Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
State election work differently than Presidential elections.
That actually a fair point, the problem is that there is nothing to back up your claim that Sanders would have beat Trump, which is my point.
Quote:
Researching every possible candidate isn't something I care to take the time to do. As I've noted I like Tulsi Gabbard. Is the fact she backed Bernie make her part of the Bernie wing (even though it was never actually about Bernie). Or does it simply make her right?
I wasnt asking for some in depth research. Just People outside of the Bernie wing, and yes, having supported him in the primaries, I would say she is a member of his wing.
Im going to throw some names out there.
Jason Kander, Andrew Gillum, Martin O'Malley , Stacey Abrams, Jon Tester, Jay Inslee , Steve Bullock, Mark Dayton, Amy Klobuchar.
Are all these people corporate Dems in your mind ?
That actually a fair point, the problem is that there is nothing to back up your claim that Sanders would have beat Trump, which is my point.
Bernie doesn't lose a single state Hillary won. He wins Michigan and Wisconsin and that just leaves Pennsylvania.
Quote:
I wasnt asking for some in depth research. Just People outside of the Bernie wing, and yes, having supported him in the primaries, I would say she is a member of his wing.
Im going to throw some names out there.
Jason Kander, Andrew Gillum, Martin O'Malley , Stacey Abrams, Jon Tester, Jay Inslee , Steve Bullock, Mark Dayton, Amy Klobuchar.
Are all these people corporate Dems in your mind ?
I know nothing about any of them. For the heck of it, I pick the first name. His positions are pretty generic with nothing to go on. I do note he is for testing welfare recipients which is a complete waste of time. I can't make any kind of determination on someone with such limited info.
Bernie doesn't lose a single state Hillary won. He wins Michigan and Wisconsin and that just leaves Pennsylvania.
again, thats opinion, there is no real evidence to support it.
Quote:
I know nothing about any of them. For the heck of it, I pick the first name. His positions are pretty generic with nothing to go on. I do note he is for testing welfare recipients which is a complete waste of time. I can't make any kind of determination on someone with such limited info.
Im fine with his plan, and just to be clear, his plan isnt the Florida plan.
He wants to test only those already suspected of use, and the suspension would be one year from the program. That actually would save tax payers money.
Im fine with his plan, and just to be clear, his plan isnt the Florida plan.
He wants to test only those already suspected of use, and the suspension would be one year from the program. That actually would save tax payers money.
Not interested on violating people's rights based upon some suspicion.
Not interested on violating people's rights based upon some suspicion.
I have long believed you should not have to be drug tested to participate in society, however my believe stems from not having a history of drug abuse, aka innocence.
If an individual has a history and is clearly showing signs of drug abuse, then im fine with testing and under Kanders plan, those involved would have gotten help for their addictions, not just kicked off entirely.
The Bernie Bros are a peculiar lot. According to Hillary they live in their mother's basements and dream that a 500 year old communist porno writer is going to lead the United States to newers and greater heights never seen before.
I'm not sure if they will be much of a factor in 2020, because when The Democrat party nominates it's next establishment hack, they will be back to playing World of Warcraft again.
I have to wonder whether Bernie would not be a replay of George McGovern in 1972. McGovern was unabashedly far-left, and lost 49 states, winning only MA and the district of Columbia. And his opponent, Nixon, was hardly a paragon of popularity at the time. AOC notwithstanding, I don't think the US has moved much to the left since 1972. If anything, we are now further to the right.
But Bernie did run strongly in 2016, and I can see him getting the nomination in 2020. It will be a wild ride.
I have to wonder whether Bernie would not be a replay of George McGovern in 1972. McGovern was unabashedly far-left, and lost 49 states, winning only MA and the district of Columbia. And his opponent, Nixon, was hardly a paragon of popularity at the time. AOC notwithstanding, I don't think the US has moved much to the left since 1972. If anything, we are now further to the right.
But Bernie did run strongly in 2016, and I can see him getting the nomination in 2020. It will be a wild ride.
I wondered the same thing. I well remember McGovern's ability to fire up his base support. He was good, but Bernie was better.
Comparisons between them are very hard to make fairly, though. McGovern became the opponent of a very popular President at a time when all the anarchy that was happening was coming from within the Democratic party.
McGovern's style was never as rousing or inspiring as Bernie's is, and George was unexpectedly saddled with a VP candidate, Tom Eagleton, who had once gotten shock therapy for depression. Back then, anyone who got electroshock therapy was presumed to be violently crazy.
2016 was a very different election in a very different time. McGovern would not be seen today as being all that far left at all, just as Nixon is no longer seen as being far right.
If the 1972 election had been a a toss-up with no incumbent, I've always thought it was possible that McGovern could have won, even after Eagleton was forced to bail out. Sargent Shriver was a pretty darn good replacement, but Eagleton crippled McGovern's chances in what was already an uphill fight.
it's easy to forget just how popular Richard Nixon was in 1972. The election soon followed Nixon's triumphal trip to China just a few months earlier, and the entire nation (and the entire world) thought the U.S. detente with China was the best thing that had happened in many years. Nixon followed China up with a Russian arms agreement, and coasted all the way to a second term afterward.
Nixon was so sure he would be re-elected he didn't even bother to campaign in 1972. He spent the summer in the White House or in his San Clemente home hanging out with his best buddy Bebe Rebozo.
That's part of the reason why the Watergate break-in was so puzzling and so hard to believe for so many Americans later on.
I like Bernie. Voted for him, sent him money for months.
Most of his supporters have **** for brains. And they proved it at the convention.
Go Beto.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
