It's July 25th at the DNC convention and Bernie Sanders has 45% of the total delegates. He lost. During his concession speech he announces that after the election he will form a progressive party. Would the party have a chance to succeed?
I wouldn't join it, but I would still vote for Bernie. Even more enthusiastically if he is running as a non-Democrat.
"Succeed" is such in charming loaded term here.
Chance of winning the 2016 presidential election approaches zero.
Chance of becoming the nucleus of a 3rd party capable of electing numerous idiots to Congress in next decade very high.
Chance of that 3rd party becoming a very major player in next generation - hard to guestimate, but likely high.
Will he succeed? Depends on what his goal is. He wouldn't win the presidency. He may keep Hillary out though.
If the question was about Trump, my answer would be the same.
Guess the communist party was taken.
Do it, Bernie, do it!
No, but Bernie would become my new favorite person.
Come on, Bernie, run as a 3rd party candidate! I want all of liberalism to feel the Bern!
Yeah there's enough idiots in this country to fuel any goof ass party for morons.
He should have called it the SJW party
Depends on where he focused office wise and if he can get anyone else of note to jump ship with him. I could see them gaining some steam before the next midterm, but not a whole lot of hope for presidential contention in 4 years.
I believe that he could have a chance if he did. Or he could join one of the other third parties that would have him. If there are other parties that would let him run.
Meaning he would run on that party's ticket THIS year?
If he does that, I would hope it would fail, because that would be bullshit. Waiting to do it after the election would be less bullshit, but still IMO potentially counterproductive depending on how he did it.
Oh I see, you did say after the election. I was fixating on the July date. Still, I don't think it would be good to even announce it at that time. It could do more harm than good.
As I (gleefully) noted. I'm not counting on it though.
Un likely, but that'd be perfect.
Nah. The Green Party and Socialist Party aren't relevant, both of which are progressive. Also, Sanders has a good number of bandwagoners (mostly people who don't actually have a lot of political interest or knowledge) at this point who will end up dropping off when he doesn't get the nomination.
The socialist party never had momentum and the Greens are holistic medicine believing nut jobs.
And once Sanders loses, his brand will receive the same reception as you gave those parties.
Us progressives are SOL. If we want to be in a party we're going to have to settle for Democrats.
I refuse to believe that the Democrats are what we must settle for.
K. Hit me up when there's a viable third party. I might be dead by then, but feel free to tell the ocean my ashes are in haha
If it makes you feel any better, conservatives are in a similar boat. We just have the Republicans? Really? I've always said that the real difference between the 'pubs and 'crats is not nearly as much as people would like to pretend.
I strongly believe the only viable third party will come from the right, not the left, as this country will become more socially liberal as older generations die.
Economic liberalism and business interests will continue to persist, requiring a socially liberal, economically conservative party to protect and advance the interests of business owners, both big and small.
You more or less just described Democrats.
No, the closest thing to what I described is the UK conservative party. The Democratic party may have pro business factions that support the media industry and Hollywood, but the majority of their support lies with minorities, the middle class, and blue collar workers.
No he wouldn't. He also wouldn't run as a 3rd party candidate in this election because he doesn't want any of the potential Republican nominees to be president.
Read the question. I said after this election he'd form the party.
Oops overlooked that part. Still I don't think it'd work because the group of voters he'd be targeting are young voters, and young voters vote the least among any voting group
True, but young voters age and older voters die. Just a thought ha-ha.
True, I just don't see this party having enough steam early on and last long enough to make a difference.
Before your final vote think about his demographic. He gets younger, more tech savvy, independents than most candidates. I think this could be a determining factor.
Not sure there are enough educated young white dudes to create a sustainable political party, ha.
To be sustainable, it has to have young, white dudes?
What are you talking about? Of course there are enough we're the only ones who can afford college haha.
That's not what I said.
He suggested considering the demographic attracted to Sanders, which is educated young white dudes, and I am saying that demographic is not large enough to be sustainable.
None of the Bernie supporters that I know personally are young, white dudes. We are all middle aged folks. I know many of his supporters are young, but they're not all young, white dudes.
The only demographic Sanders wins is educated young white dudes. You knowing older people who are Sanders supporters doesn't change that. And this fact doesn't mean there aren't different kinds of people who support him.
Most of the supporters I know are young, but not white dudes.
*does the self-selection bias dance*
It isn't like he won the most racially diverse state...
Yeah, we all know how representative 5% primary turnouts of mostly white people are.
Then how do you feel comfortable making your own assumptions about his supporters? Source?
I mean, I could easily say Clinton supporters are all rich old people by that logic.
Oh come on, you aren't stupid. This isn't an assumption of mine, this is based on basically every poll/exit poll result of 2016. Here's a link to exit polls: www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls
Here's a link to some polls www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/dem_pres_primary/
And if you look at methodology of fivethirtyeight predictions, they list all polls of large enough sample, which you can also look at
Here's a piece from NPR summarizing Super Tuesday exit polls saying the same www.npr.org/2016/03/01/468814831/4-takeaways-from-the-super-tuesday-exit-polls
Here's another with data from New York americablog.com/2016/04/sanders-exit-polls-new-york-hillary.html
Yeah, but my point is he won every demographic from New Hampshire except "over 55" and "makes over $200K" so it's incorrect to generalize his voters as all young white males just because Clinton has a statistical lead in other demographics.
No it's not. Talking polls/exit polls in the aggregate is how to understand demographic breakdowns in the country. Public Opinion 101.
Yougov is also a reputable/large scale polling source if you'd like to look there as well. today.yougov.com
I'm objecting to "Not sure there are enough young white dudes to create a sustainable party, ha." If you take the pool of Sanders supporters, a significant portion of them are not male and are not white. You're smarter than this.
His demographic is educated young white dudes, my original comment was not incorrect nor is anything else I've said. You received the sources you asked for. His base isn't large enough to create a sustainable political party. There's no need to pretend otherwise.
He has 45 percent of Democrats and a pretty decent non-Democrat-but-very-liberal following. If literally every one of them broke to form a party, it would be major. But of course they won't because Americans are D or R sheep.
"But of course they won't"
Exactly. Not only does Sanders do much better with Independents/non-affiliated people than Democrats to start with, but Democrats tend to vote for Democrats anyway. There is not a large enough base for a Sanders created progressive party. None of what I said is anything personal about Sanders or his supporters. It just isn't realistic. Given I'm the most progressive person I know, this is very disheartening. But it's also realistic thinking.
Yeah, all I'm saying the size and demographics of the Sanders base isn't the issue. It's the D/R mentality. Or obsession is probably more accurate....
Your first two sentences contradict each other. Both are problems for Sanders, both are reasons to answer no to this poll question. Neither say anything negative about Sanders. And if voting turnout wasn't always so abysmal in this country maybe we could speak on this differently. But, it is what it is. Now we can all take advantage of the write-in option on ballots and cry about how Nader was the closest thing to making a difference that independents will likely have because the political system here sucks.