Debate Now If Bernie Ran as an Independent November 2016

Discussion in 'Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum' started by flacaltenn, Jun 13, 2018.

  1. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    37,810
    Thanks Received:
    7,272
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    In the center of it all
    Ratings:
    +18,366
    Even if you take the superdelegates out of the equation - Sanders lost the popular vote in the primaries, as well as the delegate count. By a large margin.
     
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,286
    Thanks Received:
    8,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +29,708
    That's what happens when you weighted down in a race with 700 pounds of more baggage. They start talking about you losing from Day 1 of your declaration.. You're not only the underdog, you're the 3 legged underdog..
     
  3. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    46,955
    Thanks Received:
    5,541
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +18,151
    I’m not a Democrat so I’m just kinda relying on the reasons I heard in 2008 when the SD’s that had committed to Clinton (John Lewis of GA was one of them) flipped and voted for Obama at the convention. The reason was simply to ensure that the Party nominates someone who has the best chance of winning in the General Election.

    Superdelegate Explains His Switch in Allegiance

    I’m not wild about the idea of Superdelegates either. I assume that better minds than mine thought it through and came up with the idea. Research shows that the Super Delegates, in fact, come about in 1984 as a “safety net” to ensure the Party nominate someone who has a chance to win. Here are the candidates….
    • Walter Mondale: Lost but anyone would have lost in that election. Gary Hart would have lost too.
    • Michael Dukakis: A disaster of a candidate. Literally one of those “what were they thinking” moments
    • Bill Clinton: Won the presidency
    • Al Gore: Won the popular vote
    • John Kerry: Clearly had no idea how to campaign for the Presidency. In his book, Al Franken reported that the Kerry people didn’t mention Bush Jr. by name from the podium at the convention
    • Barack Obama: Won the Presidency
    • Hillary Clinton: Won the popular vote.
    I think the DEMS did the best they could have done with the candidates they fielded. I can’t imagine that Paul Tsongas would have done better than Dukakis or Bill Richardson done better than Al Gore. Again, if the SD’s had lined up behind Bernie and nominated him, I think he loses to Trump. In a three way, Sanders and Clinton would have split the Democratic vote. The system seems to be working.

    One thing that the Sanders inclusion into the GE would have created was a slight crack in the door moving forward. I think it’s safe to say that he would have won Vermont and possibly some smaller blue states like HI and RI.

    At some point, we will need some 3rd party candidates to emanate from the two traditional parties. If they “break from” their party, they will carry some voters with them. It would be interesting to see a couple of cast offs from the large parties join forces as a 3rd party ticket.
     
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,286
    Thanks Received:
    8,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +29,708
    I'm kinda more interested in the general idea of people who want to be unmuzzled and unbridled voices should ACTUALLY RUN as Independents. Not prostrate themselves to a hostile party that doesn't promote your interests. Like Bernie did out of PRINCIPLE..

    BUT -- why is it up to the PARTY to decide who has the "best chance of winning"? And just the ELITE CENTRAL committee of the party? And WhyTF is the party only interested in "winning" and NOT the best candidates? Voters should be NUMB right now from so much "winning".. Because 65% of the country LOSES every time the parties pick a "winner"..
     
  5. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,286
    Thanks Received:
    8,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +29,708
    The Repubs originally had 16 choices on their primary stage. The Dems offered one and a prop man. The Repubs could protect their party with Central Committee control from pirates like Trump. Think that would be a GOOD thing for voters?
     
  6. Coyote
    Offline

    Coyote Varmint Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    68,741
    Thanks Received:
    12,158
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    in between
    Ratings:
    +34,650
    From my perspective, though I liked Bernie a great deal, some of his ideas were to far left to work on a national scale. I also could not stand the thought of Trump winning and the damage to our country that would result. That makes it hard for me to vote Indie in a national election though I have in state elections.

    I too do not think the DNC Did anything wrong. The voters determined the primaries.
     
  7. Disir
    Offline

    Disir Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    17,964
    Thanks Received:
    2,770
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,919
    Yes, I would have voted for him. At the bare minimum, it would have forced a shift in the national dialogue but not necessarily the one playing out in the media/center stage.

    The presidential debates were a farce and were going to be a farce due to the moderators. That was still going to happen and, in large part, due to their own egos. The MacArthur Foundation and Bill Gates would have still funded Hillary's campaign, as well as, independent media sources and initiated/focused on the "socialist" rhetoric. The media as a whole would have only focused on 2 of his issues. Hillary was going to drop that money for online trolls. The free for all the corporate class had enjoyed in foreign countries whilst she was Secretary of State with the expectation it would continue if she were elected created additional support. The DNC would still have sent goons out wearing Bernie Sanders shirt to Trump rallies. The top down approach to campaigning would not have changed.

    At first.

    What people didn't realize is that there were a schlew of other issues and these conversations had been going on prior to Sanders deciding to run. Those conversations might have continued to happened and it would probably have occurred without the drama of party affiliation. The Democratic Party would not have acted as if Sanders' supporters were somehow obligated to vote for Hillary. I think Sanders had a damn good chance of winning had he ran as an Independent. He would have been a force. Even if he lost, there would have been enough votes that it signaled to the Democrats and the Republicans to pay attention.

    I do agree that the Democratic Party would have either tried to blame Sanders for some type of "collusion" or played a passive aggressive indirect type of accusation.

    The election is over but I do believe that there are long term consequences for the Democratic Party that they haven't even begun to fathom. They may have to lose the next couple of election cycles before they figure it out.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,286
    Thanks Received:
    8,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +29,708
    Where did that get you? There's so much winning going on -- that everyone is miserable. At the end of EVERY election, about 60 to 70% of America loses.. Because there's a lot of Indie registered voters that are not gonna LIFT A FINGER to vote for bad choices. So "winning" is highly over-rated in terms of America being a "happy place"..

    Indies are now a full 44% of declared voters. And the current tribal standoff is doing NOTHING but increasing their ranks. Some of the more VALUED leaders who aren't there to be career PARTY MEMBERS could change the reasons and the way that people see this "winning" thing by actually declaring independence from either of the sorry ass parties..

    Trust me. I've been winning for 25 years now by losing elections but watching ALL of the Libertarian principles become mainstream. It's a matter of timing and REAL revolution against the 2 party tyranny that has developed.
     

Share This Page