What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (5 Viewers)

roadkill1292 said:
Higher taxes are worth it if we get good services. Spread the word.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much higher and how good the services are.

I have no reason to expect the tradeoff will be worth it to me and my family, in fact I think we would lose out, both financially and in terms of the quality of healthcare.

And I'm certain one or both of those things are true for a huge portion of the population, which is why this is a significant issue for Bernie if he gets the nomination... a lot of voters will not vote in favor of his policies and their associated pricetags.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are people really worried about some of Bernie's plans?  Even with a democratic controlled House and Senate I don't believe his plans, as written or preached about, would pass.          

 
Just Win Baby said:
I have no reason to expect the tradeoff will be worth it to me and my family, in fact I think we would lose out, both financially and in terms of the quality of healthcare.

And I'm certain one or both of those things are true for a huge portion of the population, which is why this is a significant issue for Bernie if he gets the nomination... a lot of voters will not vote in favor of his policies and their associated pricetags.
Click to expand...
This is how a lot of people felt being forced off their health care onto the ACA, so why would we expect this next forcing to be better for us?
Public option remains more popular than M4All
eta chart https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/9394-Figure-3.png?resize=800,450

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At best, he’s inaugurated with 51 D Senators, with Sinema and Manchin as blue dogs. So M4A is not happening in the near term. No need to worry about it.

 Obviously, Iowa was a cluster but I’m hoping to see better turnout in NH. The Iowa turnout numbers were not great.

 
Maybe not M4A, but I’d like to see the Medicare age lowered so that a healthier population, let’s say 50-64 year olds, would enter the pool and improve the loss ratio for the program. Then those workers could be freed up to start their own businesses or be otherwise productive without having to depend on employer based health insurance. 

 
This is truly amazing from his health issues months ago (heart attack?) to the leading Democrat candidate.....impressive. 

 
Hey Democrats, it's okay to vote for Bernie Sanders
 

But the odd thing here is that a big number of these voters are almost certainly fine with Sanders — they have just talked themselves into thinking that he can't possibly win. Hey Democrats! You can just vote for Bernie Sanders if you want. It'll be okay.

It can be hard to see this if you watch too much of the hysterically anti-Sanders coverage on supposedly-liberal MSNBC — Chris Matthews recently spoke of his fear that Sanders is a secret communist who might execute him in Central Park — but the fact is most rank-and-file Democrats like Sanders just fine. Indeed, the Morning Consult poll found that his favorability rating among that group is 74 percent — the highest of any of the candidates, even better than Biden.
...

That Democratic elite has spent decades hammering their electorate with the idea that radicals always lose, and that a corporate- and big money-friendly moderate is the way to go. Every election is 1972, and everyone to the left of Jimmy Carter is George McGovern — despite the fact that 1972 is as distant from today as 1924 was from that year, and the fact that moderates lost in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2016.

As we see with the panicked switching between Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, this argument still clearly resonates with a lot of Democratic voters. But the truth is that you just can't know with any kind of certainty who would be the best candidate.

A Sanders nomination would be a risk to be sure, but so would nominating anybody else. Trump really might win no matter who is nominated. Biden has tons of baggage and is plainly terrible at campaigning. Mike Bloomberg has even more baggage. Buttigieg has no experience. Klobuchar is infamous for abusing her staff. And even while both the corporate media and the right-wing agitprop machine attack Sanders as a deranged socialist, he still polls well ahead of Trump in general election matchups — within 1 point of Biden and ahead of everyone else. And let's not forget that in the most recent election, the moderate candidate lost to the biggest buffoon in the history of presidential politics.
Click to expand...

 
:coffee:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/broken-branches-america-s-checks-have-become-imbalanced-trump-era-n1136286

Sanders' new warning

Bernie Sanders says it would be “divisive” if pledged-delegate winner doesn’t become nominee, something that contradicts his 2016 position.

One of the reasons why some believe that Bernie Sanders is the front-runner for the Dem nomination is that, in a multiple-candidate field, he might have the easiest time to get a plurality of pledged delegates in the delegate race.

And, the thinking goes, if you get the most pledged delegates — whether it’s 51 percent, or 47 percent, or 35 percent — the Democratic superdelegates (who would get to vote on a second ballot) wouldn’t overturn that result.

Speaking with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes last night, Bernie Sanders articulated that view.

“In general, I think it is a fair statement to say that it would be very divisive. The convention would have to explain to the American people, 'Hey, Candidate X got the most votes and won the most delegates at the primary process, but we're not going to give him or her the nomination.” I think that would be a divisive moment for the Democratic Party.”

Except Bernie Sanders, his campaign and his supporters didn’t exactly share that opinion in 2016, when it was clear by April’s New York primary that Hillary Clinton had a plurality of pledged delegates (she would get a majority of pledged delegates by June).

Check out this Politico article from March 2016: “Sanders’ campaign thinks the next few weeks of the campaign calendar favor him and is preparing plans to make the uphill case to the superdelegates — the 718 activists and elected officials who can vote however they please — that his late-breaking momentum would make him a stronger nominee that they should support over Clinton.”

[...]

In other words: The superdelegates don't have to automatically break to the winner of the pledged delegates.

 
squistion said:
:coffee:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/broken-branches-america-s-checks-have-become-imbalanced-trump-era-n1136286

Sanders' new warning

Bernie Sanders says it would be “divisive” if pledged-delegate winner doesn’t become nominee, something that contradicts his 2016 position.

One of the reasons why some believe that Bernie Sanders is the front-runner for the Dem nomination is that, in a multiple-candidate field, he might have the easiest time to get a plurality of pledged delegates in the delegate race.

And, the thinking goes, if you get the most pledged delegates — whether it’s 51 percent, or 47 percent, or 35 percent — the Democratic superdelegates (who would get to vote on a second ballot) wouldn’t overturn that result.

Speaking with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes last night, Bernie Sanders articulated that view.

“In general, I think it is a fair statement to say that it would be very divisive. The convention would have to explain to the American people, 'Hey, Candidate X got the most votes and won the most delegates at the primary process, but we're not going to give him or her the nomination.” I think that would be a divisive moment for the Democratic Party.”

Except Bernie Sanders, his campaign and his supporters didn’t exactly share that opinion in 2016, when it was clear by April’s New York primary that Hillary Clinton had a plurality of pledged delegates (she would get a majority of pledged delegates by June).

Check out this Politico article from March 2016: “Sanders’ campaign thinks the next few weeks of the campaign calendar favor him and is preparing plans to make the uphill case to the superdelegates — the 718 activists and elected officials who can vote however they please — that his late-breaking momentum would make him a stronger nominee that they should support over Clinton.”

[...]

In other words: The superdelegates don't have to automatically break to the winner of the pledged delegates.
Click to expand...
Is the Politico piece sourcing this?

 
Navin Johnson said:
Is the Politico piece sourcing this?
Click to expand...
This was the official position of the Sanders campaign during 2016.

Sanders continued in the race because HRC would not be able to get to 50.1% of pledged + super delegates with pledged delegates alone.
 

It was dumb. As dumb as HRC staying in when Obama had sealed it already in 2008. But to get on the soapbox and claim that a plurality of pledged delegates is suddenly sacrosanct is 😂

 
Trey said:
This was the official position of the Sanders campaign during 2016.

Sanders continued in the race because HRC would not be able to get to 50.1% of pledged + super delegates with pledged delegates alone.
 

It was dumb. As dumb as HRC staying in when Obama had sealed it already in 2008. But to get on the soapbox and claim that a plurality of pledged delegates is suddenly sacrosanct is 😂
Click to expand...
The DNC changed the superdelegate rules in the past four years, I think that’s a partial explanation.  But more importantly, do you guys disagree with Sanders that it would be “divisive” if Sanders had the most delegates but wasn’t the nominee?  It seems pretty obviously true to me.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The DNC changed the superdelegate rules in the past four years, I think that’s a partial explanation.  But more importantly, do you guys disagree with Sanders that it would be “divisive” if Sanders had the most delegates but wasn’t the nominee?  It seems pretty obviously true to me.
Click to expand...
Agree whole heartedly. Whoever gets the most pledged delegates needs to be the nominee.
 

Fair game to point out that Bernie didn’t necessarily feel that way 4 years ago however. 

 
Trey said:
Agree whole heartedly. Whoever gets the most pledged delegates needs to be the nominee.
 

Fair game to point out that Bernie didn’t necessarily feel that way 4 years ago however. 
Click to expand...
I don’t know that it’s entirely fair.  

The rules back then were “whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates wins.”

The rules now (on the first ballot at least) are “whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates wins.”

It also seems very different to me because in 2016 it was a two candidate race so nobody was concerned with the issue we’re faced with today.  It seems to me like Bernie wasn’t even really talking about the same thing in 2016 and today.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The DNC changed the superdelegate rules in the past four years, I think that’s a partial explanation.  But more importantly, do you guys disagree with Sanders that it would be “divisive” if Sanders had the most delegates but wasn’t the nominee?  It seems pretty obviously true to me.
Click to expand...
Lets say that 70% vote for three candidates who are close to indistinguishable on positions, none getting more than 29% and Sanders gets 30% 

Why is it preferable to give Sanders the nomination than one of the indistinguishables?

 
msommer said:
Lets say that 70% vote for three candidates who are close to indistinguishable on positions, none getting more than 29% and Sanders gets 30% 

Why is it preferable to give Sanders the nomination than one of the indistinguishables?
Click to expand...
I think with the numbers you describe it would make sense to give it to one of those other candidates.  I still think it would be divisive.

If the numbers are more like 45% for Bernie it becomes a little less defensible.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think with the numbers you describe it would make sense to give it to one of those other candidates.  I still think it would be divisive.

If the numbers are more like 45% for Bernie it becomes a little less defensible.
Click to expand...
Sure. There does seem to be a lot of options in the middle, though.
IMHO I think Bernie got a lot of "Not Hillary" votes last time around that go elsewhere this year. That seems to jive with the percentages he's been getting so far. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I don’t know that it’s entirely fair.  

The rules back then were “whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates wins.”

The rules now (on the first ballot at least) are “whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates wins.”

It also seems very different to me because in 2016 it was a two candidate race so nobody was concerned with the issue we’re faced with today.  It seems to me like Bernie wasn’t even really talking about the same thing in 2016 and today.
Click to expand...
Early 2016, he used the superdelegate boogeyman to rally his base. Overlooking the fact that HRC had a 3-1 advantage over Obama prior to Iowa 2008 and then the supers shifted to him when he started winning. That’s just how it always worked. 
 

Spring 2016 he’s arguing for super delegates to abandon HRC and move to him since it’s the only way to win the nomination at that point. As you point out, within the rules as they were structured at the time.

But if the rules are the rules Bernie needs to get to 50.1% on first ballot at the convention. If he does not, all other candidates will just be playing by the rules as established. 
 

He plays the game is all I’m saying.

All that said, if he gets close to a 40%+ plurality of pledged he MUST be the nominee otherwise the Dem Party burns to the ground. Hopefully, everyone is smart enough to see that. 
 

 
Roger Waters officially onboard.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/482913-roger-waters-tears-into-trump-calls-him-a-mass-destroyer-and
 

Waters responded by taking a shot at Trump while also saying he thinks Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the only person running for the Democratic nomination that can unseat the president.

“Funnily enough, they are [connecting to that message], but unfortunately not f---ing here,” Waters responded. “Because if they were, you wouldn’t have Donald Trump as a president, you wouldn’t be having all this nonsense with the Democratic primaries, with them trying to destroy the only candidate who can possibly win against Donald Trump, Sanders.”
Click to expand...
If Gilmour came out and committed to a Floyd reunion/tour on the condition Bernie must win the election in order for that to happen we could lock this thing up right away.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
msommer said:
Lets say that 70% vote for three candidates who are close to indistinguishable on positions, none getting more than 29% and Sanders gets 30% 

Why is it preferable to give Sanders the nomination than one of the indistinguishables?
Click to expand...
I think with the numbers you describe it would make sense to give it to one of those other candidates.  I still think it would be divisive.

If the numbers are more like 45% for Bernie it becomes a little less defensible.
Click to expand...
I heard the interview last night. Hayes stipulated that the person would be in the lead by 50-100 delegates.

 
Here's the full exchange:
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: I had David Plouffe on the phone the other night. He said whoever has a plurality of delegates, say 50 to 100, going into the convention the party as a political and moral matter has to give the nomination to the person with the plurality of delegates going to the convention. I'm curious if you agree now from the veil of ignorance as a principle, would you agree that whoever goes in would say a plurality of delegates, 50 or 100, that should be the nominee

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT): I think in general what Plouffe said is right. You have to take a look at the nature of the campaign and a whole lot of factors in the campaign we don't know yet. In general, I think it is a fair statement to say it would be very divisive... The convention would have to explain to the American people, hey, candidate X kind of got the most votes and won the most delegates in the primary process but we're not going to give him or her the nomination. I think that would be a very divisive moment for the Democratic party.

 
Mystery Achiever said:
Here's the full exchange:
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: I had David Plouffe on the phone the other night. He said whoever has a plurality of delegates, say 50 to 100, going into the convention the party as a political and moral matter has to give the nomination to the person with the plurality of delegates going to the convention. I'm curious if you agree now from the veil of ignorance as a principle, would you agree that whoever goes in would say a plurality of delegates, 50 or 100, that should be the nominee

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT): I think in general what Plouffe said is right. You have to take a look at the nature of the campaign and a whole lot of factors in the campaign we don't know yet. In general, I think it is a fair statement to say it would be very divisive... The convention would have to explain to the American people, hey, candidate X kind of got the most votes and won the most delegates in the primary process but we're not going to give him or her the nomination. I think that would be a very divisive moment for the Democratic party.
Click to expand...
Thanks.  I don't see anything objectionable here.

 
Briahna Gray recently sat down for an interview with PRIMO NUTMEG (Steve), who I'm a Patreon subscriber of, and I got to submit a question.  It's cool to see a question of yours posed to a campaign surrogate in the real world.  This was my question:

Hey Stevo. I would really appreciate it if you can, to get their position on Assange. Sanders kind of demurred about the issue when asked by Dack Rouleau.

youtu.be/yQBZQnH49zo

You can tell them Dan from Louisville asked, she is doing phenomenal work on their campaign. Thanks, -Dan/Ren

Here was her response.  Not a great answer here; the shrug and sighing would seem to indicate she views the question as a chore or 'landmine' rather than something the campaign has considered very carefully.  She moves on to say Sanders has been consistent on the rights of journalists etc, which isn't exactly a bold response.  Contrast her response on this question to Jeremy Corbyn's.  It frightens me, that after years of Russia hysteria and sliming Wikileaks as agents of Trump/Putin, this issue is such a taboo in this country.  

But to be fair, I think her focus is more on socioeconomic justice and domestic issues than national security so to speak.  Gray is an elegant writer and passionate politico so I don't begrudge her too much for it.  Probably not everyone's wheelhouse around here but figured I'd share 🤷‍♂️.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The DNC changed the superdelegate rules in the past four years, I think that’s a partial explanation.  But more importantly, do you guys disagree with Sanders that it would be “divisive” if Sanders had the most delegates but wasn’t the nominee?  It seems pretty obviously true to me.
Click to expand...
It would be divisive either way.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think with the numbers you describe it would make sense to give it to one of those other candidates.  I still think it would be divisive.

If the numbers are more like 45% for Bernie it becomes a little less defensible.
Click to expand...
If Sanders is ahead in delegates or total votes, even if by 1, and does not receive the nomination, whoever does get the nomination will lose to Trump. On more left forums there is already the concern that the DNC and media are intentionally trying to sink Sanders campaign, and there will be plenty of hurt feelings about it. I mean, if he is behind in delegates or whatever there will still be supporters who stay home, but if it appears to be "stolen" from him, I think it will be significantly more widespread. Pretty much any scenario with a brokered convention drops the democratic nominees chance at winning significantly. 

 
huthut said:
If Sanders is ahead in delegates or total votes, even if by 1, and does not receive the nomination, whoever does get the nomination will lose to Trump. On more left forums there is already the concern that the DNC and media are intentionally trying to sink Sanders campaign, and there will be plenty of hurt feelings about it. I mean, if he is behind in delegates or whatever there will still be supporters who stay home, but if it appears to be "stolen" from him, I think it will be significantly more widespread. Pretty much any scenario with a brokered convention drops the democratic nominees chance at winning significantly. 
Click to expand...
That's basically where I am... If he loses and it seems mostly straight up then I'm fine with it, we gave it a great shot. If he has a good lead and they go elsewhere I'm going to be pretty upset about it

 
Prediction: Bernie gets jobbed (again) in Nevada.

Bonus prediction: The job is pretty obvious and backfires nationally.

As much as I hate caucuses, they're at least somewhat transparent, and folks are gonna be tweeting precinct result unofficially.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Prediction: Bernie gets jobbed (again) in Nevada.

Bonus prediction: The job is pretty obvious and backfires nationally.

As much as I hate caucuses, they're at least somewhat transparent, and folks are gonna be tweeting precinct result unofficially.
Click to expand...
I agree... caucuses are kinda dumb in general but at least the Bernie (and other campaigns) can just take a picture of everyone voting for reference. In the black box of voting machines who knows whats going on. Exit polls only show so much

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
459
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top