wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,104
- Reaction score
- 3,265
He’s a charismatic Clinton and he couldn’t even win Texas.
This is what I'm not getting. It's kinda hard for anyone without an R to win statewide in Texas, right?
He’s a charismatic Clinton and he couldn’t even win Texas.
This is what I'm not getting. It's kinda hard for anyone without an R to win statewide in Texas, right?
It’s kinda hard to win the presidency, too. Perhaps his charisma could carry him in a general, but his record certainly won’t. He may move left as he enters the national political scene, but whether voters will trust him remains to be seen.
What did you think about mdmh’s post, btw? Or The Guardian article that he referenced?
After 2000, 2004, and 2016, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Democrats to have high expectations for a presidential candidate.
Every Dem on this board is intelligent and votes for candidates when it counts. The pushback on here towards critical discourse is concerning to say the least.
Yet you fawn over AOC who won..........an extremely progressive congressional district in NY.
What’s your point? She represents my political ideology about as closely as any politician in my lifetime. Of course I like her a lot.
My point is that you act like the only people who are electable nationwide are progressives when there is little evidence that this is the case. Of course you should like people who match your ideology. Your comment about Beto not winning Texas when you support Bernie who couldn't beat Hillary just about every large state population primary is a telling one.
Why do you believe Bernie is a bad choice?I think Bernie is a bad choice for President. And I don’t think Bernie has helped build up a national progressive bench. If Bernie is still the best Progressive candidate, he’s done a poor job. If Bernie is the only progressive candidate, he’s no better than Hillary.
Why do you believe Bernie is a bad choice?
Why do you believe Bernie is a bad choice?
This isn’t important to the argument that he is trying to make and he has already explained this in other posts.
I’d rather Ph show his work for some of the speculation-as-fact points that are central to his argument.
There are more appealing people to carry the message. Bernie got traction because he has a good albeit limited Progressive message and he wasn’t Hillary. There should be other more appealing “have a beer with” Progressives with more personality, who have a better track record on guns and minorities who can break through.
I don’t get why people are stuck on him. He has no real advantage unless there are no other Progressives in the race. He did his job by having the balls to face Hillary. If he was any good, he would have beat her like Obama did.
Kennedy - 43
LBJ - 56
Carter - 52
Clinton - 44
Obama - 47
Dems prefer younger nominees. It’s hard to see Democrats rallying around a cantankerous old man from Vermont.
I’m going to go ahead and guess what you think is “speculation-as-fact” is just speculation. Fact isn’t the same as opinion.
Are y’all all Washington/DNC insiders?
From what I can tell, Ph has a weird Bernie thing and mdmh and I have dared questioned Beto’s credentials. Hell, even Creamy and Catamount dig this dude.
Y’all are weird. Sleep it off already.
Bernie has no chance to win. He's too old. Even by 2020, people in swing states are less likely to vote for a person who proudly calls himself anything with socialist in it. You can dream all you like, but that's a no go for the near future nationally.
It’s going to take another decade or so good politics from the DSA and even more time for people to realize the problems in our society are structural problems with capitalism before socialist candidates get national traction.
The problem is in that time they are also going to figure out the structural problems of socialism.