped get a bipartisan resolution through the Senate to end the United States' involvement in Yemen (https://www.vox.com/2019/3/13/18263894/yemen-war-senate-sanders-murphy-lee) and he's repeatedly called for ending regime-change wars and he's the ONLY candidate calling for leveraging aid to Israel to attempt to stop them from occupying Palestinian settlements. 

Warren voted to give Trump nearly $1 trillion for his military NOW. Within the last couple of years. She's currently defending Israel's occupation of Palestine. Bernie isn't. There is no excusing that. He's the better candidate on foreign policy, just like he is on nearly every other issue. Period. 

What a ridiculous false equivalency. 

It shows that Bernie has voted for bills that supported war and funding war machines. 

I don't find Bernie to be the better candidate on many issues. Period. 

Some people simply don’t agree with your pick. Everyone isn’t for everything that you, or Bernie, is for. Some people have a candidate they like better for various reasons. 

I love Beto’s stance on guns, but don’t see him as one of my first choices. I love Pete’s national service plan, but think he is inexperienced for now. No candidate is perfect. You’ve got to pick the one that is for you, but you can’t force everyone else to think the same as you.

[Whispering 18,865]

6 minutes ago, scarlxrd said:

According to her, everyone on the debate stage is like Warren..

That’s not what I said. I said that I don’t believe that Warren loves war and I don’t see any other candidates on the stage that are pushing to stay in indefinite wars or start new ones. The American Public, and especially Democrats, are not supportive of wars at this time.