Bernie Sanders doesn't rule out a 2020 White House run
91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51349316]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]
In regards to Bernie, the leaked DNC emails, and the DNC media machine you mentioned, do you feel that had the DNC left the primaries alone and not prefer one candidate over another that Bernie would've won the primaries? If the problem was getting the message out, the DNC should've held more debates once they saw Bernie's popularity rising and Clintons falling.
Or I don't know, you could equally blame voter registration deadlines in some states, or the need to have more debates before primaries.
[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]
This is why we cannot have direct democracy in terms of presidential elections
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51349357]In regards to Bernie, the leaked DNC emails, and the DNC media machine you mentioned, do you feel that had the DNC left the primaries alone and not prefer one candidate over another that Bernie would've won the primaries? If the problem was getting the message out, the DNC should've held more debates once they saw Bernie's popularity rising and Clintons falling.
Or I don't know, you could equally blame voter registration deadlines in some states, or the need to have more debates before primaries.[/QUOTE]
Closed primaries, as well. I never understood the point of them. If we're choosing who might be president, shouldn't we be able to choose both respective candidates?
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51349357]In regards to Bernie, the leaked DNC emails, and the DNC media machine you mentioned, do you feel that had the DNC left the primaries alone and not prefer one candidate over another that Bernie would've won the primaries? If the problem was getting the message out, the DNC should've held more debates once they saw Bernie's popularity rising and Clintons falling.
Or I don't know, you could equally blame voter registration deadlines in some states, or the need to have more debates before primaries.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Bernie would have won the primaries. The DNC wasn't as impartial as they should have been but Bernie just lacked the fundraising and advertising to get his message out there. Hillary spent four years building up her campaign, he had far less time and far smaller of an initial base. It's crazy how popular he managed to become even on such a shoestring budget but the battle was uphill no matter what the DNC itself did, and they didn't do all that much.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51349357]In regards to Bernie, the leaked DNC emails, and the DNC media machine you mentioned, do you feel that had the DNC left the primaries alone and not prefer one candidate over another that Bernie would've won the primaries? If the problem was getting the message out, the DNC should've held more debates once they saw Bernie's popularity rising and Clintons falling.
Or I don't know, you could equally blame voter registration deadlines in some states, or the need to have more debates before primaries.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget democratic voters suddenly being turned into independents, disallowing them from voting in the primaries in some states. To add an anecdote, several of my family members had it happen to them despite voting in the previous mid-term election as democrat.
[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]
Unless Trump is as poor of a leader as he is anticipated to be. Then the point will have more merit than ever.
[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]
A Sanders/Gabbard ticket would be incredibly strong, especially if Trump actually does fuck up the country.
Also anyone else think Bernie Sanders is somewhat reminiscent of Eugene Debs?
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51349140]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]
The only real option TBQH. Can't respect a man who doesn't know how to properly take a stunner.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51349371]This is why we cannot have direct democracy in terms of presidential elections[/QUOTE]
Just because something is imperfect doesn't mean it's not better than what you currently got.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;51349429]A Sanders/Gabbard ticket would be incredibly strong, especially if Trump actually does fuck up the country.
Also anyone else think Bernie Sanders is somewhat reminiscent of Eugene Debs?[/QUOTE]
Eh he's only vaguely similar to Debs.
I think it may be a good idea for Bernie to run for just a single term to temporarily unfuck the country and hopefully groom his VP as a possible successor.
At least [I]I[/I] think that would be our best option.
[QUOTE=27X;51349724][img]https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2811/12238268665_3bce539782.jpg[/img]
[/QUOTE]
Didn't know that Keegan-Michael Key was running for office.
whoever they choose it has to be someone not already hated by the people
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51348511]Just think, Bernie Sanders would've been President if he had been the Democratic nominee.
Save us at the end of these 4 years Bernie[/QUOTE]
I don't think he would have, it's very very rare for a party to hold the presidency 3 terms in a row, if I recall since FDR it's only happened once.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51349202]But they've already lost faith in the Republican party
see the primaries, and turnout[/QUOTE]
True but 4 years is a long time and Trump still won.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51349922]I don't think he would have, it's very very rare for a party to hold the presidency 3 terms in a row, if I recall since FDR it's only happened once.[/QUOTE]
Well, the sample size is pretty small you know.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51349405]I don't think Bernie would have won the primaries. The DNC wasn't as impartial as they should have been but Bernie just lacked the fundraising and advertising to get his message out there. Hillary spent four years building up her campaign, he had far less time and far smaller of an initial base. It's crazy how popular he managed to become even on such a shoestring budget but the battle was uphill no matter what the DNC itself did, and they didn't do all that much.[/QUOTE]
Clinton also had the advantage of being very well known amongst the populace as well. Unless they have an outright poor opinion of the person the very fact they've at least heard of them before is going to bias them towards the person they at least know.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51349154]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]
Its the opposite. They're stupid enough to only care about it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51349922]I don't think he would have, it's very very rare for a party to hold the presidency 3 terms in a row, if I recall since FDR it's only happened once.[/QUOTE]
Trends for presidencies dont really matter. We havent been a country for all that long and so much shit has changed since we became one. What it meant to be a Republican and to be a Democrat is pretty much flipped over time.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51349934]Well, the sample size is pretty small you know.[/QUOTE]
Point is it's not common and after a very disappointing stint with the democrats its no surprise everyones gone republican. It's the usual cycle.
Obviously it's too early to judge how Bernie's health will be four years down the line, but even if he was willing I doubt he'd gain the DNC's support. Would they really push for a guy that, put bluntly, might die of old age during his campaign?
[QUOTE=J!NX;51348535]so when can we get a kid president for once[/QUOTE]
Didn't you elect a 5 year old just a few days ago?
Please stay alive till then, he will win for sure - regardless of how good or bad Donalds presidency been going.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51349922]I don't think he would have, it's very very rare for a party to hold the presidency 3 terms in a row, if I recall since FDR it's only happened once.[/QUOTE]
GOP did 3 terms with 2 Reagans and 1 Bush Sr.
And FDR/Truman were 5 terms in a row.
Facepunch, we need volunteers for virgin sacrifices, so Sanders can attain lichdom and be a candidate for 2020.
[QUOTE=gufu;51350542]Facepunch, we need volunteers for virgin sacrifices, so Sanders can attain lichdom and be a candidate for 2020.[/QUOTE]
Wizardchan is ready to give all their blood
I have a feeling a lot of people will want to feel the Bern in 2020, after the grim Fimbulvetr that'll likely come from Trump's first term.
I hope his slogan will be "Hindsight is 20/20!"
[QUOTE=MILKE;51350738]I hope his slogan will be "Hindsight is 20/20!"[/QUOTE]
Thats actually pretty clever lmao
[QUOTE=MILKE;51350738]I hope his slogan will be "Hindsight is 20/20!"[/QUOTE]
The perfect meme aka the perfect slogan
Considering it seems to be all about sounding as catchy as possible to win these days
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
