Fears Of Sanders Win Growing Among Democratic Establishment

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I hope the Dems go big....so they will lose big. Po
a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm alright with Dems losing big this way. I'd rather have a clear alternative to the 30 years of right wing madness we've had.

He should have started his own party instead of trying to hijack another one. He could have done this easily but refused. If we had another party or two these parties would be forced to work together. They would have to compromise. A tablespoon of commie, quasi conservative, and conservative, half a cup of idiots, half cup of morons and we might be able to fix somethings around here.

The DNC establishment is continually irked by Bernie for many reasons, his independent status being a big one.
The wealthy, corporate elite on both sides are afraid of his ideas; they don't want anyone rocking their boat.
It's showing in the corporate MSM too: right-wing (Fox) and left-wing (CNN) outlets keep snubbing him.

Practically speaking, a Bernie presidency wouldn't be what either side is imagining:

- The far-left wouldn't get a revolution.
- The far-right wouldn't get the dreaded 'cawmoonizm.'

Here's one of the more balanced reads on Bernie I've encountered so far:

Link

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I don't think the Democrats can win by being Republican Lite. Go BIG or go home is what I say!

Yeah, because either way, they lose, bigly!

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
I'm certain when Bernie show his tax plan, and how much money will be ripped out of pay stubs it will go over with loud applause. Probably carry him off the debate stage like Rudy.

For radical leftists that run the Democrat base, it might.

They've all been raised to think that socialism is sharing. They don't understand the forced aspect to it and won't until they experience it and really understand what it all means. By then, it will be far too late.

Actually, no. They don't think it's sharing. They don't intend to give up anything themselves. What they want is all of what others have that they don't.

The reason people who vote for this stuff are never content with the idea that people who have more, even just a bit more, may give and give on their own to various causes and charities and of their own time and be very generous is because the ones voting don't personally benefit from that. No matter how much you give to the truly needy, they don't care unless *they* stand to get something themselves out of your pocket or from your hands.

That's why they vote socialist. They think *they* will get something from you finally without having to give any of their own. They really think they have everything to gain, and only you have to lose and they don't care one bit about that because they're the ones getting. A ton of folks found out the hard way how it really works through Obamacare, but there are still plenty of young idiots running around who still think they can force Utopia ... or at least get something for themselves this way over your ruin.

30 years huh...thats a1990 so are you including 16 years of Clinton abd Obama in there? Deffo been some Democrat controlled Congresses in there as well.


a reply to: dfnj2015

a reply to: crayzeed

If you read my post several below your earlier post, should Clinton make an attempt to ''jump in at the last minute'' that as well could play to my scenario of Sanders, throwing his support to Gabbard. That little '' war'' between Clinton and Gabbard has not, I think, played itself out.

Those on the right have labeled Clinton a leftist commie of sorts but I do not see that. To me she is a centrist who along with her husband built a machine that the more liberal among the dems see needing to be dismantled. It would be with this hope, that she could appeal to the more moderate among the dems along with the strength of that machine could win her the nomination again this year. I think that Sanders, should he remain a leader in the polls would this year not''bow'' to that machine but rather use his strength to direct the nomination in another direction.

To me, one of the major issues that will come to play in this election, is the very fact that in all these two hundred and fifty years of nationhood we have not had a woman president. This could be and for me should be a prime issue.
Sanders does not believe that Clinton should be that woman. So, I see him ending up supporting another woman, a woman who has demonstrated a level head as well as the personal strength to stand up to and fight back against the Clinton Machine. Gabbard.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You know what makes me feel ill, even as a woman? The fact that you type that as though just being female is some kind of magic qualification for the job.

It's not and never should be any more than a particular skin color or sexual orientation or ethnic heritage should be. Those things are incidentals about a person and should have no more bearing on whether or not they are someone you vote for than their eye color or hair color.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
30 years huh...thats a1990 so are you including 16 years of Clinton abd Obama in there? Deffo been some Democrat controlled Congresses in there as well.


a reply to: dfnj2015

Nah, he is saying Donald, and his son, and then his daughter

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: crayzeed

If you read my post several below your earlier post, should Clinton make an attempt to ''jump in at the last minute'' that as well could play to my scenario of Sanders, throwing his support to Gabbard. That little '' war'' between Clinton and Gabbard has not, I think, played itself out.

Those on the right have labeled Clinton a leftist commie of sorts but I do not see that. To me she is a centrist who along with her husband built a machine that the more liberal among the dems see needing to be dismantled. It would be with this hope, that she could appeal to the more moderate among the dems along with the strength of that machine could win her the nomination again this year. I think that Sanders, should he remain a leader in the polls would this year not''bow'' to that machine but rather use his strength to direct the nomination in another direction.

To me, one of the major issues that will come to play in this election, is the very fact that in all these two hundred and fifty years of nationhood we have not had a woman president. This could be and for me should be a prime issue.
Sanders does not believe that Clinton should be that woman. So, I see him ending up supporting another woman, a woman who has demonstrated a level head as well as the personal strength to stand up to and fight back against the Clinton Machine. Gabbard.

Shrillary made some bitter comment (I know, big surprise) the other week that Bernie didn't endorse her soon enough and that she fears he may do the same thing to the next candidate. Of course she said nothing about the DNC absolutely screwing Bernie over with their ridiculous superdelegates. And she just assumes that Bernie won't get the nomination, when in fact polling is showing him to be quite resilient and competitive.

If Bernie were to endorse another woman for president from the current batch of candidates, I don't think it would be Tulsi. She's a little too right of center for Bernie and his supporters. She does irk Shrillary, though, which is highly entertaining.

Now, hypothetically speaking, if Michelle Obama were running, I think Bernie just might endorse her--and she would win.

a reply to: ketsuko

I gottcha Ket. It, as you say, is not. Yet.....That is an ideal.

Another ideal is that with the population being roughly 50-50, one might suspect that half of our postus's would have been female and yet,,,, it has never happened. Does this mean that women as a sex are not capable of the qualities of leadership and right judgement to offer the citizens of this nation a viable candidate? Neither of us think that I think.

I do not think that the fact that we have never had a woman president is simply ''incidental'' such as eye color or hair color is. The reason that we have never had a woman president runs much deeper than just ''incidentalness''. It runs to the long held biases of the established order in this nation.

So should we vote for a woman just because she is a woman? No. I agree. However, if our votes go to making our country a better place for all of us, if those votes go to correcting the misdirection of our past, if our votes go to establishing a nation of equality for all, then I think that considering voting for a woman instead of a man to be a viable consideration, Even on an ideal basis.

But face it. A large portion of voters no longer vote for candidates on issues, but rather for the more superficial aspects of the candidate. Look no further than Slick Willy and the missus. The machine held her up as the ''woman to do it'' and it held a huge sway over a large segment of the voting public. That has not changed.

So, for me or you, being a woman is not a magical qualification but for many it is, rightly or wrongly.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think it's because the right one hasn't come along yet.

Allow me to get terribly un-PC, there are just some jobs that aren't easy for women to do. That doesn't mean a woman cannot do it, but it does mean you won't find as many women reaching it. That doesn't also mean it's evidence of something sinister like misogyny or anything. It just means not as many women aspire to it or are as good at it.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

No one ever cries about the shortage of men in the position of grade school educator, for example, nor do they ever point to it as evidence pernicious misandry in education.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I like Bernie a lot. But he isn’t far enough left for me. Nothing short of eviscerating every trace of Republican policy from our government will do at this point.

What led me to this point? Talking to the Republicans on ATS.

a reply to: ketsuko

As you might suspect, I could likely place more emphasis on cultural impact on peoples development than you do. For me, that fact that woman have ''different'' levels of accomplishment than men is due NOT only to the nature of male female differences but as well to the male dominated society we have developed in the western world from time immemorial .

And while that male domination may have served us well enough in the past due to social development catering to those differences in male and female capabilities it does not mean that we must adhere to those standards as cultural needs change. And that, I think, is the nature of ''establishments'', they develop to utilize the strengths of a people for survival at certain times, yet as times change they continue to ''defend'' themselves from that coming change.

To the shortage of male grade school teachers goes, I always suspected that this was due to the wider availability in our culture for men to find jobs that paid more than grade school teaching leaving that field wide open for women who did not have that wide open accessibility for higher wages.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Oh, hell. I hope Mrs. Obama stays clear of this, and hubby as well. I' m sick of the name brands that so many fall to for elections. Clintons.... Bushes...... Ghandi....... And look now how there is talk on the right of Ivanka and Jr sooner or later. Gag me baby.

One point that I am interested in is the change in DNC rules on the super delegates. Bernie and someone else a while backed forced a change in the structure of those super delegates. They can no longer vote their status on the first ballot but must wait for the second ballot to vote the super delegatness. This leaves the first ballot of the convention free of that tool of the Clinton machine.

Gabbard supported Bernie during his run in 16 and I think he still counts her as an ally. And while she is visibly more moderate enough to have respect from conservatives, she has also supported a number of the more liberal policies of the party.
What I see is that in 16, number one on Sanders list was breaking the Clinton strangle hold on the Democrat Party and running against Bush. But once he realized that conservatism had broken out of the cage of the Republican establishment he held his breath and changed from breaking Clinton to beating Trump.

I think that this is still number one on Sanders list now, beating Trump. As the convention rolls around he will keep a close eye on the polls and when the moment comes, that first ballot, he could throw his support to the person who polls highest in the more conservative circles. Because, Beat Trump.

Of course I could be completely wrong. Not the first time huh?

a reply to: ketsuko

Or we could just go with the obvious answer....

Not a lot of women are stupid enough to want to be President.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And yet, how do you account for the fact that universities now graduate more women with degrees than men?

That doesn't fit your paradigm.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Good points.

I'm right there with you about the super delegate business.
Anything to throw a wrench in the Clinton machine--the whole corporate-backed establishment of the DNC, for that matter.

I didn't realize Gabbard supported Bernie in 16. That's interesting and good to know. I was under the impression she was a little too right for him (not the first time I've been mistaken). With that in mind, it almost makes me wonder if she'd be on the potential list of VP candidates if Bernie gets the nomination. Adding more of a centrist to the ticket could be part of the calculus there.

Personally, I'm hoping Bernie gets the nomination. I'd rather not see it come down to him having to throw his support to another.

Historically speaking, it will be interesting to watch for sure.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: ketsuko

Or we could just go with the obvious answer....

Not a lot of women are stupid enough to want to be President.

Not to mention when women do attain that level of power, they tend to be extraordinarily competent even back through history when it far more a "man's" world than it ever could be called one today.

It has been muted that the Dems might go for an up market celebrity like Reagan (though he was Rep.). The person most noted for this honour is non other than Oprah Winfrey. I hear she's very pally with Ms Clinton.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I used to like Bernie, but he has gone too far left now. The Democrats should be worried that they do not have a sane candidate running for president, Bernie is probably the sanest of the bunch even with his problems. I think Bernie should give up, his health is not that great anymore. I do not think anyone should even be considering Biden, apparently he is close to as corrupt as Hillary was.

H-how does one get farther left of Bernie? Stalin?