That's it! I'm calling it. Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee in 2016.

[FlyingTeaPot]

Given the fact that Bernie Sanders has raised more money than Obama in small donations by this time in 2007 and the fact that he is now leading Hillary Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa according to the latest Quinnipiac polls makes me think he could be a real contender for the presidential race. He seems to have a more enthusiastic and energized set of voter base, especially among independents.

Now that Hillary is making the same mistakes she made in 2007 by going on the attack and lying about her opponent this time around, I think she will lose her position quickly among the democratic base. She's botching it again by insulting voter intelligence, going dirty early and appearing to contradict her own positions. People will start to realize that she is just another fake politician with few (if any) principles as they start paying more and more attention.

People do not want establishment politicians, they are craving for (liberal) outsiders all around the world as we've seen with Justin Trudeau and Jeremy Corbyn in Canada and UK respectively.
To make this point strike closer to home, David Brat defeated house majority leader Eric Cantor only last year, making him the first primary challenger to oust a sitting House Majority Leader since the position's creation in 1899. From Wikipedia:

"Compared with Cantor, described as aloof, Brat was characterized as knowing how to work a crowd.[26] He ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches. During the campaign, Cantor criticized Brat as a "liberal professor" who had strong ties to Tim Kaine, Virginia's formerDemocratic governor and current junior Senator"​

Really interesting article in HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-is-botching-this_569808a9e4b0778f46f8b31b

What do you think?

EDIT: Typo fixed.

 

[Corthos]

Ugh... I just hope Sanders becomes the Dem nominee. I think who I vote for this election might just depend on who isn't Clinton or Trump. =/

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope you're right.
I'd have never believed it possible a year ago.

 

[Iti oj]

Given the fact that Bernie Sanders has raised more money than Obama in small donations by this time in 2007 and the fact that he is now leading Hillary Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa according to the latest Quinnipiac polls makes me think he could be a real contender for the presidential race. He seems to have a more enthusiastic and energized set of voter base, especially among independents.

Now that Hillary is making the same mistakes she made in 2007 by going on the attack and lying about her opponent this time around, I think she will lose her position quickly among the democratic base. She's botching it again by insulting voter intelligence, going dirty early and appearing to contradict her own positions. People will start to realize that she is just another fake politician with few (if any) principles as they start paying more and more attention.

People do not want establishment politicians, they are craving for (liberal) outsiders all around the world as we've seen with Justin Trudeau and Jeremy Corbyn in Canada and UK respectively.
To make this point strike closer to home, David Brat defeated house majority leader Eric Cantor only last year, making him the first primary challenger to oust a sitting House Majority Leader since the position's creation in 1899. From Wikipedia:

"Compared with Cantor, described as aloof, Brat was characterized as knowing how to work a crowd.[26] He ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches. During the campaign, Cantor criticized Brat as a "liberal professor" who had strong ties to Tim Kaine, Virginia's formerDemocratic governor and current junior Senator"​

Really interesting article in HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-is-botching-this_569808a9e4b0778f46f8b31b

What do you think?

EDIT: Typo fixed.

its really up to gen x/millennials, will we go out and vote, or do we stay home. As for me, i even switched from independent to democrat just to vote in my states primary .

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I think Bernie is certainly resonating with millennials given his stance on education and healthcare. I also think he is able to energize his base better than Hillary.
Millennials don't have the same fear of the word "socialist" that their parents and grandparents had.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hope and somewhat expect the OP to be right.

 

[Laika]

I'd be worried about a Trump vs. Sanders election, but I don't think it would hurt the US for Sanders to become President.The US could do with shifting a little bit further left. it might stabilise it in the long-term. I don't think Sanders is a socialist (but I'm far left so my definition is way off), but he can certainly get some stuff done that will save capitalism like FDR did. he might be able to fix a few more problems.

 

[illykitty]

I'm not American so my opinion won't change much, but I do hope you're right. Bernie Sanders seems like the real deal, he's not in the pocket of corporations and he seems genuinely wanting to change things.

Also, I've read he's apparently very electable, more so than Hilary.

 

[David1967]

I hope your right. I think Hillary would be about the worst possible choice for the country. But she is a powerful individual therefore will be hard for Bernie to overcome. Not a fan of either one really, but would much rather Bernie be the one. At least he seems to be genuinely who he portrays himself to be.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I'd be worried about a Trump vs. Sanders election.

Why's that?

 

[Laika]

Why's that?

If Fox News said "Socialist" enough times, I'm worried Americans will vote in Trump to "make america great again". I think it would be very close, and I don't want Trump to win.

 

[sun rise]

Right now I agree - Sanders vs Trump. Both are channeling extreme dislike of the status quo, albeit from very different sides.

The lyrics don't apply but the refrain does:'

Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

 

[sun rise]

Why's that?

The Chaplain soliloquy in your signature is one of the all time great movie moments.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

If Fox News said "Socialist" enough times, I'm worried Americans will vote in Trump to "make america great again". I think it would be very close, and I don't want Trump to win.

I think you're putting too much stock in Fox News' power and reach, although it is considerable.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Just checked the REalClearPolitics poll and it has Bernie as just a mere 8 points below Hillary. I think that a lot of people that are still supporting Hillary are doing it because they don't think that Bernie will get the nomination. However I think soon as people realize that he is a real candidate that is really here that can win they will switch over to Bernie.

 

[Ken Brown]

Given the fact that Bernie Sanders has raised more money than Obama in small donations by this time in 2007 and the fact that he is now leading Hillary Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa according to the latest Quinnipiac polls makes me think he could be a real contender for the presidential race. He seems to have a more enthusiastic and energized set of voter base, especially among independents.

Now that Hillary is making the same mistakes she made in 2007 by going on the attack and lying about her opponent this time around, I think she will lose her position quickly among the democratic base. She's botching it again by insulting voter intelligence, going dirty early and appearing to contradict her own positions. People will start to realize that she is just another fake politician with few (if any) principles as they start paying more and more attention.

People do not want establishment politicians, they are craving for (liberal) outsiders all around the world as we've seen with Justin Trudeau and Jeremy Corbyn in Canada and UK respectively.
To make this point strike closer to home, David Brat defeated house majority leader Eric Cantor only last year, making him the first primary challenger to oust a sitting House Majority Leader since the position's creation in 1899. From Wikipedia:

"Compared with Cantor, described as aloof, Brat was characterized as knowing how to work a crowd.[26] He ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches. During the campaign, Cantor criticized Brat as a "liberal professor" who had strong ties to Tim Kaine, Virginia's formerDemocratic governor and current junior Senator"​

Really interesting article in HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-is-botching-this_569808a9e4b0778f46f8b31b

What do you think?

EDIT: Typo fixed.

Shalom FlyingTeaPot, I haven't yet made up my mind as to who I would vote for, but for certain, I would never vote for Bernie Sanders. Most think "Bush" and his economic policies caused the economic meltdown, but I think that if the truth was known, you would find that liberal, getting something for nothing policies, is what led to the housing collapse. You see, Carter implemented polices, and Clinton put them on steroids, to give undeserving and unqualified borrowers a free access to home loans, and even established banking guidelines which in essence coerced banks and loan institutions to make "quotas" of their loan totals to these borrowers who would never have qualified for the loan. The liberal "act of love" in reducing those qualifications led bankers to make the loans, but then they bundled them up and got rid of them back to Fanny and Freddie. And now, we hear another liberal/socialist promising the same type of fanfare, giving out "free this" and "free that," so that eventually, down the road, another generation will have to pay the piper. So no, I will not be casting my vote for Bernie Sanders even if your prediction comes true. What we do need is a candidate who will be able to balance their checkbook, instead of just blindly spending because they think they have an unlimited supply of checks. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[Revoltingest]

Shalom FlyingTeaPot, I haven't yet made up my mind as to who I would vote for, but for certain, I would never vote for Bernie Sanders. Most think "Bush" and his economic policies caused the economic meltdown, but I think that if the truth was known, you would find that liberal, getting something for nothing policies, is what led to the housing collapse. You see, Carter implemented polices, and Clinton put them on steroids, to give undeserving and unqualified borrowers a free access to home loans, and even established banking guidelines which in essence coerced banks and loan institutions to make "quotas" of their loan totals to these borrowers who would never have qualified for the loan. The liberal "act of love" in reducing those qualifications led bankers to make the loans, but then they bundled them up and got rid of them back to Fanny and Freddie. And now, we hear another liberal/socialist promising the same type of fanfare, giving out "free this" and "free that," so that eventually, down the road, another generation will have to pay the piper. So no, I will not be casting my vote for Bernie Sanders even if your prediction comes true. What we do need is a candidate who will be able to balance their checkbook, instead of just blindly spending because they think they have an unlimited supply of checks. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

I share your concerns, but the "liberal" problems behind economic woe were greatly due to Congress.
I doubt Bernie could get anything very socialist past Congress.
Where he looks good is one area where the prez has great power, ie, waging war.
His more dovish foreign policy approach makes him much more attractive than Hillary.

 

[columbus]

What we do need is a candidate who will be able to balance their checkbook, instead of just blindly spending because they think they have an unlimited supply of checks.

You might want to take a quick look at the evidence.
The federal debt nearly doubled under Reagan/Bush. Then it dropped by nearly a third under Clinton I. Then it doubled again under Bush II. Then it leveled off under Obama.

The Democratic party has become the party of fiscal sanity.
Tom

 

[Midnight Rain]

Shalom FlyingTeaPot, I haven't yet made up my mind as to who I would vote for, but for certain, I would never vote for Bernie Sanders. Most think "Bush" and his economic policies caused the economic meltdown, but I think that if the truth was known, you would find that liberal, getting something for nothing policies, is what led to the housing collapse. You see, Carter implemented polices, and Clinton put them on steroids, to give undeserving and unqualified borrowers a free access to home loans, and even established banking guidelines which in essence coerced banks and loan institutions to make "quotas" of their loan totals to these borrowers who would never have qualified for the loan. The liberal "act of love" in reducing those qualifications led bankers to make the loans, but then they bundled them up and got rid of them back to Fanny and Freddie. And now, we hear another liberal/socialist promising the same type of fanfare, giving out "free this" and "free that," so that eventually, down the road, another generation will have to pay the piper. So no, I will not be casting my vote for Bernie Sanders even if your prediction comes true. What we do need is a candidate who will be able to balance their checkbook, instead of just blindly spending because they think they have an unlimited supply of checks. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

Its not an act of love its an act of sanity. I want us to spend far less on healthcare, more on our employees, less on our military and more on our schools. We need to foster production and businesses at home while strengthening the economic power of the middle class while at the same time increasing our functionality as a country by significantly reducing the costs of the largest drags on our economy. Net gains of economic value all around.

 

[Revoltingest]

You might want to take a quick look at the evidence.
The federal debt nearly doubled under Reagan/Bush. Then it dropped by nearly a third under Clinton I. Then it doubled again under Bush II. Then it leveled off under Obama.

The Democratic party has become the party of fiscal sanity.
Tom

This wasn't due to presidential affiliation.
'Recall that Under Bush 1, the economy finally began improving just before Clinton assumed office.
(There are phase lags between political policy & economic results.)
And Clinton accomplished some good because he worked well with Newt Gingrich.

Of course, I fault the Pubs for being tax & spend big government crony capitalists, as are the Dems.
Reagan might be the best practitioner of Keynesianism, ironically.

Btw, I was recruited to join SDI (Reagan's Star Wars) research, but I turned it down.
(I knew the astrophysicist in charge of it all.)
Are you impressed?
No?
Well, you shouldn't be.....but I was flattered.