-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bernie Sanders surges into national lead and also leads among voters of color (in CNN poll).
- Thread starter UshioRulz
- Start date
- Status
It's a surge?! If all you do is focus on the polls with results you like and ignore the ones with info you don't like I can see you having that conclusion. However, looking at polling aggregators like 538 doesn't really show a surge.
Many times. A lot, actually. Most recently at the last debate where CNN was being outright biased against him, per usual.
Probably very ineffective from a big policy standpoint. I'm sure he'd do fine rolling stuff back and maybe making bits of progress here and there. That being said, my opinion on that isn't exclusive to Bernie - I don't think any of the candidates have the political capital to push their agendas through, as long as Congressional moderates can hold progress back (and history shows that midterm elections will inevitably leave us with more, not fewer, moderates and conservatives in Congress).
best case: very similar to the Barack Obama presidency
worst case: very similar to the Jimmy Carter presidency
worst case: very similar to the Jimmy Carter presidency
During 2016 Bernie also had a "phantom effect" in the polls. Generally in some states, he would either be 5-10% higher than what polls were showing. But on the flip side, on bigger states like New York, Florida, or Penn, he would have a reduction. So he is really hard to poll.
That's just a fairly normal polling miss for a primary. In terms of accuracy in polling GE >>> Primaries, and smaller states with caucuses are even harder.
Ain't no "focusing on polls I like" gonna do anything other than tell you the naked truth: Bernie surging going into Iowa is the exact right time for him to take over and dominate the landscape.
If I can get this as a removable car decal, it would be on my back window.
He's harder to poll because he attracts more non-voters than the average candidate.
Not for nothing, but the "toxic" Bernie bros people are complaining about in the primary will likely be an asset squaring up against the Republican general election smear machine.
"these people are too good at being online, get rid of them before the very online general election"
I would love if that happened and Bernie/Dem still had the debate happen and then would answer questions then stare at blank space for a rebuttal from the republican.
This may be true of domestic policy, although I'm not convinced. On foreign policy Sanders presidency looks nothing like an Obama one. We'd see, maybe from day one, a drastic reduction in drone strikes and the deaths of innocents. I'd expect Bernie to reevaluate our relationship with Saudi Arabia almost immediately as well. Perhaps our relationship with the Netanyahu government in Israel.
That would be hilarious and possibly effective but I can't help but think of this
Generally good. I hope he wins the nom and he chooses Warren as his vp candidate. So I can watch one of my Bernie broish friends melt down.
or make Biden his VP and Warren his Treasury Secretary.
538 still has Biden leading, but this post is a monument of misunderstanding.
He was actually looking for a way for the jobs to be combined recently: https://www.businessinsider.com/san...could-vp-and-treasury-secretary-report-2020-1
Oh I'm not saying there would be zero differences, just the body of it would be fairly similar. I would expect foreign policy to be a major flashpoint where the two presidents diverged, but don't forget that Obama sold himself as more liberal on foreign policy than he ended up being. I could easily see that happening with Sanders.
The largest over-arching theme of Obama's presidency is that he was hobbled by Republican resistance, which only grew more powerful after the 2010 elections (in which Democrats lost the House and their ability to legislate) and the 2014 elections (in which Democrats lost the Senate and thus Obama's ability to make expedient appointments, capped off by a Supreme Court seat being left vacant for over a year). Obama at least had the good fortune to have 60 Democratic Senators (even if only for a few months), which allowed the party to muscle through some important legislation without killing the filibuster, whereas it's almost impossible to imagine Sanders drawing a similar hand. The extent to which he (or really, any Democratic president) can get anything accomplished legislatively rests on 1) winning the Senate at all (hardly a guarantee, even if we win the presidency) and 2) how willing the caucus is to circumvent the filibuster.
Like, this needs to pass immediately, day one of any Democratic administration. It is also going to earn zero Republican votes. It would, on top of other things, restore as much of McCain-Feingold as it could (within the constraints of the Citizens United ruling), introduce public financing for campaigns, ban gerrymandering, make Election Day a federal holiday, create a national voter registration program and limit efforts to purge voter rolls. D.C. statehood and restoring the Voting Rights Act are also necessary steps towards combating Republican fuckery in the future. Even if they alone wouldn't stop another 2010 or 2014 from happening, it could at least limit the damage, and both of those things would receive little if any Republican support.
Last edited:
Haha somehow I don't think this will catch on. At the very least, Bernie Bros is a meme at this point.
Yeah, I truly don't get why this is constantly ignored by the politics obsessives on here. Sanders has at least something resembling an answer: we have to build a massive movement that changes the face of U.S. politics, get lots of new voters in, and constantly press sitting politicians on why they make the decisions they currently do.
That makes more sense to me than claiming Pete or Biden or Warren's plans have "more chance of passing." Every single one of these plans has zero reason to pass.
You want voter turnout? Press for the politics you actually want and let the chips fall where they may. We can't do another 2016.
Isn't it much more important in which states candidate X would win over Trump? I get that is much harder to poll but in this system winning the popular vote is meaningless if you lose to many states.
User banned (2 weeks): Inflammatory community generalizations
If I see anyone using the term "Berne bro" I completely refuse to take them seriously especially from people on this site who obviously still stan for Hillary Clinton. YAS QUEEN am I right?!
Bernie has the moderates shook with his numbers. In particular the community thread has been getting angsty lately.
Bernie has the moderates shook with his numbers. In particular the community thread has been getting angsty lately.
Everyone talks about Bernie. Even my ultra conservative roommate (not positively but still). He's blowing up rn
I think there was a story about how the Sanders team was looking into if someone Warren could server as VP and Treasury Sec at the same time.
So if not VP she'll still get a very good and influential position.
"focusing on polls you like" is the definition of what you're doing though. That's why people are complaining about single poll threads.
It would be nice if what you're saying happens, but people should also take into account even when focusing on Iowa, poll aggregators like 538 aren't showing a surge towards domination.
- Status