SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:14PM
from the how-many-candidates-are-there-now? dept.
from the how-many-candidates-are-there-now? dept.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)........is launching a second run for the White House in 2020." breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-2020-bid
"Reaction to the news was split......with some supporting the 77-year-old and others upset with the move." foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-pokes-fun-at-bernie-sanders-2020-announcement-as-reaction-splits-on-candidacy
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bernie Sanders Announces White House Bid
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 155 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:43PM (41 children)
We're nearly in a repeat of the 1980s.
2020 is a bad year for democrats, much as 2008 was a bad year for republicans. The only electable democrats willing to risk getting crushed by Trump will be the old ones. Biden will get it, and will lose to Trump in a landslide. It'll be like 1984 all over again, when Mondale was crushed.
2024 is a better year for democrats, but the extremists will run somebody hopeless. Pence (or possibly Ted Cruz) will just barely beat the democrat.
2028 is also a decent year for democrats. This time, sanity will prevail and the democrats will run a moderate. It could be somebody like Joe Manchin. The democrat wins. Republican voters will stay home because Pence (or maybe Cruz) just isn't as inspiring as Donald Trump.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:50PM (19 children)
It's a hot take. Trump is pretty unpopular and Democrats have been gradually enraged by the nightmare scenario they thought couldn't happen. Trump can lean on the economic numbers for now, unless something bad happens in the next year and a half.
Also, 22 Republicans are defending Senate seats vs. only 12 Democrats. You could see a situation where Trump gets re-elected, Democrats control the Senate, and the House goes to either party.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:14PM
Good for TV ratings and the tabloids, right?
*sigh* If only the non voters would get up and vote the GOP/DNC out. They could it on their own, they are a majority block.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:28PM
I get that you can't walk around in San Francisco in a MAGA hat without risking violence. That isn't America.
Most of the country loves him. The economy seals the deal. There is no hope for an opponent unless there is a massive crash. Clearly, the strategy will be to convince people that things aren't really as good as they seem, or even to find some way to cause a real crash.
Congress could indeed go 4 different ways.
(Score: 3, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:45PM (16 children)
How "unpopular" is Trump, really? No, I'm not talking popularity with the media, or popularity with the party (either party). Trump is actually popular enough with the people who elected him. He's not terribly UNpopular with the population who didn't vote. He's VERY unpopular with those who soak up mainstream media. Ehhhh - toss the polls around to make the case that Trump is unpopular. That's always our gold standard, right? Except, everyone here knows how those polls are manipulated.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @07:12PM (4 children)
12%. About the rock bottom of the Bush/Cheney international criminal administration. Demographic overlaps with Kardashian followers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:07AM (3 children)
At the same point in the reelection cycle, as of December 31 in the even-numbered year prior to the election year and thus about 1.75 years before the election, we have:
$3.2 million for Bush
$4 million for Obama
$129 million for Trump
That's no 12% or rock bottom, and the Kardashian nonsense has no bearing on the election. There hasn't been much inflation either, so Trump is crushing a Bush-Obama tie by a factor of 30. Sorry not-sorry to burst your bubble, but... we Americans love our President Donald J. Trump.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:53AM (1 child)
What does money have to do with anything, unless you are Russian or the NRA?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:37PM
I didn't vote for Trump and don't particularly like him, but every time someone brings up the #RussiaRussiaRussia manipulative propaganda talking point, the chance I'll vote for him out of spite increases a tenth of a point.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:59AM
Stop speaking for all of us. He's a shit american. His nationalism is so fake. He'd never put his life on the line for the country.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:56PM (10 children)
Ah yes, don't believe anything people say, but totally 100% believe your armchair analysis?
ha ha haaaa
And here I thought you weren't a MAGA dunce, yet you are ALWAYS backing Trump kinda like Fox's "fair and balanced". Uh huh, yup, sure thing pal.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:40PM (8 children)
I remember hearing once that preserving your popularity is the most important political job as president.
The rationale is that if the president goes into an election with horrible favorability, his party will get crushed. If he goes in with high favorability, his party will do very well.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:01PM (7 children)
Trump is actually doing well on that, and strangely enough on credibility.
The media in general has gone so batshit insane that they have lost what credibility they had, and the only people taking notice are the lefties that already believe Trump is literally Hitler.
They (the lefties) scream and moan, and hurl abuse and rocks, and set fires, and any reasonable person looks at that mess and thinks they are obviously insane and both they and the media promoting them can be dismissed. They are so bad that Trump looks reasonable in comparison.
I'll get modded troll or flamebait for this, TDS is real.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:50PM (2 children)
As a person who has considered myself a lifelong "lefty" I think we need some clearer labels. It's obvious that corporate Democrats lost their minds (Hillary voters and the MSM), but corporate Dems/MSM are the antithesis of leftward thought. It's also obvious that the regressive-left is dominated by SJW-charicature-types who want to eviscerate the 1A and that they are a dangerous group. But to lump all the people who would like to see something like Bernie's policies given an actual chance and that crony-capitalism be given the boot into those aforementioned groups, is pretty insulting to us -- just as insulting as calling a person with basic conservative values a knight of the KKK.
I don't call Trump voters nazis because it isn't true for the overwhelmingly vast majority of them. Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to those of us on the left and be a little more discerning.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:19PM
Classical Liberals called. They have no sympathy.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:27PM
I am not a right winger. Of your mainstream politicians, the closest to my politics would be a somewhat strange mix of Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. (but still not very close)
I heartily agree with the need for better labels, and I did refer to the "lefties that already believe Trump is literally Hitler". I did not mean to be insulting to the non-crazy left.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:01PM (3 children)
Let's see, we have:
1) Creation of concentration camps, including separating children from parents. [npr.org] (see: The Holocaust [wikipedia.org])
2) Declaring a state of emergency for things which appear to be non-emergencies [soylentnews.org] (see: Reichstag Fire Decree [wikipedia.org])
3) A President who is supported by a vocal, and violent minority [theguardian.com], who are willing to deny anything and everything just because the President says it is "Fake News". (see: the SA [wikipedia.org])
4) A President cosy'ing up to traditional enemies and rejecting traditional allies of the country. (see: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [wikipedia.org])
Hmm... Yep. I can't see any similarity at all between Trump and Hitler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:53PM
Parents bring the kids along to break into a house, or rob a bank, yeah, their kids will get separated from them.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Thursday February 21 2019, @01:31AM
So tell me...who did Hitler lose his re-election bid to?
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:37AM
Using your logic:
A dead skunk in the middle of the road cannot tell the difference between Trump and Hitler.
You cannot tell the difference between Trump and Hitler.
Therefore you are literally a dead skunk in the middle of the road.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:53PM
Ah yes, don't believe anything people say, but totally 100% believe your armchair analysis?
Damn, it's so tempting to prove these guys wrong but DON'T DO IT!
If they think polls are all fake news and Trump is going to win easily they'll be less likely to vote.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:55PM (14 children)
I wouldn't be so sure. Trump didn't get the popular vote last time, and he's lost some friends after his whole shutdown debacle. Even a lot of the GOP wants Trump to go. He won because last time the DNC (apparent;y) asked itself "What's the dumbest credible thing we can do to lose the race?" and then they did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:39PM
I'm hoping the Rs pick a different candidate and it becomes a 3-or-4 way (if Bernie runs independent). Then maybe we'll see some people actually voting third-party.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @09:17PM (1 child)
Trump isn't getting tossed. The GOP establishment may have their discomfort with Trump, but they've seen voters tossing out GOP candidates that fail to support Trump. The voters love Trump, and the GOP doesn't dare oppose that.
By our constitution, the popular vote doesn't exist. It is a non-concept. If it did matter though... there is at least a reasonable suspicion that it was stolen from Trump. California alone is enough to make the difference, and the vote harvesting over there is fraud running wild. Many leftist states automatically register people to vote, even when getting a driver's license that doesn't qualify as RealID.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:46AM
It's getting sort of interesting. The democrat voters are also getting pissed off enough to toss out establishment cronies, eg AOC beating 10 term political insider Crowley.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:30AM (2 children)
When will you drooling idiots understand? The popular vote doesn't mean jack shit in a presidential election.
Get the fuck over it, your candidate/platform/platitude/promise sucked ass and your team lost.
Electoral votes matter, nothing else does.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:17AM
I'm pretty sure that was what the leaders of the old Soviet Union said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:45AM
Straw man. They do understand that the popular vote does not by itself win elections, but it's still reasonable to point out that Trump lost the popular vote because so many idiots are talking about how people he is/was.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:36AM (1 child)
The citizens of the United States of America do not vote for President. On the ballots it sure looks like you do, but you don't.
What you vote for is a slate of electors to represent your state. Each Presidential candidate has, in each state in which he or she appears on the ballot, a specifically named group of people who have pledged to vote for that candidate should said group be selected to represent that state in the Electoral College. When selected to represent their state, it is these people who vote for President.
So each state (and the District of Columbia) is holding completely separate elections. Grouping together the votes of these completely separate elections for Electoral College representatives, and discussing them like a single election (i.e., the "popular vote") is like grouping together the votes across the country for each county's animal control officer -- in other words, you're doing it wrong.
This is part of the reason why it's called the United States of American, and not the United People of America.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:31PM
I am well aware of how the election works, I'm not nine years old.
The EC was set up as it is in a time when news traveled at the speed of horse and the average citizen was unlikely to have more than one or two interactions with the federal government in their lifetime. Then we invented telegraph and trains started running across the country. The Federal government became a more common presence in people's lives.
Rather than re-write the Constitution and re-engineer the whole electoral process the states decided that the popular vote would select the electors (rather than the state government). as a sort of hack to make the system conform to the results of the popular vote. For the entirety of the 20th century, it did. No elected president failed to also win the popular vote. IIRC there were only 3 cases in the 19th century where a president won the EC but not the popular vote.
We have seen 2 presidential terms like that here in the 21st century, W's first term and Trump.
TYhe upshot is, Trump only squeaked by for his first term, in spite of the DNC trying to coronate HRC over the objections of much of their rank and file. He hasn't done anything to expand his popularity so far, No big wins, the first single party shutdown in U.S. history, and some frankly embarrassing (and a bit worrying) comments praising oppressive world leaders.
Based on that, all the DNC needs to do is not screw the pooch again.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:54PM (5 children)
HRC also did not get the popular vote if by that term you mean more than 50% of the votes. Had she become president, it would have been on a plurality of the votes just as with Trump. You are correct though on HRC being the dumbest possible choice -- she was hated by all Republicans and significant portion of those left of center. Anyone who didn't know that was self-deluded.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
But the DNC's gambit was to position HRC, because of her power in the organization, as candidate, and then dare their "audience" on the left to not vote for her. A la "Here's the candidate we're giving you. Vote for her, or you're voting for Trump. And needless to say a vote for Bernie or Stein is a vote for Trump."
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:46PM
As a Green voter in the last two presidential elections, one of my favorite memes from the last cycle was a picture of Jill Stein with the caption: Trumpers say a vote for Stein is a vote for Hillary; Democrats say a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump; Apparently voting Green counts three times.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:32PM (2 children)
Trump didn't get a plurality of the popular vote at all. His was one of the rare cases where the president wins in the EC but loses by popular vote.
That is, as bad as HRC was, slightly more people held their noses and voted for her than voted for Trump.
It's like a 50 yard dash where nobody finished so they hung the gold on the runner who collapsed closest to the finish line as seen from one viewpoint in the stands..
(Score: 3, Disagree) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:51PM (1 child)
Let us remember that HRC did her level best to get a huge turnout in places like NY and CA (irrelevant b/c she would win those even if she ignored them) while ignoring the battleground states. In the end though, even HRC couldn't cross the 50% threshold and garnered only 48.2% of the vote. Is absolutely true to say that more people voted against HRC than for her (the same is true for Trump of course). This is why I'm ever annoyed about people claiming Clinton got the popular vote. She didn't. She didn't even get half the vote, let alone more than half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:06AM
However, most voting systems award the win to whoever individually gets the most votes even where there are more than 2 candidates and nobody captures more than 50%. More people voted for HRC than Trump no matter how you want to spin it.
That they made it through the primaries is a poor reflection on their respective parties. Sadly, I can't say HRC in the White House would be much of a win either. The election felt a bit like being asked what brand of bullet would I like to be shot with.
If you're hinting that you'd like to see a method better than first past the post, I'm with you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:00PM (5 children)
Lol, if the idiots haven't realized the truth behind the Trumpster Fire then we've got WAY bigger problems than political grandstanding like yours.
I've said it before, I understand why people voted for Trump but at this point it is clear he is terrible in almost every conceivable way. The only remaining reason to like Trump is if you're so full of hate that you just loooove his trolling the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:41PM (4 children)
He's no worse than any other US president I've seen.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @08:46PM (3 children)
Found Hellen Keller!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:45PM (2 children)
Obama: Swindled everybody and delivered only worse than what we already had (Middle East, healthcare etc.). Where was the "Hope and Change"?
W. Bush: Patriot Act. Iraq.
I'm too young to remember anything about Clinton other than that he got a blowjob.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:30AM (1 child)
Clinton got a blowjob, and was really popular because he seemed like the sort of guy you could have a beer with.
George Bush I was an old school conservative, in that born to rule fashion.
Ronald Reagan spent the last 2 years of his presidency incapacitated by Altzheier's. His wife ruled the country with help from her astrologer.
You're welcome.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:57PM
Aside from the BJ, Bill also gave us unfair free trade agreements, the largest prison system in the world, and made it a policy decision to not regulate Credit Default Swaps which set the stage for enormous corporate give-aways a decade later.