Oh shit. I just read that username out loud. Goddammit.
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/entrance-polls-2020-nevada-caucuses/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-main_entrancepolls-330pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans]Here’s some interesting data about Nevada caucus demographics. What surprises me most is how broad Sanders’s support is.
I agree.
I tried to make the case here before but the Clintonistas, which are rampant on this board, would have none of it.
Trump was a message that the populace hates Washington so they threw a grenade in there in the guise of Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders is the left’s version of that grenade.
What the political parties should take-away from this is that the populace fucking hates all of them with a passion. They are less popular than hemorrhoids, Nickleback and herpes. But their jobs depend on not fixing that so we are left with this mess.
So, get the person in there who will try to change things (Sanders) and not the person who will, at best, keep doing the same shit that has not worked for 50 years.
To be fair Bernie is a serious candidate with a history of conscientious public service, who has an agenda that includes all americans, along a recognized shared reality and hope for justice.
I think it needs to be stated explicitly whenever he is placed alongside of trunp in a sentence.
What’s likely to happen from this point on, IMHO, isn’t that any of the non-Bernie rivals will gain ground on Bernie, but rather that the DNC/MSM/everyone who isn’t a Trump voter will just make their peace more and more with the idea of a Bernie presidency.
Looking at he results as they are now (9:30p in Las Vegas):
- Sanders: 46.8%
- Biden: 20.7%
- Buttigieg: 15.1%
- Warren: 9.5%
- Klobuchar: 4%
- Steyer: 3.7%
The rest are not worth mentioning (well below 1%).
To me the news here is Buttigieg doing as well as he did. If they cleared the field of Biden and the rest (not including Sanders) I think Buttigieg might have a shot.
Of course, the complaint here will be Biden is doing better than Buttigieg but I doubt he is the better candidate. He is riding on Obama’s coattails. Won’t get him all the way.
for 40 years nobody “went there” against Sanders because he was irrelevant, was unknown, and didn’t draw any attention.
Now they are paying attention, and here’s some of what they will learn:
From the link in post 64 to the editorial in the Guardian (a leftish newspaper in Britain):
These are the kind of stories that hit people in the gut.
Biden may be boring, but that’s better than being punched in the gut.
I didn’t realize he was “irrelevant” and “unknown” in 2016.
Do you really think when you run for the senate you are an “unknown” and your opponents are all, “Meh…it’s just Vermont, who gives a fuck?”
Not to mention he ran for the nomination for president in 2016. I am sure Hillary Clinton was nice about oppo research on him. :rolleyes:
Bernie Bros may be real. But you know who’s definitely real? The working class Latina moms who put Bernie over the top in Nevada.
Was this an attack by the campaign or was it some journalists trying to drum up drama before the debate? There’s some reporting indicating that the comment was related to journalists in off-the-record meetings in 2018:
(All-caps in original) Could Warren Be Both VP and Treasury Secretary, Sanders Campaign Asked
I do not know.
I do know the question was asked of Sanders in a nationally televised debate, Sanders denied it and then Warren was asked the question as if Sanders had not just denied it 10 seconds before.
Warren went with it but she never said if it was true or not.
To me this is straight forward. Did Sanders say “X” or not? If he did…fine, go from there. If not put an end to it. But Warren chose this weird middle road.
I imagine that Warren and Sanders remember that conversation slightly differently, because they’re both humans. I support Sanders, but I like Warren, and their differing memories about that conversation doesn’t bother me one bit.
I’d bet that going into that cycle (IOW, on 1/1/2015), 3/4 of the American people had no idea who the hell he was.
That was my point, and the reason that I posted the quote from the Guardian newspaper above. We are going to see many more articles and videos on the topics in that editorial.
Before 2016, Sanders was totally unknown on the national scene.
Then during the 2016 campaign,he became know for his ideas, not his personal record.
That was because everybody knew that Hilary was the anointed queen of the party, and Sanders had no chance of becoming the leader. So people listened to and debated his policies, not his leadership skills. That was okay for 2016.
But now he’s running to become the leader, the commander in chief and the face of the country. For that role, it is now legitimate to discuss things which were conveniently ignored in 2016—his personal background, his history and all his dirty laundry.
And he has a lot of dirty laundry.
The republicans and Fox news will show it all.
Interesting idea.
BTW, did you know that Donald Trump was sued by the federal government in 1973 for illegally discriminating against black tenants in the apartments he managed?
I’m responding to many of the implied or explicit statements that Bernie is no more vulnerable to Republican attacks than any other Democratic nominee. I believe he absolutely is.
This is true. But Bernie is the left’s version of a disruptive grenade in a country that is predominantly right-wing by global standards and by Bernie’s standards, in a country in which the performance of the stock market and the robustness of the job market are valued above all things, both of which are currently doing well under Republican policies. And in America, uniquely in the industrialized world, the job market is inextricably interlinked with access to health care, which Bernie has promised to totally reform but that’s going to be a long, tough lift.
If I sound like I’m channeling Saint Reagan, I’m only reflecting what I see and hear and not what I hope for. No one would celebrate more than me if Bernie won the presidency and had a Democratic Congress to support him.
Should they not celebrate? Perhaps a solemn wake is more appropriate?
I would suggest people who have money and enough free time get up to speed read this book, The Populist’s Guide to 2020: A New Right and New Left are Rising
So, before the Nevada caucus, I heard that over 70,000 Democrats had voted early. Looking at the popular vote totals now, there are about 55,000 votes with 60% of precincts reporting. Doing the math, that would mean the total popular vote will be about 92,000. Does that mean only 20,000 people voted during the actual caucuses?