Yodabunny wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I think that a lot of Sander's polling numbers are coming from people who basically know little or nothing about him other than that he's a dark horse candidate who's somehow actually challenging Clinton numerically (well, at least in some polls). Um... I doubt that survives for long once they start actually paying attention to him and his positions. On a national scale, I just don't see anyone who self labels himself as a socialist (with or without the word "Democratic" in front of it) has a snowball's chance in **** of winning the Dem nomination, much less the general.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. There's a whole generation of first time voters this time around that have been brought up with an entitlement culture and have heard nothing but hatred for the elite through their high school and college years. There's nothing wrong with socialism, the US just seems to equate it with communism but none of the younger crowd were around for the communism vs capitalism wars and they're all up to their eyeballs in college debt. They don't think the same way people just 10 years their senior do, they don't follow the same indoctrination we all do.
Um... Sure. But young voters who don't think the same way people just 10 years their senior do, account for a pretty small percentage of voters (primary or otherwise). They can't possibly account for the general election polling we're seeing. It's far more likely that's being driven by a largish percentage of those polled not knowing anything about Sanders. Unknowns always poll well in the "if the election were held today" match ups. Because we are always looking hopefully to the new guy to be better than the guy we know about. But once we learn about the new guy, he never matches up to the perfect hoped for alternative and then falls a bit. And in the case of Sanders, what's unknown about him is a huge deal breaker for most voters.
Quote:
Religion is dying for the same reasons, kids are just much more informed now that the internet is available in their pocket, they understand the power of numbers and they're more in tune with what their numbers actually are and how powerful they can be.
Having more information doesn't equate to being more informed. Just saying. Young people are just as easily manipulated today as they were in past generations. There's just a lot more sources of potential manipulation available.
Quote:
I'm not saying all of the young people are reading political blogs, but if you ask most young people who's better for them I bet Bernie is the answer in most cases. Hilary's positions are just outdated and she carries herself in an outdated manner.
Yes. Because young people are dumb and can't see past next week. That's not new. Most people outgrow the "magic fairies will save us and it wont cost us anything" ideas about politics (which is basically what socialism is) by the time they get into their late 20s or early 30s. They learn that everything that appears to be "free" actually has a cost, and start looking for that cost. And they learn not to buy the snake oil that someone's trying to sell them.
Bernie's support is bolstered by the fact that Clinton is such an unlikable candidate that people are desperately looking for *anyone* else to support. But for many people right now, it's literally "he's not Clinton". That's it. Now maybe he's able to carry that through the primary process. I doubt it. I think at some point, even Democrat voters will have enough sanity to realize he's a really bad idea. But even if somehow he manages to win the Dem nomination, he simply can't win the general. I mean, maybe if Trump wins the GOP nomination. Maybe. Probably not even then though. And anyone other than Trump will look like a font of sanity and stability next to Bernie Sanders.
He's a crazy old socialist. Period. He's not even a hip happening, hide-my-socialism-behind-clever-language guy like Obama. Oddly, I actually somewhat respect Sanders for at least being honest about his ideas. But that's why he's not a viable national candidate and never has been. The only reason he's doing remotely well is because people are so anti-Clinton, and there's literally no one else in the Democratic party to go to. He got into the race because he was not supposed to be a threat to Clinton. Everyone who "ran" on the Dem side was there solely to make it not quite so obvious that Clinton was to be the anointed candidate this time and no one was to take it away from her. They needed warm but not threatening bodies to prop up at podiums to pretend to debate Clinton and make her (hopefully) look good in comparison. Which is why the only people who ran other than Clinton was a list of perennial "also-rans". The shocking thing is that he's somehow actually doing well against her. But his popularity is not because he or his platform is popular, but because she's so incredibly unpopular.
Again though, his odds of doing more than being an annoyance to Clinton in the primary is very very low. He wins Iowa and NH, and almost certainly loses everywhere else (except Vermont presumably). Maybe he does well in Maine or some other small nutty-left commune like state, but his delegate count will be super low. Again though, what he's really showing us is not his strength, but her weakness.