Bernie Sanders

[JLives]

It's way past time Sanders had his own thread. It's looking like Clinton's last run against Obama all over again. The amount of grassroots support this guy has is remarkable.

http://time.com/4189537/bernie-sanders- ... d=homepage

I predict Sanders overwhelmingly wins the next election and America elects a *gasp* Democratic Socialist.

[d0nb]

Bernie will do okay in Iowa and NH vs. the intensely unlikable Hillary, but his star will fade in the southern primaries.

If Hillary is indicted, Sanders might have to face Joe Biden. That's another battle he wouldn't win.

[JLives]

I suspect Clinton will squeak ahead in Iowa tonight but when the voters, and not the delegates, get their say it's going to be a different story. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN0VA3IN

[Urbane]

It's way past time Sanders had his own thread. It's looking like Clinton's last run against Obama all over again. The amount of grassroots support this guy has is remarkable.

http://time.com/4189537/bernie-sanders- ... d=homepage

I predict Sanders overwhelmingly wins the next election and America elects a *gasp* Democratic Socialist.

Sanders is sincere in his beliefs and seems more genuine than most politicians. However, he has zero chance of becoming the next president. Well, close to zero chance. Bernie Sanders would be comfortable with the NDP in Canada and that's not where the average American voter would be comfortable. Not even the average Canadian voter for that matter. If HRC were to be indicted following this FBI investigation someone more mainstream like Joe Biden would come along and still stop Bernie Sanders from winning. If HRC isn't indicted, and I doubt that she will be, then she'll be the Democratic nominee. Rubio vs Clinton. That's my prediction.

[JLives]

Sanders is sincere in his beliefs and seems more genuine than most politicians. However, he has zero chance of becoming the next president. Well, close to zero chance. Bernie Sanders would be comfortable with the NDP in Canada and that's not where the average American voter would be comfortable. Not even the average Canadian voter for that matter. If HRC were to be indicted following this FBI investigation someone more mainstream like Joe Biden would come along and still stop Bernie Sanders from winning. If HRC isn't indicted, and I doubt that she will be, then she'll be the Democratic nominee. Rubio vs Clinton. That's my prediction.

What are you basing that on? I know he's not the normal type of candidate but that's a plus, he has massive support. He has come this far while not having a SuperPAC and having some ideas we have rarely heard come out of an American politicians mouth. His donations and speech turnout are breaking records and his supporters are going to vote in droves.

I don't think voters are going to accept Clinton as a candidate, they don't trust her and see her as hawkish. Sanders has been consistent in his views of helping the working class and being opposed to regime change in the ME for 40 odd years, I think that resonates with people. He even said he wasn't religious and nobody freaked out, that surprised even me. And if anything, he has definitely shaped Clinton's campaign. She just came out in favour of Universal Health Care tonight after not supporting it just last week. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/ ... ighlights/

ETA: They are currently in a dead heat in the Iowa caucus. Wait until it's the general public voting and not delegates.

[Urbane]

What are you basing that on? I know he's not the normal type of candidate but that's a plus, he has massive support. He has come this far while not having a SuperPAC and having some ideas we have rarely heard come out of an American politicians mouth. His donations and speech turnout are breaking records and his supporters are going to vote in droves.

I don't think voters are going to accept Clinton as a candidate, they don't trust her and see her as hawkish. Sanders has been consistent in his views of helping the working class and being opposed to regime change in the ME for 40 odd years, I think that resonates with people. He even said he wasn't religious and nobody freaked out, that surprised even me. And if anything, he has definitely shaped Clinton's campaign. She just came out in favour of Universal Health Care tonight after not supporting it just last week. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/ ... ighlights/

ETA: They are currently in a dead heat in the Iowa caucus. Wait until it's the general public voting and not delegates.

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan myself but she certainly seems to have the support to be the Democratic nominee. She's way ahead of Bernie Sanders in national polls and Democrats want to nominate someone who has a chance to win in November. She may have an uphill battle but unlike Sanders she at least has a chance. Sanders is simply too far away from the centre and that's not a recipe for winning elections. We've seen it here in Canada and we've seen it in the United States as well. Bill Clinton won the presidency and was re-elected while calling himself a fiscal conservative. Here's what he actually said in 1993:

"Where are all the Democrats? I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans...We're Eisenhower Republicans here. Here we are, and we're standing for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan- ... 18251.html

So that's who wins elections in the US. It's not those like Bernie Sanders who stray too far from the centre. Good for him for being true to his beliefs but he's not going to win.

[JLives]

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan myself but she certainly seems to have the support to be the Democratic nominee. She's way ahead of Bernie Sanders in national polls and Democrats want to nominate someone who has a chance to win in November. She may have an uphill battle but unlike Sanders she at least has a chance. Sanders is simply too far away from the centre and that's not a recipe for winning elections. We've seen it here in Canada and we've seen it in the United States as well. Bill Clinton won the presidency and was re-elected while calling himself a fiscal conservative.
.

I am not seeing the support you are. The media certainly supports her but I don't think the people do. Sanders dominates on social media. I think Americans are sick of the status quo and won't elect her. And you can bet young people will be out in droves. I feel you are really underestimating him, look how far he has come in polling in just a few months. This is reminiscent of Obama's run against her and all of the same arguments were made. And we all know how that turned out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

Cruz beats Clinton. Sanders beats Cruz. Clinton beats Trump with less of a margin. Sanders beats Trump with a larger one. Interestingly, Rubio beats both Sanders and Clinton. Of course these are just guesses, there is only one poll that matters.

They are still currently separated by 2/10th's of a percent in Iowa.

[JLives]

Interesting of CNN to round O'Malley's 0.6% to 1%, Clinton's 49.8% to 50% but Sanders 49.6% to 49%.

[I Think]

Clinton/Sanders statistical dead heat. 4 votes difference according to BBC.

[The Green Barbarian]

And you can bet young people will be out in droves..

So what? Why do you under-estimate young people so much? Why would you just assume because they are "out in droves" that they would vote for a giant loser like Sanders? Bernie is trying to buy their votes with promises of free tuition, but honestly, "young people" aren't that dumb, and shouldn't fall for such a blatant grab at their votes with other peoples' money.

[Omnitheo]

He's saying that the government should pay for public college the same as they do for grades 1-12.

Of course private institutions and universities would still be paid for privately, but it means that if out of high school you want to get a degree for a trade to get a job, you can enroll in state college to receive that training and certification.

It's really not that much more of a stretch than public high school.

[The Green Barbarian]

He's saying that the government should pay for public college the same as they do for grades 1-12.

Of course private institutions and universities would still be paid for privately, but it means that if out of high school you want to get a degree for a trade to get a job, you can enroll in state college to receive that training and certification.

It's really not that much more of a stretch than public high school.

Just a few hundred billion dollars. No stretch at all if you never bother to worry about stuff like how things will be paid for.

[Omnitheo]

Are you saying then that it would be better for the economy and America overall to reduce public school funding to middle school?

Imagine the hundreds of billions that could be saved by educating citizens for 3 years less.

There is a strong corolation between education level and income. If Americans are getting better jobs because of better education, then they will end up paying more taxes back into the economy.

As it stands now, the price of entry to college is a barrier holding many back, and preventing them from moving out of bottom rung occupations at minimum wage. It's a vicious cycle and needs to be broken.

Not to mention that with more and more automation making lower end jobs obsolete, the country is going to need more citizens to be better educated in order to find a place in the changing workforce. In short, we need fewer baristas, and more computer programmers. But how does a barista become a computer programmer when her $5.50 (US) wage barely covers her cost of living let alone school?

[GordonH]

Its costing US taxpayers 250 billion per year on interest along on their debt.

[The Green Barbarian]

Are you saying then that it would be better for the economy and America overall to reduce public school funding to middle school?

Is that what I said? Seriously. If you just want to spin nonsense in response to an actual comment, then what's the point of having a discussion.

Imagine the hundreds of billions that could be saved by educating citizens for 3 years less.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The cost of this education is already priced in to taxes. What the moron Sanders wants to do is add a further giant hunk of mega-billions to spending, with no clue where the money is supposed to come from.

There is a strong corolation between education level and income. If Americans are getting better jobs because of better education, then they will end up paying more taxes back into the economy.

Except that if you bankrupt the economy like Sanders wants to do, no one will have jobs so its really a moot point. I do like the linear thinking of leftists though. Here's point A, a guy who wants a college education. Let's make his college education free. And over there, is Point B, where the guy is getting a high paid job after he graduates. We don't know how we'll fund that free education, but that's irrelevant. Oh yeah, and everyone gets to dine on condor eggs and spotted owl every night too! How? Who will pay for it? Who cares? That's just something a Republican would worry about.

As it stands now, the price of entry to college is a barrier holding many back, and preventing them from moving out of bottom rung occupations at minimum wage. It's a vicious cycle and needs to be broken.

Right. So you study hard, save up, and scrimp and save and self-deny until you get an education. That's how thousands and even millions of people break the cycle every day, without asking a crazy lunatic from Vermont to pay for it.

But how does a barista become a computer programmer when her $5.50 (US) wage barely covers her cost of living let alone school?

And how does the state fund that barista becoming a computer programmer? How????