2020 US General Election Thread V: Pandemic Postpones Polls

[Ethel mermania]

He is not a socialist for a start. He knows how to run a government. He will do what he thinks is right, and he puts his money where his mouth is. He is doing out of it to in his mind save the country from bernie and trump as opposed as a real desire to be president on his own part.

Bloomberg has no experience dealing with Congress or directly dealing with the Federal government, or at lesst not on the same level that a Senator or Representative does, he's also been out of the game for quite a bit.

It's weird that you spare Bloomberg, of all people, the cynical take of wanting to run for president for its own sake when, like Lex Luthor, he could do just as much if not more from the side.

If he wanted the job he would have run in 2016 instead of supporting hillary. He said in 2016 that if Sanders won the nomination he was going to run as a third party candidate. I dont think he wants the job, he rightly or wrongly thinks without him it's either bernie or trump, and he doesnt like those alternatives.

Full disclosure: I have installed his terminals, I have dealt with his people, both tech support and engineering staff, in both the public and private sector. I know people who worked directly for him and have sat at the negotiaton table against him. He is a tough asshole. But as I said before I dont think he is running because he wants too, he feels that he has too.

[Nakena]

But trust me, if it's this bad here, it's probably even worse in the poorer parts of the US and the urban centers. People, whether you believe it to be reasonable or not, are in utter despair, and it's to the point where there's a general consensus building up that institutions have failed people.

Does that mean they're absolutely horrible? Not at all. But they're tired of feeling alienated, neglected, like their voices are being heard. So, what do they do? Turn to the people who seem to, at the very least, identify the problem correctly and tell them that they're going to work for them.

I don't think a large number even agree with all of Bernie's proposals or solutions, but they know the man will fight for them. And that's a powerful thing for people so cynical and hopeless that you could've sworn this were the 1930's, if it weren't for the fact that we're constantly told that we're in some of the wealthiest countries in the world and we're only getting wealthier.

Theres a lot of people who can barely stay afloat, feed their families and (often enough not) pay their absurd high medical bills. All things that could be handled betters but aren't because reasons. But a lot of Americans have enough of that. Thats why Sanders is surging strongly.

People don't buy the American Dream anymore. They have been told the same things for the past decades, and here we are.

[Idzequitch]

The problem is that the other candidates are making the obvious mistake of going after Sanders' perceived weakness: the meaningless heuristic of "electability" or his perceived unseriousness (setting aside the inherently silliness of something like Bloomberg's "Russia wants you to win" swipes). In this debate, only Warren came close to landing a body blow on Sanders with her line about being a better president, because, if properly deployed it's a door to riffing an attack on Sanders' strength, honesty.

Undercutting him on his perceived appeal of "authenticity" and "honesty" is the only way to actually damage his candidacy, because the case is clear, coherent, and not difficult to make. Setting aside delegate math, in 2016, Sanders was done publicly when Clinton hit him for his "artful smear," because that was a huge part of what he was doing on stage and he had no comeback for it. Similarly, in this race, if his opponents want to knock him out, they need to find a way, directly or indirectly, of pointing out that he is, in fact, a career politician who finds benefits in presenting himself disingenuously when it suits him. And while Warren's dig about being better on detail than Sanders is tried to do that, it was both too subtle and not enough of a running theme to resonate. So yes, most people will conclude that Sanders did reasonably well because his strength wasn't effectively utilized against him.

So, the only way to "damage" his candidacy is to attack his honesty and authenticity? I hope I read that right. That sounds harder than it looks. Then again, it might be too late to stop him from getting at least a plurality of delegates.

I mean, there's no more debates before Super Tuesday, so the opportunity onto get any attack out there is a bit limited now. And while I don't entirely agree with the assessment you're responding to, I think Ngelmish is onto something. Time after time people have been taking the same swipes at Bernie about perceived weaknesses in his candidacy. But these arguments have become old and stale and no one listens to them anymore. What the others should have done is try to get current and potential Bernie supporters to question his strengths. Questioning his authenticity as the working people's candidate when he's been in government longer than some voters have been alive is one such option. Questioning his record on guns might be another.

[Senkaku]

[The whole "oh you dont know real struggle" is a fucking bullshit argument. It's not about that. Its about a declining culture that worships consumerism and nihilism, and no one seems to notice, no one seems to care.
Autonomy is stripped more and more from humanity everyday as the shift from agrarian societies to 9-5 clean cut suit and tie will not question office jobs become the norm, atomization increases, and you lose less and less freedom. And the power process becomes more and more disrupted until it is almost non-existent, leading to a completely degenerated society of nothing but passive, hedonistic consumers who live the most white-bread life until their offspring take over and do the same until the end of time.
We're fucked.

First of, all, if you think "9-5 clean cut suit and tie will not question office jobs" are the norm, then you're not even getting out and around here in America. For a huge percentage of Americans, work is all over the clock, in 5-8 hours shifts that vary from day to day and could land anywhere from dawn to midnight. It's wearing a company vest (like at Lowe's or Walmart) or a polo with the company logo on it (like at Starbuck's or McDonald's) or something made of polyester that fits a general description (black slacks, black shoes, black socks, white shirt, and here's your waiter's apron), or it's jeans and a top for work in the kitchen, the back room, or wherever. Huge numbers of Americans are cooks, cashiers, and drivers, and let's not forget all those health care workers, from home health aids to hospital workers. "9-5 suit and tie" is actually a relatively small segment of what "work" means in America.

I know. I've spent my share of time in kitchens, on restaurant floors, stocking shelves, and holding down a cash register — as well as sitting in meetings with executives, delivering desktops and notebooks to staff, hacking code out on a keyboard, and building servers in data centers. And I've known people who do all kinds of other things, from driving cabs, to fighting fires, to doing maintenance in an apartment complex, to patrolling in a squad car, to teaching kids how to read and write, to driving all over town pitching life insurance over coffee at Denny's, to wearing scrubs and administering medicine, to counseling drug addicts, to going from home to home caring for senior citizens and the disabled. Work is unimaginably varied in this land of ours: If you think everything happens in the office, then you are sheltered beyond anything I would have thought possible.

yes yes you're not giving a speech you can pare this down, it exposes their privilege that they think office jobs are the norm, we get it- that said, their point (highlighting differences in modern work versus preindustrial work) isn't irrelevant. If you don't think modern labor and the way our system asks us to work- whether it's blue collar, white collar, hospitality, gig economy crap, whatever it is- isn't alienating, you haven't been paying attention. That's not to say it doesn't necessarily also produce benefits for us, but the alienation is real.

As for "atomization", what in the world do you expect? Even in the High Middle Ages, there was specialization on the job. Farmers brought their animals to a butcher for slaughter and brought their grain to the mill to be ground into flour. Foresters delivered logs to lumberyards to be cut into wood and delivered to carpenters; quarrymen delivered stone to masons to be turned into buildings; furriers, tanners, and weavers delivered cloth to tailors to be made into garments; carters build wagons and shipwrights build ships. If you thought any of this was going to get simpler, you're naïve beyond all reason.

Economic specialization and social atomization are not the same lmao pick up a book or, like... honestly even Twitter would suffice

And consumerism? What the fuck is that rant about? People want to eat and always have. People want to live in warm homes and always have. People want to surround themselves with nice things and always have. And I'm supposed to nod my head and agree with you that all of this is bad and that people should instead want to be naked, go hungry, and sleep in caves?!?

Yeah anprims' analysis is hyperbolic and their solutions are fucking batshit, but that doesn't make the premise that a wildly consumerist culture isn't the healthiest wrong

Life is about what you do with it. If you can make your life's work gratifying, do so; if not, find meaning in the relationships you form with friends and family, or things you do for your community.

is this unironically the "if i were depressed i would simply stop" tweet lmao

Nothing about the modern world has made it harder for you to give a fuck and help out your fellow man.

I mean, in some ways it has, in other ways it's made it easier, but blanket statements seem weird here

Nothing about the modern world has made it harder for you to contemplate the nature of the universe. Nothing about the modern world has made it harder for you to fall in love, whether you choose to fall in love with another person, with the whole of humanity, or with God Almighty. These things are no more difficult today than they were a thousand years ago; indeed, if anything, all of that consumerism makes it much easier to do whichever of these things you choose to do because it's likely that you don't have to work as hard as your forebears did at merely staying alive.

Yeah, alright, fair.

So what in the Hell are you complaining about?

This comes off as super tone deaf. Yes, things are better than they were in the good old days in a myriad of ways. No, that doesn't mean that everyone should just shut up and stop being ungrateful little shits. Things having improved is not equivalent to all problems having been solved and certainly doesn't preclude new problems that need to be addressed from cropping up, even if they're not the kind of immediate, mortal, widespread dangers that humanity once faced

[Sougra]

Attacking Bernie's authenticity is probably one of the hardest things to do considering the last time he said anything remotely off the deep end was when he was a bleeding heart communist in the 1970s. Surprisingly enough though, I'm surprised none of the candidates have actually went after some of the things he said when he was younger. It's probably the only smears they could put out against the dude.

Bloomberg has been telegraphing an attack on old newspaper columns he wrote

As far as I can tell, the whole article about rape fantasies and stuff, was technically a condemnation of rape culture and how that demeans everyone. So if he can articulate that point and make it in such a way where he can maybe bring up the dreaded Epstein and Bloomberg being in his little black book, I think his answer could be a massive dunk on him. But Sanders isn't the type of guy to do the latter, so I expect him to say it was a long time ago, and maybe mention rape culture.

However, the whole kids touching genitals part, I don't believe was in that same article. If it was, I'd probably have to actually fully read it to understand how that all fits together.

[Senkaku]

Attacking Bernie's authenticity is probably one of the hardest things to do considering the last time he said anything remotely off the deep end was when he was a bleeding heart communist in the 1970s. Surprisingly enough though, I'm surprised none of the candidates have actually went after some of the things he said when he was younger. It's probably the only smears they could put out against the dude.

Bloomberg has been telegraphing an attack on old newspaper columns he wrote

As far as I can tell, the whole article about rape fantasies and stuff, was technically a condemnation of rape culture and how that demeans everyone. So if he can articulate that point and make it in such a way where he can maybe bring up the dreaded Epstein and Bloomberg being in his little black book, I think his answer could be a massive dunk on him. But Sanders isn't the type of guy to do the latter, so I expect him to say it was a long time ago, and maybe mention rape culture.

However, the whole kids touching genitals part, I don't believe was in that same article. If it was, I'd probably have to actually fully read it to understand how that all fits together.

Yeah Bloomberg would be a fool to actually try and use that in a debate because it risks someone dropping Epstein on him and I think that would pretty much demolish him lol

[Sougra]

As far as I can tell, the whole article about rape fantasies and stuff, was technically a condemnation of rape culture and how that demeans everyone. So if he can articulate that point and make it in such a way where he can maybe bring up the dreaded Epstein and Bloomberg being in his little black book, I think his answer could be a massive dunk on him. But Sanders isn't the type of guy to do the latter, so I expect him to say it was a long time ago, and maybe mention rape culture.

However, the whole kids touching genitals part, I don't believe was in that same article. If it was, I'd probably have to actually fully read it to understand how that all fits together.

Yeah Bloomberg would be a fool to actually try and use that in a debate because it risks someone dropping Epstein on him and I think that would pretty much demolish him lol

They could. But, if I'm not wrong, I believe Bill Clinton's also in it, and, knowing how the Clintons are, they aren't going to like that. I'm unsure how many people will pull the Epstein card. But if someone did, oh my god, that'll be a debate moment of a damn lifetime if done well.

[Zurkerx]

So, the only way to "damage" his candidacy is to attack his honesty and authenticity? I hope I read that right. That sounds harder than it looks. Then again, it might be too late to stop him from getting at least a plurality of delegates.

I mean, there's no more debates before Super Tuesday, so the opportunity onto get any attack out there is a bit limited now. And while I don't entirely agree with the assessment you're responding to, I think Ngelmish is onto something. Time after time people have been taking the same swipes at Bernie about perceived weaknesses in his candidacy. But these arguments have become old and stale and no one listens to them anymore. What the others should have done is try to get current and potential Bernie supporters to question his strengths. Questioning his authenticity as the working people's candidate when he's been in government longer than some voters have been alive is one such option. Questioning his record on guns might be another.

There is one more debate but yeah, it's after Super Tuesday on the 15th in March. By then, at least two will be gone, likely 3-5. They did attack him on his record on guns though last night but it seems to have a non-existent impact. Sanders is practically the Democratic Party's Trump in terms of withstanding attacks, even damaging ones that might have otherwise hurt someone else. Hmm, questioning authenticity could work though do they really have any "attack" but at that point, it would have to come from media personnel or stumble on his part, the latter which he rarely does.

[Aureumterra]

Attacking Bernie's authenticity is probably one of the hardest things to do considering the last time he said anything remotely off the deep end was when he was a bleeding heart communist in the 1970s. Surprisingly enough though, I'm surprised none of the candidates have actually went after some of the things he said when he was younger. It's probably the only smears they could put out against the dude.

His proposed policies are enough material

[Nakena]

I honestly don't think many of these voters would've gone for Bernie or Trump if they weren't feeling things were dire. Regardless of your lived experience, you shouldn't state something akin to "I get it, but you should be grateful for what we have," because that doesn't answer the fundamental question of why in the hell are people so damn disillusioned? If we don't know that answer, or at least seek it out, we don't know the suffering of our fellow neighbours, nor are we attempting to find it out.

The answer is equal to the one of "Where is my jetpack?"

It is basically that modernity, specifically the past 25-50 years have been failed to deliever their promises. The American Dream, Neoliberalism, Fukuyama etc. all promised us something that didn happen in the end, perhaps never had a chance to actually become reality. They sold us dreams and after a while, over time, it materialized that it wouldn be going to happen. History didn end, things continued, and in some cases got nastier (specificaly with the 2008 economic crisis) and promises couldn be hold. (actually it goes a bit back deeper into the past, into the 1970s where probably the tipping point happened and another one in the 1990s)

So since the entire system was/is being build up on the promise of delivering that, and it failed at doing so... people became desillusioned with. On top of that, it may have a bit to do with a specific tendency in western culture and society to look towards an happy end (or the opposite, the apocalypse) which might be somewhat rooted in culturally christian undercurrents and associated eschatological beliefs. This tendency is particulary strong in the US too. Every catastrophe, every election cycle, is about to bring the apocalypse or the salvation.

People put a lot of unrealistic hopes into both Obama and later (altough to a lesser extend) into Trump. Now with Sanders its the same, but I feel this time the optimism and the self-delusion is less present because people know that he isnt a messiah.

[Shrillland]

I mean, there's no more debates before Super Tuesday, so the opportunity onto get any attack out there is a bit limited now. And while I don't entirely agree with the assessment you're responding to, I think Ngelmish is onto something. Time after time people have been taking the same swipes at Bernie about perceived weaknesses in his candidacy. But these arguments have become old and stale and no one listens to them anymore. What the others should have done is try to get current and potential Bernie supporters to question his strengths. Questioning his authenticity as the working people's candidate when he's been in government longer than some voters have been alive is one such option. Questioning his record on guns might be another.

There is one more debate but yeah, it's after Super Tuesday on the 15th in March. By then, at least two will be gone, likely 3-5. They did attack him on his record on guns though last night but it seems to have a non-existent impact. Sanders is practically the Democratic Party's Trump in terms of withstanding attacks, even damaging ones that might have otherwise hurt someone else. Hmm, questioning authenticity could work though do they really have any "attack" but at that point, it would have to come from media personnel or stumble on his part, the latter which he rarely does.

There's two more actually. I think the last one will be in late April before Acela Tuesday, but I could be wrong about that.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

As a 20-year old uni student, I already feel like I'm living in ruins, or at least ruins-in-the-making. That whole "you can be whoever you want to be" and "the world's becoming a better place" from the early 2000s and pre-2008 younger generations like mine heard will probably haunt a lot of us for the rest of ours lives. And while I think I relatively lucked out with my college debt, but it'll still be a major financial consideration for decades to come, and I'll still be on worse footing than any generation to earn a degree before me. I don't expect to ever touch a cent I put into social security, and I'm willing to bet my generation will be making up for the tax cuts and underfunded programs of today by paying more for it tomorrow, all while getting less out of the system. I don't have any real gripes with an "establishment", but I feel the government's actions are so detached from the reality for many like me that we won't ever be acknowledged as a constituency until we force them to; meanwhile, corporations and the rich are first in line for policy. And between the environment and world affairs, we're making too many short-term goals with immediate gratification over the painful but necessary long-term ones.

Long story short, I don't feel safe in the status quo, or that bad change is the only enemy while no change is sunshine and rainbows. That doesn't automatically make me right about anything, or that everyone should see it my way. But it's the reason why so many people in democratic forums like the Democratic primary are siding with a change candidate, just like many others are safe with a moderate one. I don't consider myself a maximalist, or even that radical, but a president with a (D) next to their name doesn't automatically solve things for me, especially if their campaign was based avoiding too much change, bad or good. In no way does that mean you need to like Sanders, and I really do respect that you will. But I've got decades left on this planet, barring me doing anything stupid or tragic, and if I'm living in ruins years from now, it's because I wouldn't or couldn't fix what was already there.

That's why people like me are where we are.

As an amateur historian (among other things), let me try and put things in perspective.

You live in one of the richest nations on the planet, at a time in human history that is more prosperous than any other. Given that fact, I suggest that you seriously think about what "the ruins", given the overall sweep of human history, might actually look like.

Believe me, it's nothing like what you're struggling with today.

I'm not seeking to belittle your difficulties. Approaching the age of 65, I am much worse off than my parents (who are currently approaching 90), and will almost certainly never reach their levels of financial and professional success. So I can relate to a certain sense of hopelessness; it's out there, and it's real.

But success is fragile and failure always waits to claim us if we fall. Things could easily get much, much worse in this country — and it's that fact that I'm trying to impress upon you.

Most Americans have an almost reflexive belief that America can't fail, and that our country will always be there come what may. Neither of these beliefs has any genuine foundation in historical fact. If you're an American, you need to wake up each day understanding how damned lucky you are to be where you are, and how very far above the ground you're currently performing.

And you also need to wake up and realize that there's no safety net waiting down there to catch you should we fall.

I could bore you with historical anecdotes; I won't. Just never forget that what we have here is fleeting. The liberty, the safety from foreign invasion, the fact that there are stores with food in them, that there's power when you flip on the light switch, and that our gasoline pumps actually dispense gasoline 99.9% of the time you visit them, and a million other things you never think about — these are things Americans take for granted, but shouldn't. Most of us live safely in our homes, not having to worry about gangs of well-armed men coming around to relieve us of life or property when they see fit. Indeed, most of us will likely die in bed somewhere, rather than a lot of much nastier places. If your politics is all about how shitty life is because we're not doing better still, well, I applaud your sense of optimism; but at the same time, I basically feel like you need to have someone put their boot up your ass in an effort to impart some realism into your thinking.

Polarization is a real threat: Sharply divided nations without any mechanism for compromise and no one in the middle to throw water on the fever dreams of the various extremists living within their ranks tend to fly apart. And when nations fly apart, other nations always lick their chops and start moving in for a quick and messy meal. We haven't seen that here in America — but there's no earthly reason why it can't happen here. So excuse me if I try to get people to realize that they've got a lot to lose if politics fails, because when politics fails the knives always come out, and that never ends well.

But hey, it's your life, really. It's up to all you people, now. My generation, for better or worse (and generally, it's been worse rather than better) has run our race. We can't save you from yourself. Just make sure you educate yourselves as to what a real ruin is before you call the place you're living one. May I recommend a stint in the Peace Corps or a tour of duty in Afghanistan to adjust your perspective...

Couldn’t have said it any better myself, although I’m still quite young, I’d still be a year or two older than most on this forum. I served in Iraq, things really got put into perspective there. I would say my service there was the defining moment of my life. Before that I used to be an idealist Marxist who believed America is one of the worst countries to live in

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

People put a lot of unrealistic hopes into both Obama and later (altough to a lesser extend) into Trump. Now with Sanders its the same, but I feel this time the optimism and the self-delusion is less present because people know that he isnt a messiah.

If the amount of Bernie Bros today seems like a lot, it pales in comparison to the Obama crew in 2008

Much like the Yang Gang and MAGA Nation, though, Bernie Bros are disproportionately more influential online than IRL

[Ngelmish]

The problem is that the other candidates are making the obvious mistake of going after Sanders' perceived weakness: the meaningless heuristic of "electability" or his perceived unseriousness (setting aside the inherently silliness of something like Bloomberg's "Russia wants you to win" swipes). In this debate, only Warren came close to landing a body blow on Sanders with her line about being a better president, because, if properly deployed it's a door to riffing an attack on Sanders' strength, honesty.

Undercutting him on his perceived appeal of "authenticity" and "honesty" is the only way to actually damage his candidacy, because the case is clear, coherent, and not difficult to make. Setting aside delegate math, in 2016, Sanders was done publicly when Clinton hit him for his "artful smear," because that was a huge part of what he was doing on stage and he had no comeback for it. Similarly, in this race, if his opponents want to knock him out, they need to find a way, directly or indirectly, of pointing out that he is, in fact, a career politician who finds benefits in presenting himself disingenuously when it suits him. And while Warren's dig about being better on detail than Sanders is tried to do that, it was both too subtle and not enough of a running theme to resonate. So yes, most people will conclude that Sanders did reasonably well because his strength wasn't effectively utilized against him.

So, the only way to "damage" his candidacy is to attack his honesty and authenticity? I hope I read that right. That sounds harder than it looks. Then again, it might be too late to stop him from getting at least a plurality of delegates.

Attacking Bernie's authenticity is probably one of the hardest things to do considering the last time he said anything remotely off the deep end was when he was a bleeding heart communist in the 1970s. Surprisingly enough though, I'm surprised none of the candidates have actually went after some of the things he said when he was younger. It's probably the only smears they could put out against the dude.

The core of Sanders' appeal, and his pitch, indirectly, to the voters is that because he has consistently been in favor of universal healthcare, in the 80's, 90's and 00's when that was not politically popular, or very advantageous, he is not only honestly for that policy, but he is "authentic." Not a scripted politician. Not going to change his positions.

But even a cursory examination of Sanders' record reveals a more nuanced picture. He's not been consistent on gun legislation. He changed his position on immigration as late as 2013, when he was thinking of running for president. He's not actually a clean antiwar candidate because he voted for military intervention in the Balkans. I'm not taking a position necessarily on any of this stuff, but the case that his opponents could make against him, and should if they want to win, would go something like, "Bernie Sanders is a careerist hack who's never advanced the causes that he champions. He spends his time in congress passing amendments, okay, fair enough, yay for Bernie, rather than being the leading sponsor on major legislation. He acts holier than thou on wanting compassionate policies, but votes for bills that he attacks. He voted for the '94 crime bill, folks, and wants us to think Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are worse than he is, partly because they voted for that same bill! And then he turns around and implies that we're the impure ones, the disingenuous ones. I love a lot of what Bernie says he stands for, but come on, even on the little things, he said point blank when asked if he'd release full medical records "yes" and ever since then when it comes up he says, "Oh, well what we've already released is equivalent to everyone else." I mean, what the hell Bernie? That "yes" is, as of now, a lie, and then you turn around and want the damn world to think that you're the most honest guy whose ever run for public office?"

That's the case that would hurt him. His partisans would deplore it as a cynical series of smears and/or lies, or some might make a more measured argument that that argument is disingenuous... but he has been inconsistent on certain policies. He does take credit for the parts of bills that he likes and whacks his opponents for the parts that he doesn't like. He didn't take the lead sponsorship on major legislation until after he started running for president. He does routinely insinuate that he's more honest than most other politicians. He did, in fact lie about his intentions to release full medical records. None of that necessarily demonstrates that he's not the best candidate this election, but if I was one of his opponents, I would make that case. It's not an intellectual contrast about different ways to win, it questions the core of his political identity, and he's almost never been pushed that hard. The few times that his opponents have circled that case, he's not responded very effectively (he sputtered Clinton called him on the "artful smear," the best he could come up with to Martin O'Malley's skewering his lack of a consistent philosophy on gun legislation was "woah, woah, let's calm down" and he sputtered again when Bloomberg made the (I think stupid) point that he owns three homes). Sanders' core appeal of authenticity and honesty stands partly because it hasn't been effectively challenged, aside from a few glancing blows. And given that that's the part of his persona that makes people want to vote for him, that's what opponents who want to seriously beat him need to find a way to make people question it.

[Sougra]

But trust me, if it's this bad here, it's probably even worse in the poorer parts of the US and the urban centers. People, whether you believe it to be reasonable or not, are in utter despair, and it's to the point where there's a general consensus building up that institutions have failed people.

Does that mean they're absolutely horrible? Not at all. But they're tired of feeling alienated, neglected, like their voices are being heard. So, what do they do? Turn to the people who seem to, at the very least, identify the problem correctly and tell them that they're going to work for them.

I don't think a large number even agree with all of Bernie's proposals or solutions, but they know the man will fight for them. And that's a powerful thing for people so cynical and hopeless that you could've sworn this were the 1930's, if it weren't for the fact that we're constantly told that we're in some of the wealthiest countries in the world and we're only getting wealthier.

Theres a lot of people who can barely stay afloat, feed their families and (often enough not) pay their absurd high medical bills. All things that could be handled betters but aren't because reasons. But a lot of Americans have enough of that. Thats why Sanders is surging strongly.

People don't buy the American Dream anymore. They have been told the same things for the past decades, and here we are.

Oh, I definitely agree that people don't believe in the American Dream anymore. It's been dead for a while. And cost of living has gone up significantly, so that part's no surprise.

The answer is equal to the one of "Where is my jetpack?"

It is basically that modernity, specifically the past 25-50 years have been failed to deliever their promises. The American Dream, Neoliberalism, Fukuyama etc. all promised us something that didn happen in the end, perhaps never had a chance to actually become reality. They sold us dreams and after a while, over time, it materialized that it wouldn be going to happen. History didn end, things continued, and in some cases got nastier (specificaly with the 2008 economic crisis) and promises couldn be hold. (actually it goes a bit back deeper into the past, into the 1970s where probably the tipping point happened and another one in the 1990s)

So since the entire system was/is being build up on the promise of delivering that, and it failed at doing so... people became desillusioned with. On top of that, it may have a bit to do with a specific tendency in western culture and society to look towards an happy end (or the opposite, the apocalypse) which might be somewhat rooted in culturally christian undercurrents and associated eschatological beliefs. This tendency is particulary strong in the US too. Every catastrophe, every election cycle, is about to bring the apocalypse or the salvation.

People put a lot of unrealistic hopes into both Obama and later (altough to a lesser extend) into Trump. Now with Sanders its the same, but I feel this time the optimism and the self-delusion is less present because people know that he isnt a messiah.

If we're talking events, I think 9/11, the War on Terror, and the 2008 financial crisis were some of the big ones. I don't know what Fukuyama means or who they are, since my political knowledge is a bit lacking, but I don't doubt that it had a role if you're mentioning it.

But, I will state that's an interesting diagnosis by you. I'd agree that's a factor, but I think there's more to it. I think the destruction of community and general belonging is one of the big ones. Technology has also had a massive effect, some of it good, some of it bad. But there's frankly a lot of reasons things have become so seemingly hopeless for many.

And I don't have all the answers, but I know for a fact that people need to pursue a remedy before the only thing making it work is a mutual enemy, which, in this age, won't draw as many people together as it did previously.

But, if I may, I'm not sure how many considered Trump a messiah. To me, people were more like "finally! Someone who gets it and understands that everyone in DC is corrupt! (since he bought them)." But for Sanders, I think some do think he's the messiah, less than they did with Obama (considering the fact that I'm pretty sure there was a practical deification of him by the Democrats,) but I think that's there. Or, at the very least, people consider him the elusive honest politician who fights for the people.

[Sougra]

So, the only way to "damage" his candidacy is to attack his honesty and authenticity? I hope I read that right. That sounds harder than it looks. Then again, it might be too late to stop him from getting at least a plurality of delegates.

Attacking Bernie's authenticity is probably one of the hardest things to do considering the last time he said anything remotely off the deep end was when he was a bleeding heart communist in the 1970s. Surprisingly enough though, I'm surprised none of the candidates have actually went after some of the things he said when he was younger. It's probably the only smears they could put out against the dude.

The core of Sanders' appeal, and his pitch, indirectly, to the voters is that because he has consistently been in favor of universal healthcare, in the 80's, 90's and 00's when that was not politically popular, or very advantageous, he is not only honestly for that policy, but he is "authentic." Not a scripted politician. Not going to change his positions.

But even a cursory examination of Sanders' record reveals a more nuanced picture. He's not been consistent on gun legislation. He changed his position on immigration as late as 2013, when he was thinking of running for president. He's not actually a clean antiwar candidate because he voted for military intervention in the Balkans. I'm not taking a position necessarily on any of this stuff, but the case that his opponents could make against him, and should if they want to win, would go something like, "Bernie Sanders is a careerist hack who's never advanced the causes that he champions. He spends his time in congress passing amendments, okay, fair enough, yay for Bernie, rather than being the leading sponsor on major legislation. He acts holier than thou on wanting compassionate policies, but votes for bills that he attacks. He voted for the '94 crime bill, folks, and wants us to think Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are worse than he is, partly because they voted for that same bill! And then he turns around and implies that we're the impure ones, the disingenuous ones. I love a lot of what Bernie says he stands for, but come on, even on the little things, he said point blank when asked if he'd release full medical records "yes" and ever since then when it comes up he says, "Oh, well what we've already released is equivalent to everyone else." I mean, what the hell Bernie? That "yes" is, as of now, a lie, and then you turn around and want the damn world to think that you're the most honest guy whose ever run for public office?"

That's the case that would hurt him. His partisans would deplore it as a cynical series of smears and/or lies, or some might make a more measured argument that that argument is disingenuous... but he has been inconsistent on certain policies. He does take credit for the parts of bills that he likes and whacks his opponents for the parts that he doesn't like. He didn't take the lead sponsorship on major legislation until after he started running for president. He does routinely insinuate that he's more honest than most other politicians. He did, in fact lie about his intentions to release full medical records. None of that necessarily demonstrates that he's not the best candidate this election, but if I was one of his opponents, I would make that case. It's not an intellectual contrast about different ways to win, it questions the core of his political identity, and he's almost never been pushed that hard. The few times that his opponents have circled that case, he's not responded very effectively (he sputtered Clinton called him on the "artful smear," the best he could come up with to Martin O'Malley's skewering his lack of a consistent philosophy on gun legislation was "woah, woah, let's calm down" and he sputtered again when Bloomberg made the (I think stupid) point that he owns three homes). Sanders' core appeal of authenticity and honesty stands partly because it hasn't been effectively challenged, aside from a few glancing blows. And given that that's the part of his persona that makes people want to vote for him, that's what opponents who want to seriously beat him need to find a way to make people question it.

Honestly, probably one of the best potential takedowns of Bernie I've seen yet. I doubt anyone will mention that and his mixed support for the military industrial complex (I think that was mentioned for a few pages on the last thread regarding Lockheed Martin, but I'm not sure how corrupt that technically is, since it could be employees giving him money as far as I can tell) together, but if they do, I genuinely think they could destroy Sanders' credibility and make him lose the delegates he would've gotten and lose the nomination unless he gets a majority.

[Kruiven]

Biden moves to second in the betting markets for the first time in a while!

Sanders 59%
Biden 22%
Bloomberg 12%
Clinton 6%
Buttigieg 4%
Warren 3%
Klobuchar, Steyer, Gabbard all 1%

[Zurkerx]

So, the only way to "damage" his candidacy is to attack his honesty and authenticity? I hope I read that right. That sounds harder than it looks. Then again, it might be too late to stop him from getting at least a plurality of delegates.

Attacking Bernie's authenticity is probably one of the hardest things to do considering the last time he said anything remotely off the deep end was when he was a bleeding heart communist in the 1970s. Surprisingly enough though, I'm surprised none of the candidates have actually went after some of the things he said when he was younger. It's probably the only smears they could put out against the dude.

The core of Sanders' appeal, and his pitch, indirectly, to the voters is that because he has consistently been in favor of universal healthcare, in the 80's, 90's and 00's when that was not politically popular, or very advantageous, he is not only honestly for that policy, but he is "authentic." Not a scripted politician. Not going to change his positions.

But even a cursory examination of Sanders' record reveals a more nuanced picture. He's not been consistent on gun legislation. He changed his position on immigration as late as 2013, when he was thinking of running for president. He's not actually a clean antiwar candidate because he voted for military intervention in the Balkans. I'm not taking a position necessarily on any of this stuff, but the case that his opponents could make against him, and should if they want to win, would go something like, "Bernie Sanders is a careerist hack who's never advanced the causes that he champions. He spends his time in congress passing amendments, okay, fair enough, yay for Bernie, rather than being the leading sponsor on major legislation. He acts holier than thou on wanting compassionate policies, but votes for bills that he attacks. He voted for the '94 crime bill, folks, and wants us to think Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are worse than he is, partly because they voted for that same bill! And then he turns around and implies that we're the impure ones, the disingenuous ones. I love a lot of what Bernie says he stands for, but come on, even on the little things, he said point blank when asked if he'd release full medical records "yes" and ever since then when it comes up he says, "Oh, well what we've already released is equivalent to everyone else." I mean, what the hell Bernie? That "yes" is, as of now, a lie, and then you turn around and want the damn world to think that you're the most honest guy whose ever run for public office?"

That's the case that would hurt him. His partisans would deplore it as a cynical series of smears and/or lies, or some might make a more measured argument that that argument is disingenuous... but he has been inconsistent on certain policies. He does take credit for the parts of bills that he likes and whacks his opponents for the parts that he doesn't like. He didn't take the lead sponsorship on major legislation until after he started running for president. He does routinely insinuate that he's more honest than most other politicians. He did, in fact lie about his intentions to release full medical records. None of that necessarily demonstrates that he's not the best candidate this election, but if I was one of his opponents, I would make that case. It's not an intellectual contrast about different ways to win, it questions the core of his political identity, and he's almost never been pushed that hard. The few times that his opponents have circled that case, he's not responded very effectively (he sputtered Clinton called him on the "artful smear," the best he could come up with to Martin O'Malley's skewering his lack of a consistent philosophy on gun legislation was "woah, woah, let's calm down" and he sputtered again when Bloomberg made the (I think stupid) point that he owns three homes). Sanders' core appeal of authenticity and honesty stands partly because it hasn't been effectively challenged, aside from a few glancing blows. And given that that's the part of his persona that makes people want to vote for him, that's what opponents who want to seriously beat him need to find a way to make people question it.

Ah, now I see. Then yes, that's an excellent strategy though it seems no one has waged that yet. Shame, the race could have been different if they have done so. You're right that his core base would deny it, the same way Trump's core base does (whether deem it "fake news" or "it's exaggerated). But those leaning towards him would question it more likely than not.

[An Infinity Gauntlet]

Ehhh... I dunno about attacking Bernie on wars he's voted for. The Balkan Intervention is a better hill to die on then, say, voting for the Second Iraq War when public perception is heavily against it. Honestly, I don't think people can attack Bernie Sanders since his primary opponents have already voted for much worse bills then he has. Not to mention the mere act of fundraising outside of individual donors is an easy attack for the Sand-man to make. I think he's pretty much locked into the nomination at this point.

[Rojava Free State]

Bloomberg has no experience dealing with Congress or directly dealing with the Federal government, or at lesst not on the same level that a Senator or Representative does, he's also been out of the game for quite a bit.

It's weird that you spare Bloomberg, of all people, the cynical take of wanting to run for president for its own sake when, like Lex Luthor, he could do just as much if not more from the side.

If he wanted the job he would have run in 2016 instead of supporting hillary. He said in 2016 that if Sanders won the nomination he was going to run as a third party candidate. I dont think he wants the job, he rightly or wrongly thinks without him it's either bernie or trump, and he doesnt like those alternatives.

Full disclosure: I have installed his terminals, I have dealt with his people, both tech support and engineering staff, in both the public and private sector. I know people who worked directly for him and have sat at the negotiaton table against him. He is a tough asshole. But as I said before I dont think he is running because he wants too, he feels that he has too.

Lmao bloomberg saving us from trump? He basically is trump, he doesn't even try to seem less racist. We're better off with a socialist everyday of the week than we are with an oligarch like him. You think I wanna get thrown against a wall by police all the time? Hell no

[Rojava Free State]

Biden moves to second in the betting markets for the first time in a while!

Sanders 59%
Biden 22%
Bloomberg 12%
Clinton 6%
Buttigieg 4%
Warren 3%
Klobuchar, Steyer, Gabbard all 1%

Damn, Biden is still only at 22%.

And please for the love of God keep bloomberg at or below 12%

[The Black Forrest]

If he wanted the job he would have run in 2016 instead of supporting hillary. He said in 2016 that if Sanders won the nomination he was going to run as a third party candidate. I dont think he wants the job, he rightly or wrongly thinks without him it's either bernie or trump, and he doesnt like those alternatives.

Full disclosure: I have installed his terminals, I have dealt with his people, both tech support and engineering staff, in both the public and private sector. I know people who worked directly for him and have sat at the negotiaton table against him. He is a tough asshole. But as I said before I dont think he is running because he wants too, he feels that he has too.

Lmao bloomberg saving us from trump? He basically is trump, he doesn't even try to seem less racist. We're better off with a socialist everyday of the week than we are with an oligarch like him. You think I wanna get thrown against a wall by police all the time? Hell no

At least he is a real billionaire. Doesn’t seem to lie every other sentence and seems to be a great more focused on issues.

I am sure we will save a great deal of money as he doesn’t appear to be a golfer.

[Kruiven]

New VA and CO polls.

VA:
Sanders 28%
Biden 19%
Warren 17%
Bloomberg 17%
Buttigieg 12%
Klobuchar 5%

CO:
Sanders 34%
Warren 20%
Buttigieg 14%
Bloomberg 14%
Biden 10%
Buttigieg 6%

[Telconi]

Lmao bloomberg saving us from trump? He basically is trump, he doesn't even try to seem less racist. We're better off with a socialist everyday of the week than we are with an oligarch like him. You think I wanna get thrown against a wall by police all the time? Hell no

At least he is a real billionaire. Doesn’t seem to lie every other sentence and seems to be a great more focused on issues.

I am sure we will save a great deal of money as he doesn’t appear to be a golfer.

Toss black folks in prison to own the cons! Vote Bloomberg 2020!

[Rojava Free State]

Lmao bloomberg saving us from trump? He basically is trump, he doesn't even try to seem less racist. We're better off with a socialist everyday of the week than we are with an oligarch like him. You think I wanna get thrown against a wall by police all the time? Hell no

At least he is a real billionaire. Doesn’t seem to lie every other sentence and seems to be a great more focused on issues.

I am sure we will save a great deal of money as he doesn’t appear to be a golfer.

Focused on issues such as how to make life harder for his employees and impoverished minorities

Also he did lie just last night when he said again that xi jingping isn't a dictator, and he lied when he said Bernie Sanders was a communist.