Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Talking up Sanders now seems like talking up Dean in 2005. In 2006, there's a reaction to an unpopular President and Democrats take back the House. The 2008 nomination goes not to Dean, who is now old news, but to a new Senator who had been a state legislator in 2004, not on anyone's radar. Sanders is indeed the most prominent Democratic candidate right now, but lots will happen before November 2020.

Doesn't he have a ton of hate/baggage in the party due to having a hand in wrecking Hil?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. Lots can happen. That's deep.

I think Sanders is very different than Obama. Obama's rise was because he was so charismatic and different. While Bernie may not have the charisma, he is certainly different. And he's got a lot of fanatics who are going to push very hard for him.

Very different. I'm not sure Sanders changes the game much. Are many people going to vote for Sanders who didn't vote for Hillary?

I think it's Biden's party until someone proves it isn't. I love Schiff, but he may be a little too stiff to move the needle. Although, after 4 years of fucking Trump, that may be exactly what everyone is looking for.

I would look for a governor, but don't have anyone particularly in mind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Doesn't he have a ton of hate/baggage in the party due to having a hand in wrecking Hil?

Not that I see. He didn't particularly wreck her. IMHO, her problem was that everyone got out of her way in the Democratic primary, and allowed her to coast instead of upping her game. He didn't go after her the way any Republican would have.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Doesn't he have a ton of hate/baggage in the party due to having a hand in wrecking Hil?

Yeah, he is going to particularly have a hard time winning over women activists in the party. I'd tell him to leave it alone right now for a year and focus on winning over others, including especially minorities. And let's face it, John Lewis is used to having white politicians hate him one day and love him the next, it won't be the first time someone realized late in the game that they were forgetting about him and his constituency.

At some point he has to admit he was a schmuck and have a Damascene moment to win a lot of people over.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Very different. I'm not sure Sanders changes the game much. Are many people going to vote for Sanders who didn't vote for Hillary?



I would look for a governor, but don't have anyone particularly in mind.

My short list of emerging contenders has as many names in the center - Tester, Kander, Gillibrand - than on the left - Warren, Harris, Sanders. I think there is a powerful case to be made that the best candidate in the abstract for the dems would be an African-American Women. But Dems don't pick candidates in the abstract.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Very different. I'm not sure Sanders changes the game much. Are many people going to vote for Sanders who didn't vote for Hillary?

I think he gets people who tell themselves they aren't sexist but secretly would never vote for the type of woman who could be a Presidential candidate.

I also think he gets a lot of the union vote in white districts that Hillary lost in some very key states.

The question is, can he raise the money he needs from Dem deep pockets and the center-left?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not that I see. He didn't particularly wreck her. IMHO, her problem was that everyone got out of her way in the Democratic primary, and allowed her to coast instead of upping her game. He didn't go after her the way any Republican would have.

I agree with your first sentence. But I disagree with the rest. He absolutely defined her as a Wall Street, corrupt candidate. He hammered away at her for that bullshit. And it stuck. Fucking Trump picked up that ball and ran with it.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Nothing has changed.

His entire argument is based on a recockulous presumption:

"So unless the lives of Americans on American soil are inherently more significant than the lives of those serving in that part of the world, or than Korean and Japanese lives, the game is the same."

WTF. Of course Americans think American lives on American soil are inherently more significant, and of course politicians value their domestic constituents over foreign non-constituents. What kind of silliness is he peddling?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not that I see. He didn't particularly wreck her. IMHO, her problem was that everyone got out of her way in the Democratic primary, and allowed her to coast instead of upping her game. He didn't go after her the way any Republican would have.

Bernie was more important than Trump. He turned the left wing of the Democratic party against Hillary. To the extent his message was not unlike Trump's in many regards, he handed a bunch of her votes to Trump.

I can't recall why the Trump/Bernie debate never happened, but that would have been a disaster for Trump. Where he could slap Hillary around as a cipher, he'd have faced a much more direct and aggressive Sanders who'd have talked over him as much as he'd talk over Bernie.

People on both sides wanted a fighter. There were two of those in the game: Bernie and Trump. Trump did everything he could to lose. But his lucky break was having Bernie kneecap Hillary so badly he still squeaked into the winner's circle.

No Bernie, no Trump Presidency.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Very different. I'm not sure Sanders changes the game much. Are many people going to vote for Sanders who didn't vote for Hillary?

Bernie will be 78. Warren is his torchbearer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I just made the mistake of reading a bunch of comments from Trumpsters and Berners posting on the FB page of one of our members.

It is clear that our educational system grossly failed white middle aged men. We seem to have a "lost generation" of almost totally useless twats. What kind of reforms are needed to fix this situation? Is immigration the only answer? Is it possible that white men are simply genetically deficient and there is nothing that can be done here?

You're reading FB. You expected Vidal v. Buckley?

It's an extreme position, but one could persuasively argue political commentary on FB is exclusively authored by totally useless twats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I agree with your first sentence. But I disagree with the rest. He absolutely defined her as a Wall Street, corrupt candidate. He hammered away at her for that bullshit. And it stuck. Fucking Trump picked up that ball and ran with it.

To be clear, I voted for her, not him. But I thought he went easy on her. For example, he never touched the email. She was the consummate insider -- that's who she was. He didn't need to define her that way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

His entire argument is based on a recockulous presumption:

"So unless the lives of Americans on American soil are inherently more significant than the lives of those serving in that part of the world, or than Korean and Japanese lives, the game is the same."

WTF. Of course Americans think American lives on American soil are inherently more significant, and of course politicians value their domestic constituents over foreign non-constituents. What kind of silliness is he peddling?

You're quibbling.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bernie was more important than Trump. He turned the left wing of the Democratic party against Hillary.

Nonsense. He didn't turn anyone against Hillary. She was the establishment Democratic candidate, just like she was in 2008. He was the candidate of the party's left, 2016's version of Jesse Jackson (the '88 version), or Bill Bradley, or Howard Dean. For Christ's sake, she spent eight years living in the White House, she was a Senator from New York, and she was the Secretary of State. I'm not sure it's possible to be any more establishment.

To the extent his message was not unlike Trump's in many regards, he handed a bunch of her votes to Trump.

TM has an excellent point about the sexism, but I doubt he changed anyone's mind who was going to be in her camp.

I can't recall why the Trump/Bernie debate never happened, but that would have been a disaster for Trump. Where he could slap Hillary around as a cipher, he'd have faced a much more direct and aggressive Sanders who'd have talked over him as much as he'd talk over Bernie.

Right -- because Trump's unexposed weakness was people debating him.

People on both sides wanted a fighter. There were two of those in the game: Bernie and Trump. Trump did everything he could to lose. But his lucky break was having Bernie kneecap Hillary so badly he still squeaked into the winner's circle.

No Bernie, no Trump Presidency.

How do you think that Sanders crippled Clinton, but that Clinton did not cripple Obama in 2008?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sad but true.

Dems are asking people to vote on a new sticker and I'm not sure anyone in history has been as bad at this.