Sanders is giving people hope, it is the same idea that FDR, LBJ, JFK, and Obama ran on among others. I think that most of the right misses this, practically every left-liberal that got elected in the history of the US ran on this sort of situation in a global crisis. This means that Sanders A) has a shot, and B) the support of the working class. Hope is what got FDR elected to his first two terms.

Second, the economics debate comes down to what theory you support, All left economists, and even a few center-right will say that Sander's plan won't kill the economy, Keynesian will probably say it will boost it, while the right will say that it will be killed by it.

Third, @King Jeffery the republican party actually wants the election to be about those issues, as the US is divided on them about 50-50. If it turns economic or social reform, the Democrats win in a land side(At least 5%). Here's a gallup poll on the matter, read through it before responding, please and thank you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188312/2016-state-union-considering-public-opinion.aspx?g_source=&g_medium=&g_campaign=tiles

Edited 2/10/2016 05:26:06

He'll use and abuse of pres. decrees if needed.

Because that's what we need, more of the President over-reaching their Constitutional authority and gathering more power in the Executive branch.

I don't care which side of the political aisle you identify with, presidential power has restrictions for a reason. I bet the same people who say it's okay for President Obama to use executive orders on immigration and gun control would throw a riot if a Republican president used executive orders to advance a conservative cause.

TL;DR: The president needs to have their power restricted, because both sides like turning a blind eye when power abuse is in their favor.

B) the support of the working class.

Blue-collar voters are also Trump's core demographic, so much that unions are having issues with getting their own members to vote against him.

^Valid point, but I'm thinking that if it comes down to Cruz v Sanders or Rubio v Sanders, that Sanders wins that voting group, and if Trump v Sanders, it goes towards sanders at a ratio of 55-45 ish.

so the thing is: it's not going to be v Sanders. It's going to be [GOP candidate] v Clinton. And probably not Trump, either. We're looking at Cruz/Rubio v Clinton.

Edited 2/10/2016 06:03:27

Why couldn't Sanders be the democratic candidate? Clinton barely won by less than a 1% won in Iowa, she got absouletely destroyed in NH by well over 20%.

She leads nationally by about 15%, Sanders is gonna need a stunner in Nevada, and possibly South Carolina, as well as an overall victory on Super Tuesday to have a strong enough momentum to guarantee a win, and the odds of that happening are low. He has a shot, but it's not very strong atm.

Nevada or South Carolina probably decides this race. If sanders wins one, the race will actually be meaningful until the Nomination. Sanders wins both(Highly unlikely), Sanders may become the front-runner. Sanders loses both, and we probably have a slog fest until the Nomination

I am a Sanders supporter btw, but also a semi-realist.

Well didn't read all the previous pages, but the NH primaries happened as they were expected to, though Trump and Sanders won by larger margins than I expected.

That being said, I still expect Clinton to be Democratic Nominee, Republican is less certain, Trump is too unpredictable, he has a good chance of winning the Nominee but a very low chance the GE. Better GE chances go to more moderate Republican candidates like Rubio if nominated, both Sanders and Clinton are very vulnerable to attacks.

GE polls at this point are useless.

Edited 2/10/2016 12:32:07

Trump is vowing to be “The Greatest Jobs President God Ever Created’”.

Go Trump! You are the Chosen One! Allahu Akbar!

Trump will win the election and make America great again! Greater than ever before!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Sanders can't beat Trump/Rubio/Carson, I don't think, bc if Sanders wins, then Hillary will stick it out like she did with Obama in 2008, and Bloomberg will run, and the Demo party will get split badly.

" In 2015 he finally started to implement some of the progressive agenda he sold in 2008. His aproval rate is now raising. Too bad he hasn't started since it's first day in office, he could have done more.

As for Sanders, he won't be a passive president, be sure of it. He'll use and abuse of pres. decrees if needed."

It's not 'too bad', it's unconstitutional. We don't want someone who will trample over our founding documents and ignore the law. And the best measure for approval rating I can think of are elections; Republicans have crushed Democrats in Congressional elections simply by running against Obama and what he stands for.

@GeneralPE, if decrees are a presidential tool, they can be used. It's not unconstitutional if it's in the constitution ;)

And republicans won the congressional elections because of low voters turnout. Whites are more likely to vote in congressional elections then blacks/hispanics. And a large base of dems are on the minorities.

Where to start.....there is nothing about 'decrees' in the constitution. Executive action (which is what I assume we are talking about) are meant to enforce existing laws - for instance, Congress passes a law saying we need more parks, so the president orders an executive action making a dozen new parks. He can't just make up laws out of thin air. Name the law his illegal immigration executive order is enforcing. Name the law his gun-related executive action enforces. Executive actions are just regulation that the president himself writes. They aren't laws. Idiots will say Reagan used more executive actions than Obama, but Reagan's didn't write new laws. Not only does he fail to enforce existing law on illegal immigration, he writes new ones. Congress is the branch which writes laws. The president just enforces them. Checks and balances were the foundation of our government, and his illegal actions completely ignore those checks.

^+1


We shouldn't dismiss Sanders. That being said its too early to predict that Hillary will collapse and Sanders will upset her like Obama did in 2008. I think a huge section of the progressive-wing of the Democratic Party sees Hillary as unelectable. I think we should wait and see what happens in S. Carolina and Nevada. If Hillary doesn't win huge (and I mean huge) with minority voters (Blacks and Latinos), then we can say she's in trouble. But overall, there's a reason that Sanders only really appeals to Whites. Its the same reason why Trump only really appeals to Whites (and admittedly some working class blacks).

Edited 2/10/2016 17:26:23

I told you Sanders would win!

Glory to communism!

All Hail Kamarad Sanderovsky, the glorious leader of the United Socialist States of America's Politburo!