nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Bernie Sanders

O'Neill

Now with the potential announcement of Opera being one of the candidates of the Democratic Party, has everyone forgotten about Bernie?

Say all you like about him, he has galvanised a lot of people, I see him as a unifier personally. Ever since he's lost the vote, unlike Clinton he is still out there campaigning. Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CIARAN_BOYLE

O'Neill wrote: »

Now with the potential announcement of Opera being one of the candidates of the Democratic Party, has everyone forgotten about Bernie?

Say all you like about him, he has galvanised a lot of people, I see him as a unifier personally. Ever since he's lost the vote, unlike Clinton he is still out there campaigning. Thoughts?

I think his age would prevent any possibility of a run for the white house in 2020

Who do you expect him to be unifying. The republicans think he is a communist and he has withdrawn from the democrats.

Cookie_Monster

The closet the US have to a normal centerist politician, and they seem to think he's some rabid left wing socialist. In-laws of mine in Texas pretty much consider him a communist ffs.

He's too old, will be 79 in three years.

MayoSalmon

Cookie_Monster wrote:

The closet the US have to a normal centerist politician, and they seem to think he's some rabid left wing socialist. In-laws of mine in Texas pretty much consider him a communist ffs.

Think?! Are you mad he is a rabid socialist and he has described himself as such a democratic socialist.

He galvanized alot of people because he is a populist. That with toxic hillary and Trump on the other side it wasn't hard.

Achasanai

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Think?! Are you mad he is a rabid socialist and he has described himself as such a democratic socialist.

I don't think many people would describe democratic socialists as rabid anything. His views would be fairly mainstream from a European point of view, but would probably be seen as more extreme in certain parts of the US.

In terms of his age being an indicator that he won't run, I would've thought this prior to Trump getting elected, but I think that's shown that anything is possible. I would also have thought that the Democrats would have been using this time to get their act together and rally around a truly unifying candidate, but that doesn't seem to have happened (open to correction on this).

O'Neill

Achasanai wrote: »

I don't think many people would describe democratic socialists as rabid anything. His views would be fairly mainstream from a European point of view, but would probably be seen as more extreme in certain parts of the US.

In terms of his age being an indicator that he won't run, I would've thought this prior to Trump getting elected, but I think that's shown that anything is possible. I would also have thought that the Democrats would have been using this time to get their act together and rally around a truly unifying candidate, but that doesn't seem to have happened (open to correction on this).

Would you include Sanders on that?

[Deleted User]

There will be a lot of talk of Elizabeth Warren running on a Sanders type policy platform, so if Bernie is too old she would be the next person up.

But she has two problems.
Firstly she is a woman and secondly she has that native American heritage question about her, which got swept under the rug in a Democrat friendly state like MA but will be front and center in a national campaign.

Overheal

I'm good with an Oprah or a Dwayne Johnson ticket in 2020

StringerBell

No way Bernie runs again let alone is actually an electable candidate. He is just too old, its fine saying he is in good health or whatever but when you will be mid 80's by the end of your first term if you did get elected it is just going to be too hard of a sell to too many people.

He is seen as basically a communist on one side and has cut himself off from the other, after they ****ed him. It just won't happen.

Jimbob1977

If he's an Independent Senator but tried to run on the Democrat Presidential ticket.... why doesn't he simply join the Democrats?

You don't allow a non-member to become Chairman of your golf club.

O'Neill

Who do I expect him to unify? Well the people. He’s woken up a large percentage of young people. He’s even managed for some Trump supporters to support him

Achasanai

O'Neill wrote: »

Would you include Sanders on that?

Include Sanders on what?

[Deleted User]

O'Neill wrote: »

Who do I expect him to unify? Well the people. He’s woken up a large percentage of young people. He’s even managed for some Trump supporters to support him

The problem with young people is that they are not very reliable in an actual election.

At the end of the day they tend to vote in smaller numbers than expected.

And as they grow up they tend to become more conservative.

VonZan

Overheal wrote: »

I'm good with an Oprah or a Dwayne Johnson ticket in 2020

Really? Oprah is too clever to damage her reputation and what is the point in electing another unqualified celebrity?

It’s very clear that no lessons have been learned from Trump.

The DNC has been taken over by some very divisive and nasty people. Who knows what candidate they will select for the American people in the next election.

Cookie_Monster

VonZan wrote: »

Really? Oprah is too clever to damage her reputation and what is the point in electing another unqualified celebrity?

because it's become nothing more than a popularity contest?

Overheal

VonZan wrote: »

Really? Oprah is too clever to damage her reputation and what is the point in electing another unqualified celebrity?

Simply put, because 'the silent majority' want 'political outsiders' - this is what inspired the Trump run.

Plus she's got the mentally stable thing down, so she's already overqualified.

Achasanai

Overheal wrote: »

Simply put, because 'the silent majority' want 'political outsiders' - this is what inspired the Trump run.

Plus she's got the mentally stable thing down, so she's already overqualified.

What about her politics?

Brian?

Bernie is too old. Joe Biden is too old. Elizabeth Warren hasn’t a hope in a general election, the accusations of being a socialist and the Pocahontas jibes will ratchet up. Tim Kaine is too boring.

I’d like to see Cory Broker and Andrew Cuomo run together. But the likelihood is one of them will win the nomination and pick a red state running mate.

Terry McAuliffe is very much an establishment candidate. He could be an outside bet.

Wanderer78

I was at the Bernie Sanders talk in Dublin last year, it was a very moving experience, it was great to see a high level politician actually speak to the people, about the people, somebody that actually cares about the people and our planet, he's also very well informed. It would give you hope for humanity and our planet, I don't think he ll run again though, but hopefully his energy will carry through, or I fear for all of humanity

pitifulgod

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The problem with young people is that they are not very reliable in an actual election.

At the end of the day they tend to vote in smaller numbers than expected.

And as they grow up they tend to become more conservative.

I'm inclined to say that Sanders could have won in 2016. Although I think realistically he can't run in 2020. By European standards, he would pretty much be the norm. You could pretty much argue that throughout Europe and even the US, people have generally become less conservative. As of late we've had a growth in the far right but hopefully that's short term.

To use Ireland as an example, we've substantially become less socially conservative. Same sex marriage passed, repeal the 8th looking increasingly more likely to pass. So while yes, it's true that young people become more conservative, it's generally less so than the previous generation.

Overheal wrote: »

Simply put, because 'the silent majority' want 'political outsiders' - this is what inspired the Trump run.

Plus she's got the mentally stable thing down, so she's already overqualified.

I'm honestly not comfortable with celebrities with zero experience running. They'll just have no chance of even working the system plus it just seems like a terrible starting point for a career in politics. Imho, democrats needs to search the young blood.

pixelburp

This sounds like a very silly thing to ponder, but this is US politics after all, so would Cory Bookers apparent veganism count against him? If there's still a template of expected 'blue collar' behaviour that plays well in those sort of areas, would an east coast vegan go down well? I honestly haven't seen it come up as a serious minus or anything, but given the obscene circus that are political attack ads, I can easily imagine the Republicans breaking out the faux everyman routine; how could Booker be for you when he couldn't enjoy a steak and beer with you, tut tut...

Laois_Man

It's difficult to predict candidates in any party anytime in US politics because you can't anticipate who is going to have what dirt pulled up on them that causes them to drop out - always happens. Sanders and Biden (despite 1 or 2 disastrous performances in VP debates in the past) if they were younger would be obvious candidates. But my reluctant prediction to top the Dems ticket would be Kamala Harris - Still plenty of time for people like Chris Murphy to emerge though! And I have seen talk starting to emerge about Al Gore thinking of having another go which would be very interesting - Even without enough Americans gaving a **** about the environment.

Oprah Winfrey was never ever going to run. Michelle Obama the same. Ridiculous talk!

[Deleted User]

Brian? wrote: »

Bernie is too old. Joe Biden is too old. Elizabeth Warren hasn’t a hope in a general election, the accusations of being a socialist and the Pocahontas jibes will ratchet up. Tim Kaine is too boring.

I’d like to see Cory Broker and Andrew Cuomo run together. But the likelihood is one of them will win the nomination and pick a red state running mate.

Terry McAuliffe is very much an establishment candidate. He could be an outside bet.

Is there any need for a red state running partner any more? Tim Kaine was barely mentioned in the campaign at all. Obviously that could change hugely but I don't think the VP nomination matters the way it did a couple of decades ago with the increase (saturation) of coverage now. Name recognition might have counted a bit more a few decades ago.

Mutant z

Far too old he will be nearly 80 by the time the next election comes around ffs.

hatrickpatrick

I sincerely hope he does run again, he's certainly been thinking about it from all accounts. Either him, or someone who's willing to tear up the status quo and stand up for human rights, which Obama's administration spectacularly failed to do when it expanded warrantless surveillance and failed to tackle unpunished police brutality.

Nody

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I sincerely hope he does run again, he's certainly been thinking about it from all accounts. Either him, or someone who's willing to tear up the status quo and stand up for human rights, which Obama's administration spectacularly failed to do when it expanded warrantless surveillance and failed to tackle unpunished police brutality.

So you want Trump to win again? Because any candidate like you describe would be taking significantly more votes from the D than the R in any national election and likely to cost a swing state or two for the D candidate ensuring Trump gets another 4 years.

hatrickpatrick

Nody wrote: »

So you want Trump to win again? Because any candidate like you describe would be taking significantly more votes from the D than the R in any national election and likely to cost a swing state or two for the D candidate ensuring Trump gets another 4 years.

I'm talking about such a candidate running for the Democratic Primary, not as an independent. The Dems are supposed to be the opposition towards Bush-era legacy crap, I'd argue that those helping to prop it up are full of sh!te when they claim to be left of centre - or even centrist.

And I reckon after the 2016 election, there'll be far more of an appetite among primary voters for a truly liberal Democratic candidate as opposed to the lukewarm Republican-lite platform on offer in 2016. It wasn't just Clinton, but Tim Kaine, her VP pick, was even closer to the Republican ideology on civil liberties being unimportant than Clinton herself. That's one of the lesser talked about but equally infuriating problems with 2016 - the VP pick is usually seen as an opportunity to balance the ticket after a divisive primary, in 2016 they used it to double down on the Republican-lite theme rather than counterbalance it.

Sanders (or somebody equally liberal) with a more centrist Dem as VP would probably be acceptable to most Dem and independent voters. Another candidate who adopts the third way ideology of "what the Republicans did was awful, but let's work with it instead of trying to repeal it" is a far greater risk to ensuring a second Trump victory through voter apathy and disillusionment on the left, IMO.

GuiltyAir

As bad as Trump has been the Dems have failed to show real strength or leadership. It's bad that Schumer and Pelosi are withering over the past year while the strongest members, Sanders and Warren, are so clearly out in the cold. I don't think the Democratic party has come close to acknowledging the division within and will continue to suffer if it expects high-visibility elections to force its left to heel out of fear.

eire4

O'Neill wrote: »

Now with the potential announcement of Opera being one of the candidates of the Democratic Party, has everyone forgotten about Bernie?

Say all you like about him, he has galvanised a lot of people, I see him as a unifier personally. Ever since he's lost the vote, unlike Clinton he is still out there campaigning. Thoughts?

No doubt Bernie has still been out there making the same kind of case as he did during the last election. I would say though that the last thing the Democratic party needs is more Clinton. Rightly or wrongly she is toxic and just needs to go away. personally I would say rightly as she represents IMHO the corrupt corporate group that controls and run the Democratic party.

eire4

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There will be a lot of talk of Elizabeth Warren running on a Sanders type policy platform, so if Bernie is too old she would be the next person up.

But she has two problems.
Firstly she is a woman and secondly she has that native American heritage question about her, which got swept under the rug in a Democrat friendly state like MA but will be front and center in a national campaign.

I think if the Democratic party wants to actually try and appeal to even some of the pretty much half of Americans who do not vote at all then Warren would be a great candidate. I fail to see why Warren being a women is an impediment at all and your question about her native American heritage or lack thereof well it that is the big stick the Republicans would use to beat here then congrats President Warren would be the outcome IMHO.

eire4

GuiltyAir wrote: »

As bad as Trump has been the Dems have failed to show real strength or leadership. It's bad that Schumer and Pelosi are withering over the past year while the strongest members, Sanders and Warren, are so clearly out in the cold. I don't think the Democratic party has come close to acknowledging the division within and will continue to suffer if it expects high-visibility elections to force its left to heel out of fear.

I could not agree more. The Democratic party just does not get it. The fact is the party is a corrupt corporate controlled party and that is a big reason why so many do not vote for them. I mean look at the debacle that was the whole campaign for them last time out yet despite that the only thing the Democrats really have going for them is they are not Trump. Once again vote for the lesser evil is essentially their manifesto.
Reality IMHO economically is the Republicans represent and serve the top 1% the Democrats maybe the top 20%. Sure they are not as bad as the Republicans but they still do not care about nor do they work for the best interests of the vast majority of Americans on a consistent basis hence why voter participation is so pathetic in the US.