These are just a bunch of logical fallacies compounded into each other.
-
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.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Becuase I want people to vote for the eventual nominee EVEN if it's not bernie and I'm Not confident the hardcore "Bernie is the only one" peopel will.
plus, this is the democratic primary thread not the Bernie Sanders thread
Well, Obama was a moderate, according to a lot of Sanders supporters.
I'm tired of waiting. I'm going to pick progressive candidates and policies and the country can get in line or not. If they want to outnumber me and pick moderates, then they better hope that's where the majority wants to go too.
There are very few Bernie Or Busters here. It's preaching to the choir.
Or we can have a primary
And then ALL back the candidate who wins
What are you even talking about here, there's no need for a revolution Bernie just needs to win the rust belt states. States Hilary narrowly lost.
Same with well everyone.
They certainly accused him of governing as one, but running as one?
If your plan is too radical for the electorate and costs you the election (or any chance of taking back the Senate), you will never have the chance to enact your plan (or anything else). There's a human cost to that as well.
See: Corbyn, Jeremy.
Obama's rhetoric and his governing style lined up quite well -- if anything, a lot of people assumed that his election-time talk about bipartisanship and compromise were just rhetoric, but we learned subsequently that he really did mean it and tried to achieve it (ultimately not to his benefit).
Corbyn lost for reasons far more complex than "too radical."
"Reminder that Bernie lost to the person who lost to Trump"
I didn't realize politics was math where if a<b b<c so therefore a<c
Or
"How is a 79 year old guy who talks about a revolution, who is LESS popular in his own primary vs four years ago, best equipped"
Ignoring that it was 2 candidates vs 6
Oh, I certainly don't disagree with that. Brexit completely scrambled UK politics in ways that any Labour leader would have had trouble navigating; but Corbyn's policies did not prove to be the great mobilizing agent that his supporters believed they would be.
Ita funny when people try to do dbz style political analysis
"Bernie wasnt strong enough to defeat Hillary so clearly his power level is below Trump's"
"Bernie wasnt strong enough to defeat Hillary so clearly his power level is below Trump's"
Good thing the US isn't the UK and we don't have a Brexit to deal with.
Corbyn's policies all polled very popularly. The issues were Brexit and the media bias against him; he got zero positive representation in main stream media next to Boris getting all of it.
The effect media has on candidates can't be ignored; especially when it comes to votes who don't closely follow politics.
Obama ran on a public option, ending the War on Terror and cracking down on Wall Street.
He wasn't running as a moderate is my point.
We gotta nominate Bobby Rush because he'll win more states than Obama. It's just math
Pete, Warren, and Biden all got less votes than Bernie in Iowa. If they can't beat Bernie who can't beat Hillary who can't beat Trump then we are doomed!
Lol don't remind me how we actually thought he'd change things in '08 😭
Corbyn's policies were very popular with the electorate, being too left wing had nothing to do with Labour losing
And he tried unsuccessfully to enact a public option, but was stymied by Congress; the national security front is so diverse that it's hard to say succinctly, but the most controversial aspect of Obama's anti-terror policy (using the drone war to replace American frontline combatants) was something he explicitly ran on at the time; and he did enact reforms targeting Wall Street, though not as much as many wanted.
Obama did not run on a promise to enact a Sanders-style overhaul of America's economic system.
That's because Bernie hasn't even shown us his final form yet.
I mean whoever the nominee is... will probably get less votes than Hillary. Just need to spread them out better this time
IMO Corbyn's downfall (lib dems splitting the vote not withstanding) was waffling on Brexit, not his plans. And there was a human cost calculation there as well, but he got greedy with wanting to appease Leavers and Remainers and also do his Corbynism stuff.
If trying to save as many people as you can is "too radical" you have to take the shot anyway. Justice demands it. Not interested in telling anyone on their deathbed "sorry we couldn't reach you but it was just too radical for the electorate".
If the nominee gets less votes than Hillary, they lose, because there will be no strong 3rd party vote like there was last time around.
I'm not American, so I didn't follow this as closely but didn't Bernie enter with a skeleton crew of staffers, largely just with the intent to push Clinton to the left. That he didn't get together a competitively staffed campaign until extremely late.
Last edited:
I'm am aware of all of this, which is why I'm saying there was a gap between Obama's campaign rhetoric, and his governing style.
Pretending he ran as a moderate is ahistorical. He ran to the left of both Clinton and McCain.
Is such a thing possible? Becoming a Super Socialist that has ascended past an ascended Super Socialist?
User Banned (1 Week): Ignoring Staff Post with Regards to Metacommentary
And most of the candidates this time around are running to the left of Obama, but you'd think they were all Trump from the way that Bernie supporters describe them.
Yes because it's twelve years later and those left wing ideas have more purchase.
Really want people to start calling out Pete's record with African Americans beyond his poll numbers.
Yeah, I don't understand how some people could still be clueless on Pete's handling of South Bend racial issues. Not only that, he seems to bend to the will of the police department (and the racist cops in it) and his donors, I could only imagine him falling over himself to bend to the will of Republicans and big corporate interests.
Last edited:
They are afraid because "he's a socialist" and then video of him saying it himself is a great tv ad that is going to be played a million times and make it impossible for him to win.
They said that they had to report the results as reported to them by the precincts even if the precincts themselves screwed up and reported the wrong thing so 🤷♀️
- Status