Bernie Sanders doesn't rule out a 2020 White House run - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51348895]I might be wrong, but didn't Hillary's campaign cost end up being largely higher than Trump's? A lot of money trading hands and nobody falling for it. Then compare that to Bernie, who managed just fine on individual supporter donations.[/QUOTE] Yup, lots of big money interests funded Hillary. Huge, huge loss for them. Bernie had approximately 8 million individual contributions averaging $27. You can't beat that following. The people who were already struggling were giving their hard-earned dollar to him because they believed in Bernie. The DNC fucked them over. They're not a party for the people, and that's why Bernie is taking charge.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51348801]I'm convinced if Bernie had an extra half year during the primaries, he would've overtaken Clinton and won even with the bias.[/QUOTE] I think so too. Bernie had a lot of support, and a lot of his supporters refused to vote for Clinton, and some dipshits voted for Trump and Johnson out of spite.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51348895]I might be wrong, but didn't Hillary's campaign cost end up being largely higher than Trump's? A lot of money trading hands and nobody falling for it. Then compare that to Bernie, who managed just fine on individual supporter donations.[/QUOTE] That reminds me, what happened to Bernie's numerous campaign finance violations? I looked and found very little since the primaries ended. I understand that sometimes the nominee will pay the losing candidates fees but these were genuine illegal donations.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51348895]I might be wrong, but didn't Hillary's campaign cost end up being largely higher than Trump's? A lot of money trading hands and nobody falling for it. Then compare that to Bernie, who managed just fine on individual supporter donations.[/QUOTE] Yep, Hillary's corporate super pac had millions of questionabley sourced money in it, and she still lost the general. Then theres Bernie whose whole campaign is almost completely funded by donations from citizens, and would have won the primary were it not for the rigging.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51348509]I don't want to be mean but I think he'll be too old by then. He'll be 79; Trump is already the oldest American president ever. We need young progressives now.[/QUOTE] Could've gone with Warren, but by being a gutless wall fly she tanked her reputation. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard[/url] seems like a good bet. EDIT: She was already mentioned. Awesome.

[QUOTE=Grimhound;51348946]Could've gone with Warren, but by being a gutless wall fly she tanked her reputation. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard[/url] seems like a good bet. EDIT: She was already mentioned. Awesome.[/QUOTE] I don't trust Warren anymore. She had her shot, and she chose Establishment when the people wanted Bernie and anti-establishment. She clearly doesn't have her finger on the pulse of the nation like Tulsi, Feingold, and Bernie does.

It's also worth mentioning that people might discredit Tulsi Gabbard for being inexperienced, but I would argue that literally has no weight anymore now that we have a president elect who has never had any political experience, ever. [editline]11th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Llamaguy;51348772]Why not a Sanders/Tulsi or Sanders/Feingold ticket?[/QUOTE] I mean, it WAS Sanders/Tulsi in this year's election; she was the VP-elect in California when Bernie Sanders was put as a write-in there.

[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51348988]It's also worth mentioning that people might discredit Tulsi Gabbard for being inexperienced, but I would argue that literally has no weight anymore now that we have a president elect who has never had any political experience, ever.[/QUOTE] No, the point that Trump supporters are going to use is that Trump is a businessman and had 4 years of presidential experience.

[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51348747]We need the young version of him, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard"]Tulsi Gabbard.[/URL] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Tulsi_Gabbard%2C_official_portrait%2C_113th_Congress.jpg[/t] Got shunned by the DNC for supporting Bernie and his polices, AND is a veteran (for that patriotism street cred.) Might be what they need.[/QUOTE] I think the only main concern is her hinduism because, well, we live in a country that can feel quite like a theocracy at times. Bernie Sanders is likely an atheist for example, but whenever he was asked about it he basically just dodged the question by saying things like "I think we're all in this together so we have to respect eachother" and whatnot. According to polling, there were quite a lot of people that would refuse to vote for an atheist. Not sure what the numbers for a hindu would be.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51349010]The woman was elected to Hawaii House of Reps when she was 2 years older than I(19) am, gives me an existential crisis What inexperience, "experience" shouldnt equal to at least being a grandma[/QUOTE] I was just pointing out it's an argument, albeit an argument that no longer makes sense since Donald Trump is becoming president.

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;51348681]America should lower the minimum age to be president then. If you're old enough to vote you're already old enough to run for any other political office so why not president? I'm not expecting an 18 year old to run for president and be taken seriously of course, but I still think the rules should be changed so that anyone old enough to vote is old enough to run for president.[/QUOTE] That isn't true, there are federal age limits for both the house and Senate as well. States and counties can also decide their own age limits for state representation, it's not just the Presidency.

[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51348747]We need the young version of him, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard"]Tulsi Gabbard.[/URL] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Tulsi_Gabbard%2C_official_portrait%2C_113th_Congress.jpg[/t] Got shunned by the DNC for supporting Bernie and his polices, AND is a veteran (for that patriotism street cred.) Might be what they need. Also looks like Carmen Sandiego.[/QUOTE] Being from Hawaii and Hindu are going to kill her chances.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51349006]I think the only main concern is her hinduism because, well, we live in a country that can feel quite like a theocracy at times. Bernie Sanders is likely an atheist for example, but whenever he was asked about it he basically just dodged the question by saying things like "I think we're all in this together so we have to respect eachother" and whatnot. According to polling, there were quite a lot of people that would refuse to vote for an atheist. Not sure what the numbers for a hindu would be.[/QUOTE] The people who would refuse to vote for any non-christian are generally the ones who would refuse to vote for any liberal anyways. The usually-moderate independents who really decide elections wouldn't care much, as long as it wasn't a major theme of their campaign. It sounds weird today but Kennedy did poorly with Republicans because he was Catholic (which was considered about as badly back then as a Muslim candidate would be today), he got all kinds of paranoid conspiracy shit for it from the right. But Democrats and independents largely didn't care because Kennedy ran as a liberal, pro-civil-rights and tougher on the Soviets, and downplayed the Catholicism thing. So basically as long as Gabbard doesn't try to be "the first Hindu president of the US", she won't suffer for it. It might actually be easier to be a female candidate that way, the people who fixate on "they're just voting for her because she's ____" will fixate on "because she's a woman" and not "because she's Hindu", and this election basically proved that female candidates don't intrinsically get a boost from female voters.

I definitely wanna read more about Gabbard. She seems really cool. Also people were calling for Michelle Obama to run in 2020 too. And the Rock but these get less realistic as I go on... lol.

[QUOTE=Pascall;51349083]I definitely wanna read more about Gabbard. She seems really cool. Also people were calling for Michelle Obama to run in 2020 too. And the Rock but these get less realistic as I go on... lol.[/QUOTE] If you want the dems to lose in 2020, choose any establishment figure vs anti-establishment (Trump). Literally any setup like 2016 and Dems will lose. Michelle Obama will do absolutely nothing to drive turnout more than Hillary. Tim Kaine is a shell with absolutely no personality or backbone. Warren sold out to establishment interests. And The Rock is a new one I haven't heard yet.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51349088]If you want the dems to lose in 2020, choose any establishment figure vs anti-establishment (Trump). Literally any setup like 2016 and Dems will lose.[/QUOTE] Eh. Not exactly. This victory was still somewhat of a fluke. Trump disappointing them could cause those same states to flip again, as this time republican voters stop voting but damn, turnout that year would be even lower than this years I bet.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51349106]Eh. Not exactly. This victory was still somewhat of a fluke. Trump disappointing them could cause those same states to flip again, as this time republican voters stop voting but damn, turnout that year would be even lower than this years I bet.[/QUOTE] Turnout for the Republicans was even lower than 2008 and 2012. The fact that an establishment figure lost to the lowest turnout for a Republican says it all for what the people want.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51349006]I think the only main concern is her hinduism because, well, we live in a country that can feel quite like a theocracy at times. Bernie Sanders is likely an atheist for example, but whenever he was asked about it he basically just dodged the question by saying things like "I think we're all in this together so we have to respect eachother" and whatnot. According to polling, there were quite a lot of people that would refuse to vote for an atheist. Not sure what the numbers for a hindu would be.[/QUOTE] I don't think it would be an issue. Mitt Romney was a mormon, and Americans dislike mormons more than they dislike Hindis. Source: [url]http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/[/url]

Obviously the solution is to bring on Dwayne Johnson.

I would gladly vote for Foxxy Grandpa 2020

[QUOTE=Pascall;51349131]Obviously the solution is to bring on Dwayne Johnson.[/QUOTE] I feel like Steve Austin would be a better choice if we're going a wrestler route. [img]https://media.giphy.com/media/13W4m6ZevaC5P2/giphy.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51349078]Being from Hawaii and Hindu are going to kill her chances.[/QUOTE] If she were Muslim I think it would be more of an issue considering the times. I think in the US Hindu and other less popular religions arent viewed as being negative or violent like Islam is. One would think that people in the US arent educated well enough in that religion for it to be a downer on her potential as a candidate. Unfortunately, when people think if Islam, they dont think about that nice family down the street, they think about flying planes into skyscrapers and suicide bombers in the middle east. Fortunately its not the same way for almost any other religion.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51349078]Being from Hawaii and Hindu are going to kill her chances.[/QUOTE] all she needs to do is shoot shit with Keanu Reeves ala John Wick training and not be a lie like Hillary and she'll be fine.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51349106]Eh. Not exactly. This victory was still somewhat of a fluke. Trump disappointing them could cause those same states to flip again, as this time republican voters stop voting but damn, turnout that year would be even lower than this years I bet.[/QUOTE] It really depends on the candidacy. People wont lose faith in the republican party because of Trump, theyll just lose faith in Trump. Hell, Trump may not even run as the incumbent or he may not get the Republican nomination.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51349170]It really depends on the candidacy. People wont lose faith in the republican party because of Trump, theyll just lose faith in Trump. Hell, Trump may not even run as the incumbent or he may not get the Republican nomination.[/QUOTE] But they've already lost faith in the Republican party see the primaries, and turnout

[QUOTE]While Clinton pushed for greater financial regulation and higher taxes on the wealthy, she shied away from his more populist rhetoric. And she also largely ignored white working-class male voters in favor of trying to boost turnout among minority and female supporters. The decision infuriated former President Bill Clinton who argued to campaign officials that they should pay greater attention to the voters who twice boosted her husband to office. During the long primary slog against Sanders, he insisted the campaign make stops in Wisconsin, which ended up being the last time either Clinton appeared in the state. Wisconsin voted for Trump, shocking many in her campaign.[/QUOTE] Interesting insight to Bill Clinton's part in the campaign. Also I really fucking hope Bernie runs again.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349232]Interesting insight to Bill Clinton's part in the campaign. Also I really fucking hope Bernie runs again.[/QUOTE] Why am I not surprised Bill suggested a good strategy and Hillary ignored it? She is an awful candidate and has awful instincts.

Bernie ran as a old, self proclaimed socialist atheist Jew and he did pretty well guys. Tulsi being Hindu shouldn't be that big.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51349106]Eh. Not exactly. This victory was still somewhat of a fluke. Trump disappointing them could cause those same states to flip again, as this time republican voters stop voting but damn, turnout that year would be even lower than this years I bet.[/QUOTE] There were several lessons from this election, with the biggest one (I think) being "your candidate has to have a good 'elevator pitch' reason to vote for them". Attacking your opponent doesn't work, being a good candidate for complex and subtle reasons doesn't work. You need a central issue that can be described in a few words, so that your own base is motivated to actually go out and vote, not just answer polls in your favor. Trump had "make the government actually do stuff". On all of his issues, he had a simply-stated solution that, at first glance, the government just has to get off its ass and DO. Immigration? Build a wall. Terrorism? Don't let Muslims into the country. Economics? Make better trade deals. Foreign policy? Don't fight other countries' wars for them. Whether his "solutions" would actually solve anything mattered less than the ability to state them simply. This campaign was nearly a draw because for every good message Trump had (note: good message != good policy idea), he also had a scandal that drove voters away. Obama had healthcare as his central issue, and he had a simple proposal. What actually got passed was completely different, but enough voters were energized by that issue and that proposal for him to easily win. He also had "the Republicans screwed the economy and our foreign policy over the last eight years, let's not have another Republican" going for him the first time, and "I fixed the economy and ended some of our wars" the second time. Bush had "fight terrorism" for his re-election campaign. There were Bad Guys out there and Bush would fight them better than Kerry would, or so the campaign went. The 2000 campaign, neither candidate had a good central issue, and they ended up as essentially a draw. Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) ran on the "new covenant" idea, against a Bush (Sr., not Jr.) who didn't really have anything going for or against him. Bill reached out to minorities - not just one group, but all of them - with a message of "we're all Americans, the government should work for all of us instead of just some of us". (Wow, that sounds weirdly familiar...) This time around, Hillary Clinton failed to have a central positive message. She had a pile of small ones, some borrowed from Bernie, some borrowed from Obama, none really her own. She campaigned on her experience - but was constantly stuck defending old decisions she had made, and on a lot of them even she agreed were bad decisions (eg. Iraq). Yes, being an experienced leader means you have a lot of history, some of which will be mistakes, and a reasonable, thoughtful person will see her acknowledging her errors and think "she's learned from mistakes and won't make them again, this new guy hasn't learned from his and will keep making them", most people will just hear "she fucked up, she'll fuck up again" so it overall hurt her. Bernie had a positive central message: "other democracies are doing way better than us, let's do what they do and become better". He wanted European-style healthcare, he wanted Nordic-style egalitarian taxes, he wanted sensible financial regulations. It energized people. Hillary won the primaries because she was great at getting out a weak message, while Bernie was weak at getting out a great message. But in the generals, he would have had the DNC media machine working with him, so his message would have gotten out. I don't know if Bernie vs. Donald would have been a win. Bernie's core message is a lot further from the American center than Donald's - yes, Trump proposed a lot of scary authoritarian shit, but that was the dressing on his message, not the message itself. The meat of Trump's message was middle-right, while Sanders' was far-left, left enough that it hurt him even in the primaries. Moderates - actual moderates, not all undecideds - would probably have gone for Trump. I think Bernie stood a better chance of winning, but under the conventional, pre-Tuesday wisdom, he stood a worse chance.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349232]Interesting insight to Bill Clinton's part in the campaign. Also I really fucking hope Bernie runs again.[/QUOTE] This is not the first time Hillary ignored good advice. There is a podesa email where he is advising Hillary that maybe sending such information via email was a good idea. They both continued with sensitive information via email any ways after this concern was brought up.