Tell it to Trump, who got elected making bullshit promises to the working class.
Don’t worry. Pelosi is not uncomfortable with Sanders so it’s all gonna be all right. Possibly. Just guessing really.
I am still unlikely to vote for Sanders when it is my state’s turn to vote, I still don’t like him much and I don’t think he’d be a very effective president, but I can come around to wrapping my brain around his theory of electability.
And it is not the increased turnout of young voters. Honestly I think Trump’s evilness is enough for most of that group who are going to come out. And those who wouldn’t for that, likely will find something else is more important on election day than coming out for Sanders.
It is undercutting the Trump support with the group that just wants “change” and does not care what that change is really. Trump has had his swing at being “change” and now is what must be changed. (Yeah like the dirty diaper he is.) He is the swamp to be drained. I’m not sure that this group isn’t more the true swing voter bloc than anything else, more than ideology anyway. Sanders is a more a change candidate than a center Left one is. And more than Trump is now. He is not charismatic per se but he is authentically what he is and speaks with passion. Okay yells with passion. 
Romney-Clinton voters you lose some of but to staying home I think, not to Trump.
The big downside is I think the Senate gets out of reach and even the House may be at risk as some will vote for down ticket offsetting balance.
I can see him with Kamala Harris as VP - she’d be good in the old tradition of VP candidate as “attack dog”, prosecuting the case against Trump with Sanders more focussed selling on what he aspires for this country. (Agnew is classic VP candidate “attack dog” model.)
Did he use the phrase “the working class”? That is not my recollection. Even if he did, it’s highly perilous to emulate Trump in any way. Is there any Democratic president in the modern era (say, in the past 50 years) who campaigned regularly with that slogan? “Working families” I remember, but not “working class“, which has a very proletarian/Marxist ring to it.
And Americans have a very funny tendency to want to think of themselves as “middle class”, whether they make $25,000 a year or $250,000 a year. So what Bernie is calling “working class”, the people so named themselves would prefer to think of as “lower middle class”. “Blue collar” is another term that is generally considered safe to use.
I don’t know if that is wisdom that will last the ages. Are service workers “blue collar”? Generally, I wouldn’t say so. Blue collar are the more monied of the working class, eg factory jobs or the trades.
I have heard “pink collar”, and of course people talk about “service workers“. But whatever the case, “working class” is a term that doesn’t resonate well with Americans, and Bernie uses it because he is an old lefty who likes to think of himself as Eugene Debs or Joe Hill so he can’t resist.
Last night, I saw Joe Hill.
The Veep choice is going to be important, no matter who wins the Dem nomination.
Get a female general on the ticket, preferably a woman of color, it doesn’t really matter who it is (apologies to any of the potential female candidates) to pull in that entire demographic. And anyone that has a star(s) on their shoulders, is by definition politically savvy. And a general will be a proper counterweight to the Russian teat sucking lackies in office now.
Bernie, Sanders or Biden all have a non trivial chance of dying in office.
What “middle class”?
I disagree. (I seem to be doing a lot of that in this thread.) The fact that Sanders (or Biden if things change) is seen as a risk for dying in office means they have to have a VP who will reassure people that they are capable of handling the Presidency. That pretty much means somebody who has made a credible Presidential run or has at least been frequently mentioned as a potential candidate. This is not a time when the Vice Presidency should be seen as a meaningless position you use to score points with some demographic.
I agree that the VP choice needs to be someone who will be reassuring, but I don’t see why that needs to be someone who was a candidate or often mentioned as a candidate. A military general sounds like a fine choice.
I suppose if we’re going to be technical about it, we might say it’s something like the 42% of households with incomes between $35-100K. But that ignores all the cultural baggage around the term. Of course, you presumably meant this as a clever quip indicating that there is only rich and poor, with no one in the middle. This is in reality quite false.
BTW, this will surprise a lot of people (it did me):
They used the qualifier of two consecutive years to screen out people who receive a one-time windfall, otherwise it would be even more.
Maybe you’re right. But to abandon the Democratic nominee and make Trump’s re-election even more certain, is ineffable tragedy.
Sadly, I think Sanders’ chances would have been better in 2016. The voters eager to pick an old wild white man got Trump … and largely like what they see! Economy soaring. Blacks, browns, immigrants, wimmen put in their place. What’s not to like?
Joe Hill? JOE HILL!!??? Things must be really desperate if we’re invoking ghosts who died before Pete Seeger was born.
For you young’uns, Joe Hill (né Joel Emmanuel Hägglund) was a labor organizer and singer. I don’t know if any of Joe Hill’s singing can be found on-line, but here is a “cover” of one of his songs.
Is Joe Hill really still alive? Might he save us? Naah, the young’uns whose votes might sway the election will be too busy to vote — they’ve got to exchange more stickers on Instagram.
“Potatoe”
— J. Danforth Quayle
Yeah, like Clyburn’s going to make that much of a difference in the Super Tuesday states. :rolleyes:
By depressing Dem turnout and losing? That’s a funny way to save the House.
Look, there’s no evidence that they won by winning over disaffected Trump voters. GOP turnout was sky-high in 2018, because GOP voters overwhelmingly weren’t disaffected. But Dem turnout, though not as high as GOP turnout, still won the day because there are more of us, and enough of us showed up in November 2018.
Republicans will still show up at the polls in huge numbers this November. We beat them by having massive turnout ourselves. Splitting the party and running away from the Presidential nominee will do exactly the opposite.
I disagree. The first thing is winning; if the VP nominee is ready to step in if necessary on Day 1 but we lose the election, we’re screwed. (See 2016.)
I doubt that that many people are going to stay home or vote for Trump just because Sanders or Biden or Bloomberg picks a less experienced person of color as a running mate. We really NEED Blacks and Hispanics to show up this November. Stacy Abrams would be a great VP candidate.
Oh, and five days to go! Has Obama saved us yet?
On behalf of my generation;
Who?
You don’t speak for your generation. South Carolinians your age probably know who he is.
Maybe so, but it sure looked like a “You’re with Bernie, or you’re against the Democratic party” kind of thing, which is the LAST thing that the Democrats need right now.
There are overlaps between the sets of potential running mates that might help win and and those who would be ready to step in day one if need be.
To some degree being the latter is part of the former especially with an older president.
I think that you think little of Black and Hispanic voters if you think their turnout is dependent on having someone of their identity as running mate. It wouldn’t hurt but top of importance list? No. Abrams might be good but not just because of “woman” and “Black”.
A good VP running mate can complement (not “balance”) the campaign style of the top of the ticket, can bring two or three points to their home state (which might be significant), and can signal importance of issues (here identity can be part of doing that, but record and accomplishments more so).