Bernie Sanders will Run Again in 2020

[TheModestGun]

If a Dem can't emerge past Bernie in the primary then he deserves to get the nomination. I want him to challenge the other candidates, and I want them to challenge him. Expose weaknesses, nail down policy positions, challenge their history.Anything other than presuming somebody is or is not going to be the nominee. They won't be strong enough to build the necessary coalitions on the Dem side otherwise.

Click to shrink...

Really this is where I'm at with it.

I'm tired of people calling me a "Bernie Stan" (a fucking cringe term anyways). All I care is that all of the options be considered. I am completely open to being wooed by another candidate. We just have to see how the debates go and how clear to front runners policy platforms turn out to be.

I want the Democratic Party to live up to its name and be more small d democratic.

 

[Deleted member 22490]

More specifically his backers and all the negativity that ended up getting amplified and generating disillusionment and apathy.

This was my perspective looking on as someone voting Dem no matter the candidate.

Click to shrink...

Every time I ask how Bernie threw a tantrum or whatever, I get answers like this.

 

[RailWays]

Click to shrink...

$6 million already. Hot damn!

 

[lmcfigs]

strongest avenger

 

[Dark Knight]

I'm not even north american and I know for sure that he doesn't have what it takes to beat Trump

Click to shrink...

Dying to know how you reached that conclusion, please enlighten us. You said you know it for sure so surely you have solid reasoning behind it.

 

[KidAAlbum]

Why?

Click to shrink...

A lot of moderates agree on rancid ideas like illegal wars in the middle east, loss of civil liberties, and corporate interests.

 

[mikeys_legendary]

No, neoliberals just like to create a straw man out of Bernie the big bad boogy man. Did he stay in the race too long? Absolutely. But does that equate to a tantrum? No. Is it wrong for him and his campaign to point out that the DNC's presumption of Hillary being the candidate was a foregone conclusion. No.

It was a stacked deck. Yes he still performed less well than she did, and that's on him and his campaign, but it would be naive to think the deck wasn't stacked for Hillary in the DNC.

Click to shrink...

Don't we know for a fact that it was stacked in her favor? I remember reading that someone exposed what was going on a few months after the election. Was it Donna Brazile?

Anyway, Bernie is the candidate I'm most enthusiastic about right now, but it's a long way until 2020 and everyone hasn't announced their candidacy.

 

[JABEE]

 

[Deleted member 3897]

strongest avenger

Click to shrink...

Sanders: We have a Hulk

 

[Deleted member 135]

The man is too old. What has age have to do with it? Or can't you think at a certain age anymore? Also about ego. If you think that there is one candidate that hasn't got a big ego then you are seeing things wrongly. All the candidates have big ego's.

Click to shrink...

Frankly there should be age limits on the Presidency. Bernie will be 78 his first year, he doesn't have to live with the long term choices he makes.

Ego matters when it gets in the way of what is best for the country.

 

[Whompa]

Lets fucking GO. Proud donor.

Finally someone who actually has some skin in the game and can clearly gain momentum...and if Trump's only insult is that he's, "crazy Bernie" then I think he's going to have a hard time making him look bad.

 

[ThisThingIsUseful]

There is clear data that union voters had significantly worse Dem turnout in 2016 than normal. That those union voters not showing up were concentrated within the swing states that were ultimately decided by just a few thousand votes and that also decided the election. And there is audio and video documentation that Bernie Sanders' campaign platform to those audiences focused on how the current Democratic party was screwing them over via trade policy.

No one forced Sanders to run against NAFTA, a program that has been, by all real economic assessment, something between net neutral to a significant net positive for the U.S.. But Sanders did. He fed people the same populist red meat that Trump was serving at the same time and all while he called out Clinton for being in favor of those policies. Which she, and any sensible non-fucking-moron, should have been.

But again, he's a fucking moron, so surprise surprise.

Clinton didn't visit a few states. She should have. If she had how many people would she genuinely have turned by showing up and shaking hands? Seriously. Sanders caught substantial media attention that was seen by far, far more people going to those states and actively attacking the person who was supposed to be most closely aligned with his views while peddling a similar message to the person in theory most antithetical to them. He was mugging for media attention just like Trump and got national face time just like Trump by peddling the same dogpile on Clinton populist isolationism bullshit as Trump, just by singing kumbaya at the end instead of a recital of Fourteen Words.

As for re-litigating - maybe we can stop re-litigating it when people fairly assign blame. Clinton as a weak campaigner gets a lot. The horrible management of the DNC gets a lot. The fact that we simply have a lot of fucking racists around still and no one has been willing to take that head on until it cost their party an election deserves to be a long term talking point to learn from as well.

But we also need to acknowledge that campaigning like Sanders did merits non-trivial blame as well.

The muck racking personal background scrounging of the Clintons is part of the process. It might be ugly but it happening in a primary is part of vetting a candidate for the general, as the general opponent will do at least as much. Lighting core party platform planks on fire? That is not part of a primary if you want your opponent to have the best possible chance to win. Sanders did the later. It might seem counter intuitive that personal attacks and slander is less damaging than something policy related, but when that policy argument hinges on fundamentally tearing down core party platform elements in alignment with the general opposition's desires that's what happens.

It isn't the worst primary of all time by any means. Kennedy did far, far worse to Carter in 1980. Carter was almost certain to lose anyway, but Kennedy's primary attacks on an incumbent dem POTUS coupled with Anderson/Lucey giving left leaning Republicans a bailout from Reagan without voting D certainly helped. Doesn't change that Kennedy's attacks on Carter framed a still present narrative of Carter being a generally incompetent POTUS when in reality he was thrust into an incredibly difficult moment in history and just didn't play it brilliantly, as opposed to some of the proper idiots we've put in office before.

Ignoring Sanders' role leads to a similar simplification of the 2016 election - Clinton just wasn't a good candidate. Might have been a good POTUS but she didn't earn the votes. That leads to a few fallacies that will haunt us if we let them remain.

1. No one should need to earn someone's vote. Everyone has a civil responsibility to partake in the political process and vote for the candidate they find least objectionable if none suits their interests. That is how representative government works and if we want capable elected officials and not just charismatic talking heads in office everyone unhappy with Trump should be taking this as the single biggest message from the 2016 election.

2. Populism is effective but inherently damaging rhetoric. In a primary it will damage all candidates who choose not to engage in feeding lowest common denominator populist sentiment. In a general it will lead people to improperly assess their responsibilities with regards to #1 above. Simply put, embracing populism is the first step on the road to fascism.

Recognizing that Sanders engaged in the second leads to the realization that he has culpability in some portion of people not engaging with the first from a point of clear understanding. To win elections going forward the political left needs to prevent that kind of division from occurring, because the political right really aren't opposed to the end game of populism as long as they're the ones in the seats of power when it all truly breaks apart.

Click to shrink...

This post misses so much. I'll try to order it as well as I can:

1) Yes, people need to earn your vote. I always vote Democratic in the general, but shaming people into voting doesn't actually make them vote. The strategy never works.
2) "No one forced Sanders to run against NAFTA." He represents a substantial wing of people who are opposed to trade deals. Opposition to NAFTA has ALWAYS been bi-partisan, as has its support. Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, for different reasons and from different parts of the spectrum, all opposed many of these deals. If I run for something, I'm not going to abstain from criticizing something I dislike.
3) The Rust Belt and many Democrats in the midwest blame trade deals like NAFTA for their woes. Handwaving it as "She didn't visit a few states" shows a gross misunderstanding of how much she failed herself and the pulse of different parts of the nation.
4) If you don't think rallying up and showing you care helps you win the election and sway voters, then you better tell that to presidential candidates, including Trump who spent an enormous amount of time in the midwest, who are apparently doing it wrong and wasting money on this.

Maybe Bernie should have the foresight to know that him running is just going to stir up bullshit (and it clearly it already has) because of how he turned 2016 into a 3 way race until the 11th hour because of his ego and persecution complex.

The man is too old and too much of a naked egotist to realize that he would better serve the country by throwing his weight behind a new candidate.

Click to shrink...

People's inability to stop re-litigating the 2016 primaries isn't on him.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

Sorry, as much as I like some of his other policies, I cannot stand Bernie on guns.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

He pushes responsibility to the States. Nope. Don't like that.

What examples are there to show this divide between rural and urban communities?

Click to shrink...

The state of Vermont, which Bernie represents as senator, is the most gun-friendly state in the nation, while at the same time it boasts the absolute lowest rate of gun-related crime.

Click to shrink...

Something something correlation and causation. It's also worth mentioning that Vermont is in the 50 percentile as far as population density.

How does Bernie believe gun legislation in the United States should be handled?

Click to shrink...

Bernie believes in middle-ground legislation. As such, he understands that Americans in rural areas have a very different view towards guns as do those who live in densely populated urban environments. Bernie believes in a solution which promotes gun rights for those who wish to possess them while also ensuring their safe and secure use so that they cannot be used to harm fellow human beings.

Click to shrink...

I can't help be cynical about this stuff. People in rural areas have different views on taxes and free college too Bernie. Your logic isn't inconsistent here.

How does Bernie believe we should address mass shootings and other gun-related violence?
Bernie believes that we have a crisis in addressing mental health issues in this country, saying in a recent interview:

"We need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it. But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems, and it's not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don't have that and we should have that."

Given that 23 percent of the perpetrators of mass shootings have been found to suffer from mental health issues, Bernie believes that expanding access to mental healthcare can address some of the root causes of gun-related violent crime.

Click to shrink...

What about the other 77%?! Seriously this is a common conservative talking point!

 

[TheModestGun]

Don't we know for a fact that it was stacked in her favor? I remember reading that someone exposed what was going on a few months after the election. Was it Donna Brazile?

Anyway, Bernie is the candidate I'm most enthusiastic about right now, but it's a long way until 2020 and everyone hasn't announced their candidacy.

Click to shrink...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It was clear by the rhetoric and leaked emails that the leadership of the DNC absolutely wanted to make sure that "It's her time." was both the narrative and the policy.

 

[plié]

I really like Sanders, he's the most "socialist" of the bunch and I can relate to that. I am not a US citizen.

 

[RailWays]

Sorry, as much as I like some of his other policies, I cannot stand Bernie on guns.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

He pushes responsibility to the States. Nope. Don't like that.



Something something correlation and causation. It's also worth mentioning that Vermont is in the 50 percentile as far as population density.



I can't help be cynical about this stuff. People in rural areas have different views on taxes and free college too Bernie. Your logic isn't inconsistent here.



What about the other 77%?! Seriously this is a common conservative talking point!

Click to shrink...

Yeah, guns is easily one of his weakest points. I can only hope he won't stand in the way if gun legislation makes its way to his desk.

 

[Bliman]

Which is fine...you can't make progress without conflict.



The between 'left' and 'right' in most political breakdowns is that the right seeks to enforce and trench strict economic and social hierarchies, while the left pushes for more egalitarian and flat hierarchies. The US since it's inception has been a society steeped in racism/sexism and dominated by the capitalist oligarchs who have done their very best to stifle any leftest movements. The overton window is so steeped to the right that social democrats such as Bernie and AOC are seen as radicals for policies that would make them centrists over in most European countries.

Click to shrink...

Yeah but Europe is no USA. It is a difficult thing. Also USA and basically all of Europe are Capitalists. To turn this around will take a long time. Overtone to the right is understandable because the population is getting older and older people are most of the time more conservative (certainly the previous generations).
I feel like the older generation don't understand it anymore, also because we live in very chaotic times.
At the one side you have the left that is pushing that almost everything goes. And that is a threat to them. Then you have the left that almost condems instantly many things (you see it in the forum also, old white guy, racist, etc...) and want to enforce social hierarchies in that way.
I personally think that the left should educate much much more instead of judge other people. Trump has tapped in that uncertainty by promising the traditional things like Christian and old values and having a clear message (also one that is filled with hate and lies).
So instead of ignoring those right people or being agressive in wording against them, try to educate them in a gentle and understandable way. In that way you will convert not all but many of them. That's why Klobuchar is a good candidate imo. Sanders already has to much baggage with him to overcome Trump.

 

[Bliman]

Frankly there should be age limits on the Presidency. Bernie will be 78 his first year, he doesn't have to live with the long term choices he makes.

Ego matters when it gets in the way of what is best for the country.

Click to shrink...

Then none should run. The moment you are running you interject your ego in to the matter. That is unavoidable.
So you are saying that someone that is old cannot think what is good for the future generations. At what age do people not care about the future anymore?

 

[Spock]

It's getting a bit ridiculous at the excuses and blame people are pointing at Bernie for costing Hillary the election. The simple reality is Hillary herself was the primary cause for her losing the election. Her lack of campaigning in the rust belt combined with the overall perception people had of her. She was an establishment candidate running against someone who created a perception that he was new, different and going to be a dramatic change from your standard Washington politician.

People have been and are still craving change. It was the primary focus and model of Obama's campaign and Trump took that same premise and put his own personal spin on it.

Right now this is still one of Bernie's strongest points. He's still considered anti-establishment and has been pushing ideals and positions that are a dramatic change from where we are. His energy and conviction are distinct compared to other candidates at the moment. Personally in this current climate that is so divisive I think he has the best chance of shifting the vote with a large block a voters who are currently distrustful of the media and Democratic party at Large.

The fact that there is this perception that Bernie was somehow cheated, attacked or sidelined by Hillary and his own party has the potential to work to his advantage in the upcoming election. The reason being, those who are somewhat unsure or distrustful of the democratic party are more likely to sincerely listen and consider what Bernie has to say because of how things played out in the last election and because he's a bit of an outcast in his own party. Even Trump has made numerous comments alleging that Bernie was somehow cheated in the last election. This again can work to his advantage if positioned and leveraged in the right way.

 

[ThisThingIsUseful]

Sorry, as much as I like some of his other policies, I cannot stand Bernie on guns.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

He pushes responsibility to the States. Nope. Don't like that.



Something something correlation and causation. It's also worth mentioning that Vermont is in the 50 percentile as far as population density.



I can't help be cynical about this stuff. People in rural areas have different views on taxes and free college too Bernie. Your logic isn't inconsistent here.



What about the other 77%?! Seriously this is a common conservative talking point!

Click to shrink...

I like Bernie way more than I did in 2016, but I seriously can't wait for him to be challenged on this stuff.

REALLY looking forward to the first debate.

 

[Entryhazard]

Sorry, as much as I like some of his other policies, I cannot stand Bernie on guns.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

He pushes responsibility to the States. Nope. Don't like that.
Something something correlation and causation. It's also worth mentioning that Vermont is in the 50 percentile as far as population density.
I can't help be cynical about this stuff. People in rural areas have different views on taxes and free college too Bernie. Your logic isn't inconsistent here.
What about the other 77%?! Seriously this is a common conservative talking point!

Click to shrink...

Yeah, guns is easily one of his weakest points. I can only hope he won't stand in the way if gun legislation makes its way to his desk.

Click to shrink...

I like Bernie way more than I did in 2016, but I seriously can't wait for him to be challenged on this stuff.

REALLY looking forward to the first debate.

Click to shrink...

Watch Bernie be like

Click to shrink...

/s


It's however true that nobody makes the NRA and pro-gun conservatives shit themselves like the SRA

 

[higemaru]

Damn Bernie haters are toxic. I guess 4 more years of Trump. Probably Russian bots.

Am I doing it right?

*Edit: I know I know, it's not Bernie that makes me love him, it's the haters that makes me love him.

Click to shrink...

I was in it for the sexism and racism originally, but now I'm just in it to be called a sexist and a racist.

 

[ThisThingIsUseful]

It's getting a bit ridiculous at the excuses and blame people are pointing at Bernie for costing Hillary the election. The simple reality is Hillary herself was the primary cause for her losing the election. Her lack of campaigning in the rust belt combined with the overall perception people had of her. She was an establishment candidate running against someone who created a perception that he was new, different and going to be a dramatic change from your standard Washington politician.

People have been and are still craving change. It was the primary focus and model of Obama's campaign and Trump took that same premise and put his own personal spin on it.

Right now this is still one of Bernie's strongest points. He's still considered anti-establishment and has been pushing ideals and positions that are a dramatic change from where we are. His energy and conviction are distinct compared to other candidates at the moment. Personally in this current climate that is so divisive I think he has the best chance of shifting the vote with a large block a voters who are currently distrustful of the media and Democratic party at Large.

The fact that there is this perception that Bernie was somehow cheated, attacked or sidelined by Hillary and his own party has the potential to work to his advantage in the upcoming election. The reason being, those who are somewhat unsure or distrustful of the democratic party are more likely to trust Bernie because of how things played out in the last election and because he's a bit of an outcast in his own party. Even Trump has made numerous comments alleging that Bernie was somehow cheated in the last election. This again can work to his advantage if positioned and leveraged in the right way.

Click to shrink...

Hillary's poorly run campaign and being the victim of circumstance are all the major factors imo. "Shattered" is such a great read because there was a saying in the campaign that "we can never have nice things."

1) Before Hillary was able to announce her candidacy, the NYT drops the story on her private email (which is also her fault for having one, even if it wasn't the big deal that it was made out to be, particularly after that second Comey letter).
2) Just when Hillary thinks she's going to move forward into the general, Bernie shocked the nation with a Michigan win (which foreshadowed the general).
3) Hillary is doing well in polls and about to have her first rally with President Obama, but the Pulse Shooting occurs and it's postponed.
4) She finally does a rally with Obama, but the FBI comes out saying while she didn't commit her crime, her use of the emails was negligent and irresponsible.
5) She does great through August, but then the conspiracy theory about her health actually gets coverage when she almost collapsed (though, again, she told nobody on her team besides Huma Abedin, so they had no way to respond quickly)
6) The same day as the bombshell about Russia interfering in the election is dropped, so do Wikileaks and Access Hollywood. And behind the scenes, many in the Clinton Camp hated that because Access Hollywood doesn't change the narrative, but the Russia stuff does and it got ignored.
7) She's doing well post-debates and the second Comey letter happens.

Her problems I've talked about ITT, but the amount that happened beyond her control (I guess with the exception of being more upfront with what she had during those coughing fits even though the response was ridiculous) was stunning.

 

[kambaybolongo]

Sorry, as much as I like some of his other policies, I cannot stand Bernie on guns.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

He pushes responsibility to the States. Nope. Don't like that.



Something something correlation and causation. It's also worth mentioning that Vermont is in the 50 percentile as far as population density.



I can't help be cynical about this stuff. People in rural areas have different views on taxes and free college too Bernie. Your logic isn't inconsistent here.



What about the other 77%?! Seriously this is a common conservative talking point!

Click to shrink...

You realize that isn't the official campaign website right? That feel the bern site says it's run by volunteers at the bottom

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

You realize that isn't the official campaign website right? That feel the bern site says it's run by volunteers at the bottom

Click to shrink...

Does it mischaracterize anything? I'd honestly love to read that he has reversed course on any of the things I outlined, but specifically his ideas around how States should be ones making most of the decisions around gun control.

 

[DonNadie]

you have formally received the title of "Bro"

Click to shrink...

Well, that's not the worst thing I've been called.

 

[Deleted member 4346]

Click to shrink...

I love this. And you can see it in the thread.

 

[ThisThingIsUseful]

 

[kambaybolongo]

Does it mischaracterize anything? I'd honestly love to read that he has reversed course on any of the things I outlined, but specifically his ideas around how States should be ones making most of the decisions around gun control.

Click to shrink...

I mean, you just quoted some random site about his platform on guns as if it was official. I don't know what his specific platform is but I do know that he isn't anywhere near 100% states rights on guns.

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole intention of that website is to dupe people into thinking that.

 

[Dude Abides]

Bernie's Ego, persecution complex. Seeing a lot of suspect trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

I mean, you just quoted some random site about his platform on guns as if it was official. I don't know what his specific platform is but I do know that he isn't anywhere near 100% states rights on guns.

Click to shrink...

Okay and here's where I get irritated. I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer it and then mischaracterized what I said. I never said he was 100% states rights on guns. Now either that website mischaracterizes Bernie's position on guns, perhaps he's changed course in the light of the Parkland shooting or it's simply incorrect, I don't know, but I'd prefer if you're going to criticize me about something, to correct me on it with the facts. What are you doing here? Personally I feel like you're just running interference.

The reason why I used that website instead of Bernie's official one is the fact that it's not up. I go to pages like https://berniesanders.com/issues/ and it's a 404 page even though it's indexed on Google.

I'm even on his Senate website (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/about) and he has nothing about gun control as far as I can tell.

 

[Entryhazard]

Click to shrink...

 

[kambaybolongo]

Okay and here's where I get irritated. I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer it and then mischaracterized what I said. I never said he was 100% states rights on guns. Now either that website mischaracterizes Bernie's position on guns, perhaps he's changed course in the light of the Parkland shooting or it's simply incorrect, I don't know, but I'd prefer if you're going to criticize me about something, to correct me on it with the facts. What are you doing here? Personally I feel like you're just running interference.

The reason why I used that website instead of Bernie's official one is the fact that it's not up. I go to pages like https://berniesanders.com/issues/ and it's a 404 page even though it's indexed on Google.

I'm even on his Senate website (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/about) and he has nothing about gun control as far as I can tell.

Click to shrink...

So let me get this straight. You try to pass off info from some random website as official and then the onus is on me to lay out his official stance on guns?

If you genuinely want to know his stance on guns there are about a million places you could go (uh maybe start by looking at his voting record?), I'm not doing that work for you.

 

[lmcfigs]

Okay and here's where I get irritated. I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer it and then mischaracterized what I said. I never said he was 100% states rights on guns. Now either that website mischaracterizes Bernie's position on guns, perhaps he's changed course in the light of the Parkland shooting or it's simply incorrect, I don't know, but I'd prefer if you're going to criticize me about something, to correct me on it with the facts. What are you doing here? Personally I feel like you're just running interference.

The reason why I used that website instead of Bernie's official one is the fact that it's not up. I go to pages like https://berniesanders.com/issues/ and it's a 404 page even though it's indexed on Google.

I'm even on his Senate website (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/about) and he has nothing about gun control as far as I can tell.

Click to shrink...

It looks like maybe they're updating the site? There definitely used to be an issues page. But you're right that using web archives, gun control was not on the list. He has spoken about it though in interviews (so it's not that he's opposed to it) but it should be on his website too.

 

[TheModestGun]

Bernie's Ego, persecution complex. Seeing a lot of suspect trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes.

Click to shrink...

Are you seriously going to purport that Bernie is a "self hating Jew"?

 

[Durante]

If you look at the vocal people you see that you have many that are on the left and many on the right. You saw that in the presidential election also.
So how do you come to the conclusion that the USA is being so far right?

Click to shrink...

Because people who self-describe as e.g. centre-left in the US are perceived (in my opinion correctly) as centre-right by much of the rest of the western world.
I assume this is also why many leftists in the US decry "centrism": your right wing is really damn far right by any metric, and much of your left wing isn't really all that left, so you can imagine where you end up when you seek a "centrist" position.

You do realize that only die hard Bernie supporters will read your post with it's use of "noeliberal" and take it seriously, right?

Click to shrink...

Why shouldn't one use "neoliberal"? It's a real movement (and a plague on society).

 

[chaostrophy]

I'd be happy with Bernie or Warren getting the nom.

I love this. And you can see it in the thread.

Click to shrink...

Briahna Gray is great. Possibly the single most insightful political commentator working right now.

 

[mercenar1e]

im glad he decided to run and ignore the bozos that want him gone.

 

[Suiko]

Why shouldn't one use "neoliberal"? It's a real movement (and a plague on society).

Click to shrink...

It has no real meaning anymore, it's useless.
It's become a term to mean anything a person does not like.

 

[random_polymath]

It has no real meaning anymore, it's useless.
It's become a term to mean anything a person does not like.

Click to shrink...

A neoliberal is a corporate democrat. It still has real meaning.

 

[Entryhazard]

Also about "Sanders wouldn't have beaten Trump"

 

[Suiko]

A neoliberal is a corporate democrat.

Click to shrink...

Except it's not.

 

[random_polymath]

Except it's not.

Click to shrink...

It is. According to the fucking dictionary.

ne·o·lib·er·alDictionary result for neoliberal
/ˌnēōˈlibərəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

noun

1. 1.
   a person with neoliberal views.

 

[Reverse Giraffe]

 

[Hugare]

Dying to know how you reached that conclusion, please enlighten us. You said you know it for sure so surely you have solid reasoning behind it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I'm sure that my opinion is such an atypical one that no one else on this 65 pages thread gave enough reasons already.

 

[Spock]

Hillary's poorly run campaign and being the victim of circumstance are all the major factors imo. "Shattered" is such a great read because there was a saying in the campaign that "we can never have nice things."

1) Before Hillary was able to announce her candidacy, the NYT drops the story on her private email (which is also her fault for having one, even if it wasn't the big deal that it was made out to be, particularly after that second Comey letter).
2) Just when Hillary thinks she's going to move forward into the general, Bernie shocked the nation with a Michigan win (which foreshadowed the general).
3) Hillary is doing well in polls and about to have her first rally with President Obama, but the Pulse Shooting occurs and it's postponed.
4) She finally does a rally with Obama, but the FBI comes out saying while she didn't commit her crime, her use of the emails was negligent and irresponsible.
5) She does great through August, but then the conspiracy theory about her health actually gets coverage when she almost collapsed (though, again, she told nobody on her team besides Huma Abedin, so they had no way to respond quickly)
6) The same day as the bombshell about Russia interfering in the election is dropped, so do Wikileaks and Access Hollywood. And behind the scenes, many in the Clinton Camp hated that because Access Hollywood doesn't change the narrative, but the Russia stuff does and it got ignored.
7) She's doing well post-debates and the second Comey letter happens.

Her problems I've talked about ITT, but the amount that happened beyond her control (I guess with the exception of being more upfront with what she had during those coughing fits even though the response was ridiculous) was stunning.

Click to shrink...

I agree. When I mentioned people's perception of her, much of that perception being highly skewed was in fact due to on going attacks, and other unfortunate circumstances that occurred during her campaign. However the reason they were able to attack her on so many points has much to do with the baggage that she had attached to her. Regardless if it was factual or incorrect. In the mind of the mass is perception is truth.

 

[Suiko]

It is. According to the fucking dictionary.

ne·o·lib·er·alDictionary result for neoliberal
/ˌnēōˈlibərəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

noun

1. 1.
   a person with neoliberal views.

Click to shrink...

You think that proves anything:

According to some scholars, neoliberalism is commonly used as a catchphrase and pejorative term, outpacing similar terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus and "market reform" in much scholarly writing,[6] The term has been criticized,[38][39] particularly by those who often advocate for policies characterized as neoliberal.[37]:74 Historian Daniel Stedman Jones says the term "is too often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recurring financial crises".[40]:2 The Handbook of Neoliberalism posits that the term has "become a means of identifying a seemingly ubiquitous set of market-oriented policies as being largely responsible for a wide range of social, political, ecological and economic problems". Yet the handbook argues to view the term as merely a pejorative or "radical political slogan" is to "reduce its capacity as an analytic frame. If neoliberalism is to serve as a way of understanding the transformation of society over the last few decades then the concept is in need of unpacking".[5] Currently, neoliberalism is most commonly used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing state influence on the economy, especially through privatization and austerity.[6] Other scholars note that neoliberalism is associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[7]

Click to shrink...

 

[Mona]

Are you seriously going to purport that Bernie is a "self hating Jew"?

Click to shrink...

think they're calling out era posters

 

[SaveWeyard]

It has no real meaning anymore, it's useless.
It's become a term to mean anything a person does not like.

Click to shrink...

I assure you it still has meaning and is an accurate name for the dominant superstructure of the past 40 years.

 

[higemaru]

You think that proves anything:

Click to shrink...

The Handbook of Neoliberalism posits that the term has "become a means of identifying a seemingly ubiquitous set of market-oriented policies as being largely responsible for a wide range of social, political, ecological and economic problems". Yet the handbook argues to view the term as merely a pejorative or "radical political slogan" is to "reduce its capacity as an analytic frame. If neoliberalism is to serve as a way of understanding the transformation of society over the last few decades then the concept is in need of unpacking".[5] Currently, neoliberalism is most commonly used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing state influence on the economy, especially through privatization and austerity.[6] Other scholars note that neoliberalism is associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[7]

Click to shrink...

bro. it was right in your quoted text