The point being that 70% of Dem primary/caucus voters prefer someone who is not Bernie. Figuring Bernie is the most extreme liberal still in the race, an overwhelming amount of his party want someone more moderate than Bernie. They do not necessarily agree on which of the moderate options are best.
You’re arbitrarily grouping your choices to make your point. You’re saying “oh Bernie is getting 40% of the vote, and not bernie is getting 60%, therefore democrats don’t like Bernie” but that’s conjecture. In a multi-way competitive election, there’s obviously not going to be someone with the majority, because then it would effectively be a non-competitive election.
You seem to be implying that Biden/Buttigieg/whoever would be better, because even if he’s polling at 20%, he’ll get all those non-Bernie voters, and Bernie will get zero of those voters. But again, this is just an unproven assumption.
The fact that there’s a multi-way split in a multi-way competitive race does not indicate that whoever becomes the candidate can’t beat Trump. That’s not an apples to apples comparison.
Bernie takes it all. The Senate flips too.
I linked in a different thread to a chart showing that Bernie is the second choice of more people than any other candidate, as well. And he has a higher approval rating than any other candidate, as well.
I think it’s hard for moderates-to-conservatives to hear, but his message of making the economy work for everyone appears to be resonating with a lot of Americans.
I see the divide as between extreme liberals…who are boisterous out of proportion to their actual numbers…and moderates. A huge majority of the Democratic party is choosing a moderate candidate, but because there are at least three, maybe four serious contenders for the moderate vote, it is splintered among them. Eventually, if the Dems hope to win, the moderate majority will have to come together behind a candidate to get Bernie out of the way, and focus on beating Trump.
Are you sure? I bet if we posted a poll giving people the option of keeping the current healthcare insurance status quo, expanding ACA, or going full UHC/MFA, the overwhelming majority would vote for the latter. Free college education might no fare so well but people would be in the majority for lowering costs and reducing student debt. Immigration policy would run more moderate. Energy and environment would run pretty left of moderate. And so on.
It’s my gut sense that Democrats (generically speaking) are far more in line with Sanders’ policies than they are given credit for. But many are put off by his abrasive personality, age, and lack of political charisma/intelligence. I do not use the term “lack of political intelligence” as pejorative. He just has an uncanny ability to irritating as many as he attracts.
Second choice for Bloomberg: Biden 28%, Buttigieg 20%, Sanders 20%.
Second choice for Warren: Sanders 38%, Klobuchar 16%, Biden 14%, Buttigieg 14%.
Second choice for Buttigieg: Bloomberg 22%, Klobuchar 22%, Sanders 20%
Second choice for Biden: Sanders 33%, Bloomberg 24%, Warren 14%
I know you can’t really add them together, but there are a total of 400 points out there among the 4 candidates. Sanders gets 111 of those points, Biden gets 42, Bloomberg gets 46., nobody else is in the running.
And that’s before Nevada.
I’m not at all convinced the lanes exist anymore.
I really don’t get the idea that ‘Bernie can’t win because Republicans will call him socialist’. They already call everyone they run against socialist and their base eats it up and vote Republican, so I can’t see it making that much of a difference.
This board only seems ‘progressive’ when you compare it to Trump strongholds. Progressives don’t support Blue Trump (Bloomberg) at all, and in general consider him to be, well, Trump with MAGA hats in Blue instead of Red. Back in 2016 this board was firmly in the Hillary or Bust (oopsie about that second choice!) camp, and would go on at length about how ‘qualified’ she was for the job. That’s firmly ‘establishment’, not ‘progressive’.
Right. And I will be able to get back into the jeans I wore in college. :dubious:
This is it in a nutshell. The election will not be fair. It will be rigged, skewed, dishonest, fucked up. The results will not reflect the desires of voters. Just like the last one didn’t. Only it will be even worse this time.
And broken record: if the Dems don’t take the Senate and keep the House, it doesn’t matter what Bernie or anyone else stands for. Moscow Mitch will see to that.
Very much this, and goodbye yellow brick road.
He’s too far left. I think the only thing that he has not promised to be free is hookers and coke .
I think you’ve just unlocked the secret to taking the evangelical voting block from Trump.
It’s not the base they’re going to be talking to. Trump’s already got the base locked up. And Sanders has a lot of people in his base that are guaranteed to vote for him.
The election will be decided by the other people. Those who will be deciding who they’re going to vote for between now and November. These are people who won’t believe anything the Republicans say - but they will listen to what the Republicans are saying.
They are not supposed to. The results should reflect how the voters vote.
Not their ruminations prior to entering the polling booth, nor what they say in the exit-poll.
When some people can’t tell the difference between a man who’s donated millions to fight climate change and another human-like being who’s only created “charitable foundations” to line his own pockets and doesn’t believe climate change is real, merely because both claim to be billionaires (though only one actually is), then other people can reasonably conclude that the first people are as delusional (in a different direction, to be fair) as the Trumpists who still believe their orange god is going to drain the swamp and build that wall. :dubious:
I see some contradiction in 1 and 2. Running explicitly on making any group, even ‘the billionaire class’, ‘villains’ is angry. I think Sanders would say, and believes, and you seem to agree, ‘we’ have to be angry. But negative appeals like that are why Sanders is viewed as a shouting angry person. I’m not sure how you do 1. non-angrily.
And as to the pure stylistic aspects of 2, that’s just who he is. Trump and he are pretty different people overall but both old men with a good deal of success in their respective spheres with their respective personal styles. That type of person is usually pretty resistant to trying to changing that style. The guy might really have virtually no sense of humor, as one would assume listening to his public speech (maybe in private he does have one; HRC is by many accounts a warm person with her friends, but trying to be that publicly didn’t work for her, and for anyone there’s a risk of not appearing true to yourself; up to now appearing true to himself is a big Sanders strength).
For 3 if you’re arguing in a US general national election that you’re not a Communist, you’re not in a good place. Even mentioning the word I think would be a bad idea.
The claim in 3&4 that Sanders’ proposals are conventional in other rich countries will surely be part of his pitch. That’s already a standard pitch in defense of progressive proposals in US politics by all kinds of people. Although, the appeal to some key US voter groups or ‘look at foreigners’ might be questioned. Anyway it’s true to some extent, is a reasonable argument to the ears of some voters and he will use this argument I’m sure.
But, Sanders is really quite far left on some things. For example no country has a wealth tax with % anywhere near as high as the 8% max Sanders proposes. The US would move far to the left of any country if that were actually implemented. Not every rich country even has an estate tax (Canada, Sweden and Norway don’t among others) and none have a rate approaching the 77% max Sanders proposes. Many people support Sanders but doubt those proposals would pass without being severely watered down, if at all, but the candidate himself can’t use that argument.
On the billionaire issue it’s really a matter of arguing the US has a bigger problem with very wealthy people and has to take much more radical action than any other other country so far. The Sanders base likes to hear that, but I really doubt it could resonate a lot more broadly. OTOH Sanders could steer more away from talking about billionaires and stick more to talking about greater social welfare benefits (‘free’ health care, college, etc), but not paid for by higher taxes on most voters. The billionaire part is still implicit (they have to pay, again to the extent one thinks the proposals could pass and Sanders math holds up even if) but IMO a mistake to emphasize trying to turn the average voters’ attitude into the average Sanders’ base voter’s attitude toward billionaires.
Trump has already made noises about not doing debates, “because of the biased media”. In reality he’s scared to death of having to face someone with passion and truth behind him/her, because that person will rip him to shreds. If it’s Buttigieg or Bloomberg, he’ll debate; if it’s Sanders, Warren or Biden, he’ll pass.
Well, it’s actually pretty easy. Just don’t shout so much.
I’m completely serious - the tone of someone’s voice is extremely important to how they and their ideas are perceived. If Sanders can discuss the rapacious greed of the billionaire class in a calm way without raising his voice, he can make more of an impact than he would be able to if he stuck with his angry hectoring style.
You want to make a wager on that? Just between us? I have Paypal, Venmo and Zelle. I swear to God I will pay out if you’re right. How’s $200? PM me if you really want to do this.
The problem isn’t the Republicans calling Bernie a socialist it’s Bernie calling Bernie a socialist. No one cares about the base. No one cares about anyone on either side that already knows who they are voting for. It’s how will it play with the 20% that everyone cares about. It’s about those thin slices of voters in the swing states.