Interesting view. If Bernie steals republicans that could be major
Bernie Sanders to leave the Democratic Party
- Thread starter Scoop
- Start date
He got some Republicans to vote for him in the open primaries
Trump. Ron Paul was one of the biggest third party candidates in history in 1988, ran as a republican in 2008.
Piff Perkins
Veteran
Not saying it excuses the DNC, they acted like dikks to Sanders. But acting like a dikk towards someone is not a crime or "rigging" the system. He lost.
I'm sure the RNC acted like dikks to Trump too behind the scenes yet he still won.
I meant like a solid republican following nationwide....like 10/20% or something
Placing the initial debates during major college football games and NFL Sundays so the least amount of Americans possible could be exposed to Bernie sanders isn't "being a dikk". Actively planting negative stories in the news media about your own supposed candidate is not "being a dikk". The RNC placed their debates on Tuesday and Wednesday night's in time slots where the maximum amount of Americans are able to receive their message. Theres no clear centralized coordinated effort from the RNC to marginalize Donald Trump. He received billions of dollars worth of advertising from the media, not a complete media blackout, even as Bernie Sanders garnered more support than Donald Trump.
ill
Superstar
He would easily have it if he ran 3rd party this election. A lot of his economic policies resonate with conservatives. He would also gain all of the libertarian and green party people. Bernie, IMO, has everything going for him to launch a successful coup of our political system today. I personally would have supported Bernie if he made it. I know a lot of people that feel the same way and they are all fairly conservative. The only ones he couldn't steal away are those that think he's an uber-socialist.
Meet The Lifelong Republicans Who Love Bernie Sanders
Piff Perkins
Veteran
Let's think about this. In 2008 democrats had more than 10 people running for president, including three major candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards). They had a ton of debates and good ratings. In 2016 democrats had 5 people running for president, and in early 2015 Hillary Clinton was the only candidate polling above 5%. After a couple debates it basically became a three person race. Is it really surprising that dems had fewer debates this time, or that the interest wasn't really there?
Contrast to republicans having 17 candidates including Donald Trump driving ratings. This is less about some conspiracy to "prevent people from hearing Bernie" and more about a shytty product not being put on primetime television. Hillary isn't endearing, Bernie repeats the same 3-4 things over and over...nobody wants to see that shyt.
Why would you, as the DNC, willingly place your debate during major college football? Why choose that?
He got 27% of the Republican vote in Vermont in 2012!!
But its tiny VT and Republicans there aren't the same
Uh he was an independent before this. It's obvious he joined the Democratic Party in order to have a realistic chance of winning.
Not sure why this is news. If he lost without the drama I think eh would still be independent.
Not sure why this is news. If he lost without the drama I think eh would still be independent.
Piff Perkins
Veteran
I wouldn't. But to me this is more about ratings and also incompetence. Hillary has had bad poll numbers all year, wouldn't it have made sense to get her on TV in debates more to defend herself, try to come off as presidential, etc? Your argument is centered entirely on Bernie as if he's the only person who benefited from debates. Hillary would have benefited too especially considering she was the best debater running for president in either party.
Sanders' biggest problem was that he based his entire campaign around white working class people, many of whom were flocking to Trump His outreach to blacks and Hispanics was laughable out the gate. Then he started trotting around three black people, including one who has disrespected the popular President Obama on weirdly personal terms (Cornell West), as if that alone was going to make black people say "oh well if Cornell West, Nina Turner, and Killer Mike are on board I should be too." Meanwhile his message was focused almost entirely on Wall St and income inequality, issues that were not dominating the minds of black people this year.
I respect Sanders. I voted for him in my state's primary. But he ran a shytty campaign and lost. Hillary barely spent any money contesting him. Instead she was spending money on the general election. If she had gone after him like she did Obama in 2008 this thing would have ended a lot quicker.
Would Bernie have had a better time with minorities if he represented a state like say his native NY or a place like MD?
Abandoning the south was the issue... should have spent more time down there and forced HRC to spend resources.
Then again, Bernie's fundraising didn't take off until the New Year began
We'll never know.
Given that she is a spouse of a 2 term president, and former Secretary of State of the current president, HRC is running as an incumbent when it comes to monetary advantage, her A+ name recognition, and endorsement from the current 2 term President.
It certainly would make the most sense to place all DNC debates in time slots of the highest visibility and have as many as possible, so the national discourse would not be usurped by the GOP. In HRC and her former campaign chair/DNC chair DWS mind, having a quick and painless primary would ensure a head start to attack the GOP on all sides for the general election. This is the only explanation that makes sense. That means minimize any traction Sanders could possibly gain and ensure Warren and Biden doesn't run (Politico ran a great article on that).
It's a complete distortion & false equivalency to compare DNC relationship to Bernie with RNC relationship with Trump. If Bush infiltrated the RNC and tilted and rigged the process for Jeb, it would be as clear as day for all to see as we see with the DNC.