add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Bernie Sanders is the new Barry Goldwater

Memo1010
  • 1 month ago

For those of you who don't know, Barry Goldwater was a United States senator who was the Republican nominee for the presidency in 1964. In the primaries he had great success, as his strong conservative ideals led to great support from his party, so he soared to the nomination. However, he was often painted as a radical or extremist, and even found opposition within his own party from the liberal Republicans (basically the moderates of the day).

So after he won the nomination he needed to beat out the incumbent Lyndon B Johnson for the presidency. The results were not pretty for Goldwater. He lost the electoral college 486 to 52, as Johnson walked away with one of the biggest landslides ever. He won only 38.5% of the popular vote.

So what happened here? Johnson was very far right (for the time) and a large part of his party loved it, and excitedly nominated him. However, there were several members of his party who thought he was too extreme and couldn't vote for him, and nearly everyone not a member was opposed to him. There was no way he was gonna get independents or democrats to vote for him. He was too radical to win. However he did reshape the Republican party, eventually culminating in Reagan's back to back landslide victories (Reagan even campaigned for Goldwater in 64).

And so I get back to Sanders. He too had been a senator for a long time when he decided to run for president in 2020. He is without a doubt the farthest left of all the Democratic party's candidates. He is currently the frontrunner to win their nomination. However the establishment doesn't really want him and I think that he'd have trouble getting votes from moderate democrats, although many of them will pick him out of distaste for Trump.

Unless if his support drops dramatically or if the DNC pulls off some brokered convention stunt to chase him off I think he will be the nominee, and I think he will lose. Let me say first that I do think Trump will be re-elected. A recent Gallup poll gave him a 49% approval rating, the highest he's ever had. It also was their first pole where more people approved than disapproved. That approval rating of 49% is a bigger number than the 46.2% of the popular vote he got in 2016 and the 48.2% Clinton got. Along with this, the economy is doing really good, and whether or not you want to give him the credit for that the fact remains that incumbents with strong economies rarely lose. So for better or worse, I think Trump is beating anyone.

And boy is he hoping he gets to face Sanders. Sanders is on a similar path as Goldwater, a large portion of his party loves him because of how radical he is and he'll probably get the nomination for it, but his own party won't entirely gather around him and I think that more middle of the road voters won't like voting for him (although some may not like voting for Trump either). I don't think Trump is going to win all but 6 states as LBJ did, that's impossible, but I think he will win by a larger margin than in 2016, and will probably get a larger percentage of the popular vote, although he might not get as much as Sanders. He will paint Sanders as too far left and I think a lot of people will agree. The man has been a sympathizer for communist nations such as the USSR in the past and is a socialist. I don't think there are enough Millenials for someone like that to win. He has to rely too much on people who weren't alive to remember how bad communism is. (disclaimer: I'm a Millenial)

Am I writing this to Endorse Trump? By no means. I'm just saying Sanders will win the nomination and will get his butt kicked in November, just like Goldwater, and not unlike Jeremy Corbyn. I also think that in a similar way Sanders is reshaping the Democrat party, and maybe soon one of his supports will jump in and win the presidency just like Reagan did.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope not though, cause this will be embarrassing looking back.

Comments

  • 1 month ago
  • 6 points

I just want a candidate who supports nuclear power.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Maybe I'm wrong.

I hope you are lol

The people of this country need to stand up and tell the establishment “enough of your ********.” It’s about time we get some **** done around here to better the lives of every American and not just the rich people who buy out the government.

I only hope that you’re wrong and we don’t get more Trump or someone like Bloomberg. We don’t need more billionaires to further the agenda of the Establishment because they don’t care about us.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

It is almost certainly going to be Sanders going up against Trump this November. And, I have very little doubt Trump will win in that election. Could be wrong, but don't see it as likely.

[comment deleted]
  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I suppose November will show. But, I think Trump more likely to win the swing vote than Sanders.

[comment deleted]
  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

While not a Republican, I have seen far less contempt towards Trump than I think you portray, at least by those that I know. I think Sanders may see moderates swing towards Trump in November due to Sanders' proposals, perceived by some as going too far. Maybe Trump has disillusioned his less ardent base to the point of supporting some Democrats in this election, if they align close enough to the middle. But, Sanders' is certainly nowhere near the middle. I'd say it likely that bodes poorly for the Democrats' presidential aspirations in 2020.

It's going to be an interesting Election, for sure.

[comment deleted]
  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Liberal social agenda?

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Liberalism and socialism are both opposits. There is no freedom in socialism. Maybe you should talk to eastern Europeans why socialism is a terrible system.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

"Social agenda" refers to social issues, not socialism. "Liberal social agenda" is stuff like promoting LGBT rights.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Phew, that took a while to write, but it was fun though. I did a bit of research, as far as I know, all the statistics here are correct but other than the Gallup poll it's all from Wikipedia...

Feel free to fact check me, I'd love to know if any of my info is wrong.

Also, I didn't proofread it very good so sorry for any typos.

[comment deleted]
  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I'm afraid you may have to correct me here, but isn't this the very argument the Republican establishment were trying to use against Donald Trump when they were pushing Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio & then Ted Cruz?

I'm afraid you may have to correct me here, but isn't this the very argument the Republican establishment were trying to use against Donald Trump when they were pushing Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio & then Ted Cruz?

I mean, you do have a legitimate point. I honestly just wrote this for fun and put it here cause I didn't know where else to put it. I guess we'll see in November.

refusing to increase wages Wages are going up though. Have you ever considered that there's more than one way to increase wages? Trump is doing it by making things easier on the corporations which leads to them being able to expand more which leads to more jobs being created and in order to lure workers away from their old jobs they have to offer them more money. More jobs and higher pay. All of this would be impossible without the upper class.

Meanwhile, if we increased the minimum wage it would lead to low pay jobs being cut, while several people would see an increased wage several others would go from low pay to no pay. Businesses will struggle and jobs won't increase. The funny thing is that by lifting up only some of the low pay workers and leaving the others in a worse spot they'd been creating a wealth gap between them when the democratic party is constantly talking about how bad the wealth gap is.

Student debt... cutting Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid...

Here's a point of view you may consider: first of all as wages go up and our economy finds success, it means that the need for government aid is smaller. The more people can spend with their own money they less they need from Uncle Sam. Secondly, there's the fact that our government doesn't have unlimited money to spend, and to pay for these programs we can either allow for the national debt to increase (bad) or raise taxes (which takes more money out of the pockets of the people).

I mostly agree with the point of view in the above paragraph, I certainly think that it's a pretty valid and thought out one. However, I also do understand the need for the government to provide some aid. There's a balance to be had. I certainly think that Sanders wouldn't balance it right, I think Trump is closer...is his balance perfect? Probably not, I'm smart (I think) but I'm not that smart.

Does that make sense? I can try to clarify if not, and I'm open to other opinions.

[comment deleted]
  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Sorry if it sounded like I was defending poverty, that was not at all my intention. My intention was to defend capitalism because it is the cure for poverty. I'm not sure that we can ever entirely end poverty, but we can sure try.

The point is, if everybody is being paid properly, yes it may cost a bit more but you're going to raise standards, you aren't going to see the same kind of poverty, crime or run down neighbourhoods! You create a better and more equal society, where people have happier & healthier lives and they aren't being exploited, and can actually take pride in their jobs and offer a decent quality of service.

I agree with this. If we make our economy hostile to businesses people will lose jobs, and they certainly won't be paid properly. In order for them to be paid properly, we must set up companies to actually have money to pay them with. Obviously, Sanders' policies wouldn't completely destroy all businesses but raising taxes on them will certainly hurt, and when the businesses are hurt it all trickles down. Capitalism, when properly restricted (ie preventing monopolies and child labor) does help the upper class...and the middle and lower classes as well. But money has got to come from somewhere, and when the employers face financial struggles you can bet the employees will too. Business is the lifeblood of our economy, and without them, we'd all be in trouble.

There is no advantage to paying people poverty wages

Well, it's not ideal but it's better than their bosses going broke and then all of them being in the streets, which is what happens to a lot more businesses when the taxes on them are too high. Ideally, they can use their skills and talent to apply themselves to get a better job or start a business, but this is hard to do when the economy is struggling, which is what happens when you tax companies leading to too much leading to layoffs and salary cuts leading to less spending leading to less profit leading to layoffs and salary cuts...

it's the shareholders who make the profits

People who invest their time and money are entitled to reap the benefits, are they not? Do you not believe that we ought to be allowed to reap what we sow? A farmer is entitled to the crop they produce, and this is no different, is it not?

there's no advantage to ordinary people

I wonder what exactly it is about shareholders that make them less valuable than 'ordinary' people. Anyone with money, regardless of how 'ordinary' they are can invest their time and money into a business and potentially reap the benefits. If you don't have that money then you can get it by working. If you work hard even in fast food you can make good money. As the owner of my restaurant once said: "if you can get over the fact that you're selling chicken for a living, you can make really good money." He would know since he's gone from fast food worker to restaurant with 4 million in sales a year owner. Anyone can find success in fast food, not to mention so many other opportunities that exist for them. And the more we allow businesses to grow the more opportunities there will be, most of them a lot better than measly fast food.

the workers themselves just don't have enough money to support their local businesses so the local communities end up suffering!

Going back to my earlier comment, businesses making money leads to workers making money, which should, in turn, allow for them to have enough money, although it doesn't always play out perfectly (there will never be a perfect system due to human depravity). But the economy is doing good right now, even if not perfect.

The area where I live is growing very rapidly. I think perhaps that it's only certain areas where what you are describing is happening (areas that come to mind are places like LA and Chicago, which shouldn't be a surprise since they all vote for big government high taxes democrats all the time). Regardless, I don't think that sucking the money out of businesses (small or large) will help this because as I've explained it's businesses that give workers their money so if they are taxed too heavily (there should, of course, be some level of taxation but nothing excessive) the workers will not have enough money to support their local businesses so the local communities end up suffering.

Poverty has a negative impact on all areas of society and makes communities worse I entirely agree, which is a large part of why I am opposed to a potential Sanders presidency.

But the real point is, at what point do people say the multi-millionaires & billionaires have enough and it's time to the restore the wealth & health of everybody else?

First of all, I should point out that Sanders himself is among these groups. If he really believed this he'd be giving away more of his money. If he really wanted to make a difference he'd do what Jesus told the rich man to do once, "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."

This is why I have respect for Andrew Yang (even if I probably wouldn't vote for him because I cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-choice president), his suspended campaign is still giving families $1000 dollars a month through the end of the year even though he isn't running anymore and has nothing to gain from it. He actually practices what he preaches and isn't a hypocrite like Sanders.

Secondly, without billion-dollar corporations, a lot of jobs would suddenly disappear. For instance, 798,000 work for Amazon, imagine if they had to layoff just 5% of their workforce, that's nearly 40,00 people now unemployed, yikes! The 798,000 figure is according to a quick Google search, something that I wouldn't have been able to learn without Google LLC. Corporations create jobs and products which leads to a better society. This site is all about computers, think about how much more powerful computers are because of corporations like Nvidia, Intel, and Microsoft. Without these multi-billion dollar companies, computers would be less powerful, not to mention less standardized (what a mess it would if everything was made by minor manufacturers with 20 different standards). Companies competing with each other makes everyone better off, this is one of the core parts of capitalism. Without corporations, we'd all be worse off, all 3 classes.

I've been talking mostly about companies and not people. People become rich from companies. You don't become a billionaire without either owning or selling a corporation.

I do of course believe that the rich ought to give away money for moral reasons.

The solution isn't to destroy the wealth of the upper class but to allow for the free market to create wealth for everyone. The idea that wealth can't be created is mercantilism, and there's a reason why no one believes that crap anymore. I don't care at all if the rich are getting richer, in fact, I think that as a general rule that's a good thing. What I care about is if the lower and middle classes are getting richer, which is what has happened in our great American experiment and will continue to happen as long as we continue this great experiment in capitalism and other important freedoms.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

But the real point is, at what point do people say the multi-millionaires & billionaires have enough and it's time to the restore the wealth & health of everybody else?

I think this is the main point behind Bernie's campaign. He's uprooting the monopoly the rich have on the nation as a whole and want to let people lower on the totem pole get their chance.

Though it's your definition of "enough" that seems to be a bit of a confusing thing. Does he want to see the wealthy eliminated from society? Does he want to slow their wealth grow to keep them from negatively impacting the less fortunate?

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Bing.....bing......bing.......bing.......bing.....!

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Sorry I left the key in the ignition.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

However the establishment doesn't really want him

It's more that being so polarizing he could very well win the presidency, but cost them the house leading to Republicans holding majority and able to override anything he attempts.

They want complacent Republicans so they can flip several key areas leading to a Senate majority being added to the current House majority.

With both the they can overrule Trump if he wins, or better yet have a Democrat in office with both the House and Senate under their control.

I also think that in a similar way Sanders is reshaping the Democrat party

I don't think it is as much a reshaping of the party by an individual as much as in areas voters have decided to vote out as many of the the establishment as they can until the parties start representing people instead of parties.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

The issue for the election, if it's Bernie and Trump, is trying to get moderates or neutrals to go to their side. They each have their guaranteed base that will surely vote for them, but this election really all hinges on which one of them can be more effective toward swaying swing voters and states.

Either way, this one's going to be close, I think.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

the problem now.. is the right is so far to the right(pun ) that their almost touching the left. when you at what people say now... its like they never read a history book or did any basic fact finding. where i live in s fl..... simple common stuff... they think am the left etc. am right in the middle. but sweet god. it scary what has happen to 1 side of the popultions. of the whole world. where regressing to hitler,stalin,Mussolini type of leader. for god sakes india nearing a fasic state. when they think gondi is the bad guy now.........

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

That's a bold claim. Could you give some examples of what they have done that is too far right?

I mean there are some crazy people like David Duke and Neo-Nazis but they are rejected by the Republican party, no one likes them.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

k i live in Florida. so our last gov rick scott. sent the head scientist for health of wild life and overall beaches etc. to a mental institute for a week or weekend. for saying climate and other stuff like nestle etc. is harming/destroy nature and so on. Adam Putnam’ stopped reviewing concealed weapons background checks for a year because it couldn’t log in . they tried to cover it up. thank god a leaker leak it to the press.

am seeing a rises of antisemitism my state . both for jews people and anything that look Arab oh the school shooting that happen recent. people on the right think all the people their was actors...... a repb voter saying out loud. how we deal with immigration is to shot who ever cross the boarder .( i where everyone could hear. said so you want to kill woman and child then......)

last the sheer cognitive distant of the far right and right after middle right to.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

k i live in Florida. so our last gov rick scott. sent the head scientist for health of wild life and overall beaches etc. to a mental institute for a week or weekend. for saying climate and other stuff like nestle etc. is harming/destroy nature and so on. Adam Putnam’ stopped reviewing concealed weapons background checks for a year because it couldn’t log in . they tried to cover it up. thank god a leaker leak it to the press.

That never should have happened. I guess that's Florida though lol.

am seeing a rises of antisemitism my state . both for jews people and anything that look Arab oh the school shooting that happen recent. people on the right think all the people their was actors...... a repb voter saying out loud. how we deal with immigration is to shot who ever cross the boarder .( i where everyone could hear. said so you want to kill woman and child then......)

That's crazy, I'm sad to hear that.

I don't think that you can judge a party by its worst members. I mean the democrats have Antifa and soviet-sympathizers. Plus there's people like Omar who are often accused of antisemitism, so I don't think you can attribute that specifically to the right, especially when our Republican president is way more pro-Isreal than any of the Democrats running.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

yeah when both far left and right. they tend to bump into each other. dark money both sides. last this specific issue. https://www.npr.org/2020/01/05/785672201/deceased-gop-strategists-daughter-makes-files-public-that-republicans-wanted-sea that a big issue alone. never let 1 side have almost all the power. it never goes well.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube