2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

The Kennedy machine pushed Obama over the top. Not only name endorsement but money and campaign infrastructure. Speech writers schedulers etc. The Clintons know how to run and win at the national level.
Same advantage Jeb has

I have no idea who is funding and backing Sanders.
 
zitothebrave said:
I disagree with this sentiment. 40 years ago, Paul would have been the Republican Nominee for president. Post-Reagan the religious right has wielded too much power for Paul to have a shot. The RR and the moderate reps would push another candidate (like McCain and Romney) in over Paul. Sanders is campaigning on things that pretty much every liberal likes. Do I think he could have beaten Obama? No. But there are chinks in Hillary's armor. If Bernie can last long enough and keep true to himself he'll make some noise. I think Hillary wins in the end but he'll make it super close. I don't think he quite has the team around him to make an Obama type of run and he won't take PAC money so that will be tough. Sanders appeals to a much broader base in the Democrat side than Paul did in the R side, and he is energizing the Millennials and young Gen Xers who pay attention. I can't go on facebook without a few friends posting various Bernie things. And they aren't all the same age at all. I've seen it from about 36 ro about 20.
Click to expand...

Sanders is so out of touch with economic reality that it's frightening that anyone takes him seriously... I would rather anyone from either side to get in over him - and that's saying something.

Paul had a message that should have resonated with just about everyone... and that was freedom (like legit freedom - not the "Murica" BS). And Paul had by far the most support of the US military than all other candidates combined (X2)... the fact that he was shunned from the establishment, the media, and the GOP was telling.
 
zitothebrave said:
I disagree with this sentiment. 40 years ago, Paul would have been the Republican Nominee for president. Post-Reagan the religious right has wielded too much power for Paul to have a shot. The RR and the moderate reps would push another candidate (like McCain and Romney) in over Paul. Sanders is campaigning on things that pretty much every liberal likes. Do I think he could have beaten Obama? No. But there are chinks in Hillary's armor. If Bernie can last long enough and keep true to himself he'll make some noise. I think Hillary wins in the end but he'll make it super close. I don't think he quite has the team around him to make an Obama type of run and he won't take PAC money so that will be tough. Sanders appeals to a much broader base in the Democrat side than Paul did in the R side, and he is energizing the Millennials and young Gen Xers who pay attention. I can't go on facebook without a few friends posting various Bernie things. And they aren't all the same age at all. I've seen it from about 36 ro about 20.
Click to expand...

Are you actually fully aware of the (lack of) scope Sanders' platform offers? He's exceedingly weak on gun control, on immigration, racial issues. Before saying that he 'campaigns on things that pretty much every liberal likes' you should probably gauge what the national pulse currently is.

Sanders is the 'rogue' flavor of the week. He's a populist who appeals to those who say that they hate the establishment and then don't even end up voting. He doesn't have close to the money/machine to fight Hillary and that's going to become pretty apparent when Spring Training ends.
 
57Brave said:
The Kennedy machine pushed Obama over the top. Not only name endorsement but money and campaign infrastructure. Speech writers schedulers etc. The Clintons know how to run and win at the national level.
Same advantage Jeb has

I have no idea who is funding and backing Sanders.
Click to expand...

You want to know whos' funding Sanders? The People primarily. I think I read something like his average campaign donation is 33 dollars and his base is some huge number of individual and unique donors.
 
zitothebrave said:
You want to know whos' funding Sanders? The People primarily. I think I read something like his average campaign donation is 33 dollars and his base is some huge number of individual and unique donors.
Click to expand...

He's raised $15MM, a little over half of which came from individual donors. That'd be impressive in a field larger than two (does O'Malley even count?)
 
Hawk said:
Are you actually fully aware of the (lack of) scope Sanders' platform offers? He's exceedingly weak on gun control, on immigration, racial issues. Before saying that he 'campaigns on things that pretty much every liberal likes' you should probably gauge what the national pulse currently is.

Sanders is the 'rogue' flavor of the week. He's a populist who appeals to those who say that they hate the establishment and then don't even end up voting. He doesn't have close to the money/machine to fight Hillary and that's going to become pretty apparent when Spring Training ends.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's weak on immigration, gun control or racial issues. I think you're overplaying gun control on the left as well. They're more than willing to put that behind them for other issues that Sanders is catering to. Sure he'll alienate a certain left looney or two with his gun stance. But it's pretty much right down the line with America. Address the issues for the shootings, not just the guns. Racial issues, he believes by addressing the financial issues we're having (income inequality if you would) many racial issues will dissolve. True he doesn't pander to race issues, but will that be a bad thing? It will make it harder to get elected, Hilary is likely to carry the black vote at an impressively high level, and Sanders will get hit hard in the South for that reason. For Immigration, Sanders has been on the record as being more progressive than Obama. But it's not one of his major talking point. His major talking point is jobs and economics. Shocker I know.
 
Hawk said:
He's raised $15MM, a little over half of which came from individual donors. That'd be impressive in a field larger than two (does O'Malley even count?)
Click to expand...

For him it's about grass roots and building up. I don't think he beats Hillary and once results come rolling in she will roll away with it. But if Sanders builds the right base, he could very well shock early on and get even more help. Unfortunately for him though, he has no shot of winning without corporate/PAC donations. Just doesn't exist. If he gets the Nom it will be the R money machine vs dems who've been backing him since the get go. He'll have no shot and odds are the money men who would have bankrolled the D candidate would either join in with the R as a way to suppress this from happening again, or back Hillary in a 3rd party bid or something like that to wipe out the D vote and do like the Rs did when Clinton was elected. Point and go "see what happens when you don't vote the way we want you to, third party doesn't work" and so on so forth.

The idealist in me wants Bernie to run hsi campaign the way he has and win. The realist knows it won't happen, but nothing would be better for America than Bernie winning. It owuld greatly shake up the political landscape which has been stagnant for at a minimum the last 25 years.
 
zitothebrave said:
I don't think he's weak on immigration, gun control or racial issues. I think you're overplaying gun control on the left as well. They're more than willing to put that behind them for other issues that Sanders is catering to. Sure he'll alienate a certain left looney or two with his gun stance. But it's pretty much right down the line with America. Address the issues for the shootings, not just the guns. Racial issues, he believes by addressing the financial issues we're having (income inequality if you would) many racial issues will dissolve. True he doesn't pander to race issues, but will that be a bad thing? It will make it harder to get elected, Hilary is likely to carry the black vote at an impressively high level, and Sanders will get hit hard in the South for that reason. For Immigration, Sanders has been on the record as being more progressive than Obama. But it's not one of his major talking point. His major talking point is jobs and economics. Shocker I know.
Click to expand...

You keep asserting that Sanders is some kind of actual true voice for Democratic ideals, but you aren't providing any examples outside of the populism jiggery. There's just not enough substance there to make it applicable to race relations (for blacks OR latinos -- and that's a huge component of the Democratic base that he has no footing in whatsoever, and you cannot understate how huge that is).

I'm looking for practical ways that he could win on the ideas alone, but cursorily appealing to the WASP niche just isn't enough.
 
Hawk said:
He's raised $15MM, a little over half of which came from individual donors. That'd be impressive in a field larger than two (does O'Malley even count?)
Click to expand...

Paul raised more than $40M, almost completely on individual donors... and in a much larger field of candidates
 
zitothebrave said:
For him it's about grass roots and building up. I don't think he beats Hillary and once results come rolling in she will roll away with it. But if Sanders builds the right base, he could very well shock early on and get even more help. Unfortunately for him though, he has no shot of winning without corporate/PAC donations. Just doesn't exist. If he gets the Nom it will be the R money machine vs dems who've been backing him since the get go. He'll have no shot and odds are the money men who would have bankrolled the D candidate would either join in with the R as a way to suppress this from happening again, or back Hillary in a 3rd party bid or something like that to wipe out the D vote and do like the Rs did when Clinton was elected. Point and go "see what happens when you don't vote the way we want you to, third party doesn't work" and so on so forth.

The idealist in me wants Bernie to run hsi campaign the way he has and win. The realist knows it won't happen, but nothing would be better for America than Bernie winning. It owuld greatly shake up the political landscape which has been stagnant for at a minimum the last 25 years.
Click to expand...

So, yeah, Ron Paul 2.0 in every respect. Except with a less politically involved core demographic and a smaller donor pool.
 
Hawk said:
You keep asserting that Sanders is some kind of actual true voice for Democratic ideals, but you aren't providing any examples outside of the populism jiggery. There's just not enough substance there to make it applicable to race relations (for blacks OR latinos -- and that's a huge component of the Democratic base that he has no footing in whatsoever, and you cannot understate how huge that is).

I'm looking for practical ways that he could win on the ideas alone, but cursorily appealing to the WASP niche just isn't enough.
Click to expand...

It's not about appealing to the WASP niche. It's about appealing to the people who drove the Obama bus in 08. Sure he has issues in the race department and I think come debate time he'll address that. He's right now focused on raising money and getting Clinton to discuss the issues he wants discussed.

Sanders isn't my dream candidate. Not even close. I am way more liberal than him and further to the right than him. I said before my beliefs fall somewhere in between the Green and Libertarian parties. I don't believe all government is bad and somethings they do well and some things they should do. But I also don't believe in populism being the right way to dictate many things. I'm a big fan in the government staying out of most civil liberty issues as well
 
zitothebrave said:
It's not about appealing to the WASP niche. It's about appealing to the people who drove the Obama bus in 08. Sure he has issues in the race department and I think come debate time he'll address that. He's right now focused on raising money and getting Clinton to discuss the issues he wants discussed.
Click to expand...

Well, time is of the essence -- whenever he 'wants' to start discussing them he's going to have to contend with his silence thus far and then try to come across as not blatantly pandering for the vote.

I have no real comments on Sanders' positions, just don't see him as a viable candidate. I respect the fact that he's performing so well, so far, but I have a feeling that it's a situation comparable to Lord Johnson's BABIP-fest circa 2013.

Howard Dean had the same kind of popular appeal, but could never attract the black vote. That's a huge problem for a Democrat. Maybe Sanders could drive into inner-city Baltimore and start screaming incoherently. That sounds like something a socialist would do, actually.
 
Hawk said:
Well, time is of the essence -- whenever he 'wants' to start discussing them he's going to have to contend with his silence thus far and then try to come across as not blatantly pandering for the vote.

I have no real comments on Sanders' positions, just don't see him as a viable candidate. I respect the fact that he's performing so well, so far, but I have a feeling that it's a situation comparable to Lord Johnson's BABIP-fest circa 2013.

Howard Dean had the same kind of popular appeal, but could never attract the black vote. That's a huge problem for a Democrat.
Click to expand...

As far as Dean goes, it's a really poor comparison. Dean was the national front runner before Iowa and he and Gebhart tore each other up leading up to the Primaries, which created a gap for Kerry and Edwards to fill (and hardly the first one Edwards filled, AMIRITE?)

Sanders ahs a clear cut plan, and that's to win Iowa and New Hampshire. IF he succeeds there his positive momentum will be great enough that he will be the one everyone talks about and he can pull up all kinds of old reports on dealing with race and immigration if people feel he isn't genuine. He has to win one of the 2. You'd think New Hampshire would be easier given Vermont's proximity to NH, but given the general political compass of NH (right down the middle) Hillary has a better appeal there.
 
zitothebrave said:
As far as Dean goes, it's a really poor comparison. Dean was the national front runner before Iowa and he and Gebhart tore each other up leading up to the Primaries, which created a gap for Kerry and Edwards to fill (and hardly the first one Edwards filled, AMIRITE?)

Sanders ahs a clear cut plan, and that's to win Iowa and New Hampshire. IF he succeeds there his positive momentum will be great enough that he will be the one everyone talks about and he can pull up all kinds of old reports on dealing with race and immigration if people feel he isn't genuine. He has to win one of the 2. You'd think New Hampshire would be easier given Vermont's proximity to NH, but given the general political compass of NH (right down the middle) Hillary has a better appeal there.
Click to expand...

Dean and Sanders are similar in more ways than not -- the 'alternative' candidate heavily reliant upon grassroots donations, word of mouth, etc.

Dean actually had some solid ideas that the Democrats ended up borrowing heavily from.

BTW, I think we've learned that 'my voting record should speak for itself' doesn't exactly pass muster in modern politics.
 
zitothebrave said:
It's not about appealing to the WASP niche. It's about appealing to the people who drove the Obama bus in 08.
Click to expand...

The same people that sat out the 2010 mid-terms or voted for Nader in 2000?

Grass roots fund raising doesn't even win a House seat any longer. Same as it has been since the reconstruction political machines.
Just a higher sticker price
///

Judging by his Senate record and even more importantly his record as Mayor I think he would make an excellent POTUS. Doesn't agree with me on a lot of things but looking at his administrative style I think he'd get a lot done. For everyone.
He listens

Howard Dean would have made an excellent POTUS as well. For the same reasons.
Witness his success of herding (D) cats to win the national legislature with his 50 states initiative.
It all went well until Obama added 7 without telling anyone
 
zitothebrave said:
I'm not seeing any numbers that confirm that. And he did take money from Pacs in large doses. Not at Robamney level.
Click to expand...

Link

I believe that is not inclusive of a couple of PACs that were formed in support of his campaign - but not money that went to Paul himself. There were several PACs that were formed that spent money on grassroot efforts for Paul and his caucus strategies (Campaign for Liberty, LibertyPAC, Endorse Liberty, etc. to name a few)
 
goldfly said:
I guess 2 is tough for some
Click to expand...

11666126_802150539883838_920447864709518754_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top