Debate Now If Bernie Ran as an Independent November 2016

[flacaltenn]

This is an Invite Only thread. If your member name does not appear in the alert call list -- DO NOT POST HERE -- do not even use the rating buttons on posts in this thread.

Knowing what you did about how Bernie got screwed by Super Delegates and DNC snubs, and if he had let the DNC nominate some other sucker to play the role of Hillary's punching bag, skipped the DNC primaries and run as an INDEPENDENT in the Nov. 16 General Election --- would you have voted for him? How do you THINK the outcome would have been for the threesome?

Do you think the TONE of the debates and the national conversation would have been BETTER? Or worse? If there was a similar Independent challenger that ate into Trump vote totals -- would that signal Armageddon for the election results or better choice and discussion?

rightwinger BULLDOG candycorn OldLady Mac1958 kaz Coyote dblack theDoctorisIn Disir

 

[candycorn]

This is an Invite Only thread. If your member name does not appear in the alert call list -- DO NOT POST HERE -- do not even use the rating buttons on posts in this thread.

Knowing what you did about how Bernie got screwed by Super Delegates and DNC snubs, and if he had let the DNC nominate some other sucker to play the role of Hillary's punching bag, skipped the DNC primaries and run as an INDEPENDENT in the Nov. 16 General Election --- would you have voted for him? How do you THINK the outcome would have been for the threesome?

Well, first I don’t think the Super Delegates screwed Bernie. They’ve had Supers since at least 1984 with Mondale. Clearly the DNC leadership did favor Clinton over Bernie. For good reason. She has been a democrat forever and Bernie isn’t a democrat. She was electable…I agree with them in saying that he was not. She won every large state and she won the popular vote. Sometimes the ball just goes into the gutter.

I disagree with their tactics. Clearly, they were in the bag for Clinton. They should just have let the convention play out like it would have anyway.

To answer your question, I would have still voted for HRC. Former FLOTUS, elected to the US Senate twice, former US SoS, Grammy winner, consistently on the list of most admired and most influential women…. best qualified person to seek the office since Bush Sr.

The general election outcome probably would have been the same with the Democrat vote split between Bernie and HRC and Trump getting a plurality of the popular vote.

Do you think the TONE of the debates and the national conversation would have been BETTER? Or worse? If there was a similar Independent challenger that ate into Trump vote totals -- would that signal Armageddon for the election results or better choice and discussion?

The TONE would have been slightly different. I think it would have benefitted Clinton myself.

The conversation would be better, A serious third party challenger puts a hole in the dam of the two party system.



rightwinger BULLDOG candycorn OldLady Mac1958 kaz Coyote dblack theDoctorisIn Disir [/QUOTE]

 

[flacaltenn]

The TONE would have been slightly different. I think it would have benefitted Clinton myself.

The conversation would be better, A serious third party challenger puts a hole in the dam of the two party system.

You don't think when the gloves came off and it was a REAL DEBATE between Bernie and Hillary that Hillary would have "lost a bit of polish" amongst the DNC faithful? Or even the dynamic of having three people on the stage that ALL HAD a considerable base constituency competing --- that wouldn't have moved the discussion further into policies and issues instead of ideals. Hillary would have a LOT to defend against Bernie in a REAL debate.

 

[candycorn]

The TONE would have been slightly different. I think it would have benefitted Clinton myself.

The conversation would be better, A serious third party challenger puts a hole in the dam of the two party system.

You don't think when the gloves came off and it was a REAL DEBATE between Bernie and Hillary that Hillary would have "lost a bit of polish" amongst the DNC faithful? Or even the dynamic of having three people on the stage that ALL HAD a considerable base constituency competing --- that wouldn't have moved the discussion further into policies and issues instead of ideals. Hillary would have a LOT to defend against Bernie in a REAL debate.

Correct on all points. I do think that the (50 cent phrase here) overarching paradigm in any Presidential election is electability. Bernie was not electable. He self identified as a Democratic Socialist. I assumed you meant 3 way between Trump, Hillary and Sanders….in that case, Bernie would have probably went after Trump more than Hillary because at the end of the day, Sanders knows that HRC would have been a superior President to Trump.

 

[BULLDOG]

This is a stupid idea. Put me on your don't call list.

 

[Mac1958]

Bernie's support was YUGE and energetic within the party. And, there were people who supported both he and Trump, because there are more and more people who just simply can't take the standard party bullshit any more.

Thinking it through a bit, the debates would sure have been interesting. Having one more person pounding on him would have hurt Trump more, but he would have kept much more of his support than Hillary would have, so I suspect he would have won anyway.

Would I still have voted for Hillary? I literally just sat here a while, thinking about it. Probably.
.

 

[OldLady]

Like Mac, I had to think about this one. No, I still had to vote against Trump and I couldn't vote for Bernie, even if he were an independent. Bernie would have taken votes from Clinton (NO Republican or conservative would have voted for him) and Trump would have won by more than he did.

I don't like this Super Delegate thing at all. I don't think it should be allowed. The parties may be private organizations who can do what they please, but their process ends up giving us the choices for who is going to lead this country and considering that, I think they should be stopped from that kind of shenanigans in the Electoral College voting.

I don't know a whole lot about it, so if someone can disabuse me of that notion, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think several interesting things would have happened under this scenario..

1) The lefty media would be tossed TOTALLY off their game. Because there would be genuine emotional conflict about COVERAGING such a match-up.. I feel they would chicken-out in terms of taking sides in genuines conflicts between Bernie and Hillary. And Bernie would GREATLY benefit from all their free coverage of his campaign..

2) It's almost certain the Hilliary campaign and the DNC would have gone into FULL commando mode to shake off the Bernie challenge and simultaneously attack Trump. Since Hilliary virtually had a lease on the DNC by paying off debts and was able to tilt the party central committee in her favor. It would be "situation room" warfare to try and pick-off Bernie as early as possible. Likely Bernie would have been INCLUDED in the Russian collusion allegations. I say that because it's almost DEFINITE that RT and other Russian media would have fallen all over themselves to offer glowing daily pieces about a real American Socialist campaign. Like they did for Jill Stein and her trip to Russia to meet with top Putin aides. And Bernie has that baggage of taking his honeymoon in Moscow after-all ----

3) This whole exercise just illustrates how Verboten it is to even PONDER 3 way or 4 way competitive choice races on an American ballot. And having a wider swath of America actually represented in the choices and somewhat "jazzed" would make the voters consider what "winning" actually means. Especially, if there was broader and better DEBATES to go with the deal. Bernie would have certainly qualified over the 15% polling level to ENTER the debates and set a VERY important precedent for breaking down the ILLUSION that only the 2 inept and corrupt parties can field "winners"..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I did vote for Bernie in the General - I wrote him in. I imagine that if he had been running as an Indy, I would have voted for him that way.

But I only did that because I lived in California at the time, and therefore had the privilege of doing so. If I had been living in a competitive state, I would likely have had to hold my nose and vote for Hilary.

As for the DNC "screwing" Sanders, I don't see that as something that actually happened. Bernie lost the primaries. Thousands more people voted for Clinton over him - and the DNC didn't force them to do so. The party has little control over its voters.

 

[flacaltenn]

I did vote for Bernie in the General - I wrote him in. I imagine that if he had been running as an Indy, I would have voted for him that way.

But I only did that because I lived in California at the time, and therefore had the privilege of doing so. If I had been living in a competitive state, I would likely have had to hold my nose and vote for Hilary.

As for the DNC "screwing" Sanders, I don't see that as something that actually happened. Bernie lost the primaries. Thousands more people voted for Clinton over him - and the DNC didn't force them to do so. The party has little control over its voters.

We've personally discussed the super delegate situation before. And you shared a bunch of knowledge with me about it. But the fact is --- when the primary candidate literally "leases" the DNC for the duration of an election, and refuses to equally share voter metrics and lists and has the equivalent of 130,000 (IIRC) Super-D votes that literally disenfranchise 7300 ACTUAL voters -- that's a VERY big impediment to a FAIR process by any measure. Bernie lost several states because of S-D votes. You are down 30% in delegate count before you even hit the campaign trail. He smashed her in New Hampshire 60/40 and walked away with only equal delegates. That's a roadblock for the 1st MAJOR primary..


The party KNOWS this is indefensible. It's STILL stinging because of the intense resentment from the Bernie fans.

DNC Chair backs plan to effectively eliminate key role of 'super delegates' in nomination process

Carl Leubsdorf: Democrats' civil war over super delegates

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I did vote for Bernie in the General - I wrote him in. I imagine that if he had been running as an Indy, I would have voted for him that way.

But I only did that because I lived in California at the time, and therefore had the privilege of doing so. If I had been living in a competitive state, I would likely have had to hold my nose and vote for Hilary.

As for the DNC "screwing" Sanders, I don't see that as something that actually happened. Bernie lost the primaries. Thousands more people voted for Clinton over him - and the DNC didn't force them to do so. The party has little control over its voters.

We've personally discussed the super delegate situation before. And you shared a bunch of knowledge with me about it. But the fact is --- when the primary candidate literally "leases" the DNC for the duration of an election, and refuses to equally share voter metrics and lists and has the equivalent of 130,000 (IIRC) Super-D votes that literally disenfranchise 7300 ACTUAL voters -- that's a VERY big impediment to a FAIR process by any measure. Bernie lost several states because of S-D votes. You are down 30% in delegate count before you even hit the campaign trail. He smashed her in New Hampshire 60/40 and walked away with only equal delegates. That's a roadblock for the 1st MAJOR primary..


The party KNOWS this is indefensible. It's STILL stinging because of the intense resentment from the Bernie fans.

DNC Chair backs plan to effectively eliminate key role of 'super delegates' in nomination process

Carl Leubsdorf: Democrats' civil war over super delegates

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

I did vote for Bernie in the General - I wrote him in. I imagine that if he had been running as an Indy, I would have voted for him that way.

But I only did that because I lived in California at the time, and therefore had the privilege of doing so. If I had been living in a competitive state, I would likely have had to hold my nose and vote for Hilary.

As for the DNC "screwing" Sanders, I don't see that as something that actually happened. Bernie lost the primaries. Thousands more people voted for Clinton over him - and the DNC didn't force them to do so. The party has little control over its voters.

We've personally discussed the super delegate situation before. And you shared a bunch of knowledge with me about it. But the fact is --- when the primary candidate literally "leases" the DNC for the duration of an election, and refuses to equally share voter metrics and lists and has the equivalent of 130,000 (IIRC) Super-D votes that literally disenfranchise 7300 ACTUAL voters -- that's a VERY big impediment to a FAIR process by any measure. Bernie lost several states because of S-D votes. You are down 30% in delegate count before you even hit the campaign trail. He smashed her in New Hampshire 60/40 and walked away with only equal delegates. That's a roadblock for the 1st MAJOR primary..


The party KNOWS this is indefensible. It's STILL stinging because of the intense resentment from the Bernie fans.

DNC Chair backs plan to effectively eliminate key role of 'super delegates' in nomination process

Carl Leubsdorf: Democrats' civil war over super delegates

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.

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..

 

[candycorn]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

The reason was simply to ensure that the Party nominates someone who has the best chance of winning in the General Election.

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"..

 

[flacaltenn]

• 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.

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?

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[Disir]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.