That means you fear european social democracy more than you fear neofascism and white nationalism. Thats your decision, but the rest of us aren’t obligated to change to accomodate your opinion.
From what I remember hearing in 2016, many white male union workers were very pro-Trump and pro-Bernie, but lukewarm on Hillary. Hillary lost (among other reasons) because she lost high school educated whites, especially HS educated white men (who she lost by 50 points). If Sanders is able to shrink that gap by just a few points (maybe lose them by only 45 points or less), he could beat Trump in the midwest.
I’ll vote for any democrat over Trump. and I think Bernie is overrated because even if he becomes president, he won’t get anything done (congress isn’t going to pass his agenda, even if the democrats control both houses).
However I think Bernie could connect with high school educated whites better than Trump.
However i worry he may lose some support among college educated whites. Then again, some of his programs would benefit them directly. Free public college, subsidized daycare, medicare for all, etc.
No actual leftist will attack Bernie Sanders after he gets the nomination (if he does). We all know that the alternative is a continuation of the current horror-show.
If excoriated with ‘how could you have called on him to release his tax records, that was a vicious thing to say,’ I expect we will all shrug and get back to planning how to get Democrats to the polls to vote for Sanders.
To be clearer: all available polling data show both Biden and Sanders beating Trump by a wide margin. Do you have some reason to think that the polls are more accurate in the one case than in the other?
Simple facts—Trump didn’t win because of his base, who by and large were people who have always voted GOP. He won because Hillary’s personal unfavorability and bad campaigning allowed enough moderates and swing vote independents to find a way to “yes.”
Democrats won back the House entirely because of moderate Dem candidates who knew how to win local races and not focus on far leftism which is deeply unpopular in many of those districts. While imperfect, the electoral college and the House of Representatives have decent correlation in elections. If you expect to run a candidate anathema to the values of most Americans, expect to lose in many of the same places the DNC ran moderate candidates that won in 2018.
I am one person but it’s not crazy to think of me as being somewhat representative of people like me—people that voted Republican our entire lives but got on the never trump train. If it doesn’t worry you Sanders is the one way to make me a Trump supporter, it should.
Many voters know very little about Sanders and only know him as an anti-Hillary foil.
Most voters have not been taught he is atheist.
Most voters have not been taught he loved the Soviet Union.
Most voters have not been taught he has never worked a real job and spent much of his life on welfare.
Most workers haven’t seen the 2016 RNC hit file on Sanders, which purportedly is full of nasty stories and is 2 feet thick. Expect a barrage of leaks about shady communist associations, and behaviors and opinions shared that are wildly out of the American mainstream.
Most voters have not been taught that Sanders hates Israel, and views terrorists like Hamas as allies.
Part of it is that its kind of offensive to have lifelong republicans tell us democrats how to run our party. Telling us ‘act like republican-lite or republicans won’t vote for you’. How do you feel when democrats tell the republican party to act like democrats in order to win elections?
Yes *you *personally will support Trump. I accept that. But unless there is evidence that there are endless millions of other you’s in strategic states and districts, I’m not worried about it. Over half of the democratic party now consists of liberals, I don’t see them abandoning their values because a lifelong republican moved back into the GOP fold.
And as I mentioned earlier, someone like sanders may do better with whites w/o high school, who are strategically located in the midwest. Younger voters are more left leaning than older voters too. Times are changing.
I really wish people would stop saying this. The two situations are not remotely comparable.
In the 2008 primaries, Clinton lost the popular vote by about 100,000 ballots (that’s if you don’t count MI and FL, as you shouldn’t). The candidates were less than a percentage point apart. In mid-March she was behind by about 150 pledged delegates; that was her low-water mark, and by the end of the season she had brought the deficit down to about 100.
In the 2016 primaries, Sanders lost the popular vote by about 3,700,000 ballots, or a deficit 37 times bigger than the Clinton deficit eight years earlier. The candidates were about 13 percentage points apart. Sanders ended the season with losses in California and New Jersey, leaving him 450 pledged delegates short. See any differences here?
That’s before we get to superdelegates. Obama had a few more than Clinton by the end of the 2008 primaries. Clinton had about 12 times as many as Sanders by the end of the race in 2016.
And that’s before we get to when the two candidates admitted defeat. Clinton conceded about four days after the last primary contest in '08. Sanders conceded about six weeks after the last primary contest in '16.
Yes, because of proportional awarding of delegates Clinton reached a point toward the end in 2008 where it was very unlikely that she would be able to overcome Obama’s lead, and as an Obama supporter I said then and maintain now that she stayed in far too long. But her chances of pulling it out were light years beyond Sanders’s chances in 2016. By mid-April 2016 it was clear that Sanders had no shot, and yet, like Marvin K. Mooney, he refused to go now–or at any time till the votes were in at the convention.
It’s ludicrous to think these situations are at all similar.
Undecided was not an allowable choice. Likewise for the results in that poll in the primary were 27% choosing Biden, 17% Sanders, and 14% Harris - no option of undecided. (Could say “someone else”, which got 5%, but not undecided.)
Again, other polls (of the primary field) appropriately find that the number one choice is undecided.
I am one of those who would vote for a mummified husk over Trump. Sanders would win even over a mummified husk … but I’d have to think about it.
There is another aspect to consider - national numbers matter less than a few key states. Basically Trump loses, not if he loses the popular vote, he did that last time, but if he loses any of the states he won last time. For the virtually nothing the polling currently means how does the polling look now in, say, Michigan?