Why I'm supporting the wildest, most radical left wing candidate:

[rgbecker]

This is why I’m going to support the wildest, most radical left wing candidate that runs for Democratic Nomination for President. MATH!

As this article points out, more eligible voters chose “None of Above” than either Trump or Clinton in 2018.
They stayed home or where ever else they were rather than vote. Maybe it was hard to take the time, maybe they had been squeezed out by GOP efforts to make it hard to register and vote. Probably they didn’t see how either of the two major party candidates were going to make any difference in their lives. Maybe they felt like they didn’t know the issues or no one in their families ever explained the importance of voting.

Whatever the reason it seems to me it would be easier to stimulate a few of these “none of the above” voters to show up than to peel away some of the wackos who voted for Trump and normally vote for the small government, low taxes, pro life, gun nuts courted by the GOP. But even if I’m wrong and the choice was 10% of the former Trump voters or 10% of the “None of the above” voters, off course I would go with bigger number.

Do the Math: 10% of 43.1% (Those who didn’t vote) equals 4.31% vs. 10% of 27% (Trump voters 2016) equals 2.7%.

That’s 4.31% of 231.5 Million or 9.97 Million vs. 2.7% of 231.5 or 6.25 Million. More than 3.72 Million difference. So even if it turns out Trump voters are more likely to turn to the Democrats and it become impossible to stimulate 10% of the non voters, a 3 million margin argues to concentrate on the non voters. Especially if the cost of getting information to each member of either group is the same.

So the question becomes: Which Candidate will stimulate the non voters to suddenly take interest? I propose the most radical candidate will draw in the non voters at a greater rate than repelling the usual Democratic voter. Further, Trump might be rejected by the GOP who are now wondering if hanging onto Trump’s coattails will bring them the same fate as their 2018 mid term losers. A radical candidate will be needed to differentiate from the usual corporate candidates and stimulate the new, young voters and those who feel they have been disenfranchised by the usual choices.

Currently, I’m going with Sanders, who has shown he can bring in new, young voters and those previously uninterested. He has worked to get exposure for his name and policies and he has worked the media so they actually have them on to give his views. No other candidate has done this so far. Sanders has completely turned around the situation from not getting equal coverage in 2016 to now getting more than his fair share.

Will one of the other progressive liberals stimulate the “None of the above” voters like Bernie does after they get more well known? We’ll see and I’m open to getting behind anyone of them if it appears they can do it.

I have no faith that Joe Biden will be able to pull it off and hoping for a centrist to draw off some from the GOP supporters to the Democratic ticket I think is like expecting Trump to suddenly start telling the truth. And if Trump is withdrawn by the GOP, Biden offers very little to those who normally just don’t vote.

What do you think? Don’t bother please with the “He’s not a Democrat”, “He’s grumpy”, “He never showed his tax returns”, “He has no support from the AA community”. Tell me why you think we should spend our money trying to get Trump voters to vote Democratic rather than trying to stimulate more non voters to show up. Tell why your candidate will do better than Sanders at stimulating those non voters.

All the best, RGB

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/trump-election-2016-voter-turnout

[Sherman A1]

1. Sanders is my second choice

Currently I support Andrew Yang.

[rgbecker]

5. Yang seems radical, but without any political (Actual election) experience may be a long shot.

Has he had success stimulating interest? He has been running since Nov. 2017.

I support the guaranteed annual income which will be the simplest way to deal with the thousands of unemployable generated by the capitalist's shift to cheap labor countries and to automation which apparently will be the cause of much loss of jobs.

A million questions about his stand on issues foreign and domestic for which we have no clue because of his lack of government service.

I'm sticking with Bernie until I see more interest in someone else who can bring out the vote.

[Sherman A1]

12. If you take a few minutes to look at his web page

he has a bunch of well thought out policies listed and at one point some guy named Obama was a long shot.

[BannonsLiver]

91. "May be?"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. I like Yang too... though I look forward to having you come aboard the Bernie train

at the appropriate time. Til then, all the best to you and your candidate.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[OKNancy]

2. This is from 2016- lots of things have changed

Lots of young dynamic candidates this time.

[rgbecker]

7. I can't wait to see if Kamala can ring the bells like Bernie.

She certainly has lots of interest on the DU. She is a powerhouse in her Senate committee hearings. Will she bring in new voters? Still to be determined.

One thing that hasn't changed is the percentage of none voters. Only 58% voted in 2018 mid terms, which was a high for midterms but still left more than 4 in ten at home.

I'm watching Kamala closely. I especially was impressed by the crowd at her announcement.

I've been to hear Elizabeth and couldn't get in because of the crowd. A lot of interest there too.

[sheshe2]

52. Well.

rgbecker (3,803 posts)

7. I can't wait to see if Kamala can ring the bells like Bernie.

She already is. Surpassed him, in fact.

[forklift]

67. A lot of Bernie voters end up with sour grapes

and they voted third party or Trump.

The same people who promoted voting for Jill Stein -- Nina Turner and Cornell West -- are in Bernie's leadership
and it is back to Clinton bashing and Democratic party bashing.

We have seen the movie before. No thank you.

This, time, Bernie will be gone after Super Tuesday. Fewer caucuses and a new schedule.

[Mr Tibbs]

69. He is a front runner

He isn't going away

[forklift]

70. He indeed is -- on DailyKOS

all others are waiting for the tax returns .


#whatishehiding

[Mr Tibbs]

72. He is the one to beat

Irregardless of the tax return non-issue.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democrat-candidates-771735/

[forklift]

73. mmmmmmmkay nt

[CentralMass]

151. Based on past elections, not so much. 12% of Sander-tRump voters in 2016 vs 24% Hillary-McCain

in 2008.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

3. How do you get away with calling Democrats "corporate candidates"?

This crap is sooooooo tiresomesome.

Bernie’s ship has sailed. He is too divisive to be our nominee.

[empedocles]

4. As I recall, 'corporate democrat', was a divisive russian troll tag

[rgbecker]

9. I think it was "She's not likeable".

Or was it "He's not a Democrat?"

Either one pretty divisive and not likely to bring in any new voters.

[LanternWaste]

90. One is accurate. The other is not.

"She's not likeable". Or was it "He's not a Democrat?"

One of those two statements is accurate predicated on factual information. The other is merely editorial predicated on bias.

But I can certainly understand why you conflate accuracy with divisiveness... it suits your needs at this point in time.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

6. Honestly I find those dying without health care to be soooooo tiresome

And now that Bernie's Medicare for All policy is common amongst Democratic candidates maybe those who have supported solutions more tolerable to the insurance industry in the past will have to answer for those deaths.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

8. Too bad the Democrat who brought healthcare to millions of poor children...

was vilified and that progress was set back. People will have to answer for that.

[still_one]

51. and to top it off, just enough self-identifed progressives refused to vote for the Democratic

nominee in 2016, spewing the same Nader bullshit that there was no difference between the two parties, and contributed to the loss of two Supreme Court Justices.

In those critical swing states, Hillary lost by less than 1%, and Jill Stein received 1% of the vote.

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republicans, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

53. I'm sure it sticks in your craw, as much as it does in mine...

but it sure whips up my outrage when people who willfully set back progress attempt to call themselves "progressives."

:Triggered:

LOL.

[still_one]

63. Yes. The irony, or perhaps hypocrisy is all too obvious

[George II]

20. A form of Medicare for All has been "common" amongst Democrats since 1943.

[Omaha Steve]

46. Medicare didn't exist until 1966

[George II]

47. I realize that, but a "form" of Medicare for all has been proposed since 1943.

[Blue_true]

48. The proposals for universal medical coverage started during the Truman

Administration. Healthcare coverage for all is not a new idea. Even Noxpn came close to proposing a form of universal coverage. But after Nixon, republicans and the insurance and Pharma industries stalled all attempts, until President Obama and a majority democratic Congress broke through in early 2010.

[dawg day]

60. Answer for deaths? What about the lives saved while we waited for Sanders to save us?

More people are insured now (including me). Many people have subsidies that make the insurance almost free. (Medicare, btw, ISN'T free... as I just found out when I applied for it! The basic Medicare also isn't as comprehensive as my Obamacare plan.)

Step by step-- this isn't a radical nation. First step was Medicare for the elderly, which showed us all it could be done. Next Obamacare which broke down the resistance to "government medicine". Next comes (I hope) a public option and/or Medicare for all.

And kudos to Sanders and everyone who supports Medicare for all. But let's not pretend there would be much chance of getting that without LBJ and BHO risking their political careers to get those first steps (and Hillary and Bill Clinton for their noble failure, taking the flak and heat for the first serious attempt to get health insurance access).
Yes, we need universal health access, not just insurance access. But we wouldn't be poised for that if M-f-All had to start from scratch.

We're on second base.
Bring it home!

[Hekate]

147. We have a candidate whose "gaffe" was to whisper "This is a BFD" to his president...

...when the ACA passed.

And if it had not been for all those people who thought the 2016 Dem candidate just wasn't progressive enough (or likeable, or something) we would have someone in office right now building on the ACA instead of destroying it.

The Mad King and all his enablers are destroying everything Obama ever accomplished, as well as dismantling the federal government. It's so tiresome watching people die and concentration camps being built because just enough Americans believed lies and allowed themselves to be manipulated.

Meanwhile, we do have one candidate who helped bring about the ACA in the first place. Even if the media crowed that Joe's a gaffe machine because he was so excited about it he used a naughty word.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

148. For one of course I supported Clinton in 2016

And Bernie was a deciding vote in passing the ACA. More people voted against Senator Obama when Hillary lost in 2008 who were Hillary supporters than Bernie voters who voted for Trump in 2016. I know a whole lot of Hillary supporters blame Sanders for everything wrong in the world because it's easier to do that than to admit that Sanders campaigned across the country for her. Or that James Comey did a whole lot more to contribute to her loss than Sanders. Or that Hillary's campaign was knocking on the wrong doors because they had a flawed get out the vote strategy. Getting self-righteous over the idea that there should'nt have been any candidate who ran against her in the primary and had any criticisms of her is asinine.

[rgbecker]

10. Actually never called any Democrat a "Corporate candidate".

I suggested that " A radical candidate will be needed to differentiate from the usual corporate candidates and stimulate the new, young voters and those who feel they have been disenfranchised by the usual choices. "

Are you suggesting there are no corporate candidates usually in the running for president for the USA?

[CrossingTheRubicon]

11. You have just succeeded in doubling down on the offense.

Please cut the crap.

[CentralMass]

152. There is a cold harsh reality to money and politics these days,

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?display=T&type=M&cycle=2018

Looking at the 2017-2018 cycle there was $962.3 million dollar raised by congress, The Democrats are clearly the only choice at the voting booth, however with that type of money it is hard to belive that there arn't strings attached.

[leftofcool]

22. You really should stop now

[MFM008]

65. Saying any

Democrat running is a corporate candidate worked real well for maggot in 16 because thats what they said about HRC.
no democrat is as bad as him.
None.
0.

[hedda_foil]

13. They called themselves that before deciding on the name Democratic leadership Conference. (DLC)

They dropped that name awhile back but they're still funded heavily by corporate PACs.

[rgbecker]

15. And then there's the Third Way and the coffee shop guy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

[hedda_foil]

23. That's them alright!

[Amimnoch]

14. No. Never. Nt.

[rgbecker]

16. Not. Very. Helpful.

That's it?

[Adrahil]

17. Well he just appointed a never Clinton Stein supporter.

And further, in 2017 she said the Democrats and Republicans are basically two sides of the same coin.

Now THAT is not helpful.

[Amimnoch]

18. Can't be detailed here.

I can’t discuss just HOW far I will go to oppose his candidacy, as it would be hidable and against the rules.

I can’t discuss most of the reasons I absolutely refuse to ever support him, and will support anyone running against him in any kind of campaign, but most of those would be rehashing 2016 and hidable.

I can’t discuss my belief, or the supporting stories in how he’s got many of the same links between him and Russia, just like Stein and Russia, just like Trump and Russia, but those are likewise hideable. Which also means I can’t support my belief, with any details, that this time around, just like the last time around, he’s in it as a knowing and willing spoiler.

Would love to be very helpful and have a full, open, and honest discussion on it, but most of the points I’d make would be hidden, and most of the counter points you’d have to dig up to argue against my points would be hidden.

So.. I’ll just have to live with the shame of you not finding me very helpful.

[leftofcool]

21. Maybe not here but it is all out there in other places

[Garrett78]

24. I think it's entirely possible that Sanders himself doesn't think he can win.

I suspect he relishes the idea of being a change agent but knows that he can't actually win.

Or he really thinks he can win in spite of all the diverse states that follow New Hampshire.

Hard to say.

[Amimnoch]

30. Would be against the rules to make such a statement.

I believe I’ll take the 5th.

I will say that I sincerely hope it doesn’t come down to that particular choice.

I will 100% financially donate, canvass for, and vote for every other Democratic Party member that’s announced or expected to announce on the list for this forum.

[sheshe2]

55. Thank you.

+1000

[Sapient Donkey]

132. Even if he becomes the nominee? If so, then I agree that isn't helpful at all.

[Amimnoch]

133. Out of respect for the terms of service,

I must decline to answer that question.

I can say that, every single other candidate we have running, should they get the nomination, I will vote for them, I will donate what I’m able to them, I will phone bank for them, and if the candidate puts Texas in play, I will canvas until my feet are bloody for them.

[Sapient Donkey]

134. Well, I think you basically did answer.

I find that unfortunate. I understand your concern for not wanting to cross any unacceptable lines, but I am curious to learn more and understand not just the reasoning but also larger picture of what your end goals are.

I am going to assume it's safe to say that you're a democrat who falls somewhere on the liberal area of the political spectrum. I'm going to also say it's safe to assume you have as much dislike for Trump as any other member of DU and human being. I would think that someone who falls into that category and is totally unwilling to vote for Sanders must think that there are some very compelling reasons as to why Sanders is worse than Trump. That's difficult for me to wrap my brain around. Which is why I am curious to learn more and understand the reasoning. I seen mention of ties bernie and Russia. Now, if there are ties between Sanders and Russia similar to what we've seen with Trump, and there is compelling and verifiable evidence of this, then I find it difficult to believe the DU admins would take issue with that being reported. I'm sure many Bernie supporters would also want to hear/see any legitimate evidence of such actives. No one wants to be a useful idiot for some evil plan. Well, I guess the republicans don't mind. But we're not republicans (in theory)

If there are legitimate and fair concerns about Sanders (or any candidate) that makes him worse than Trump, then that information should be made available. If it's that bad, then I'm certain it will be welcomed information. Even if it's not welcomed, then fall on grenade so you can help save our country from a fate worse than Trump. Send it to me via private and I will do it if there is something there.

I have my doubts there is anything so damning that would make him worse than Trump, though. If there was, then we would have heard about it by now. I'm not even a huge Bernie supporter. In fact, I've been annoyed with and have been debating many of his "bernie or bust" supporters, and I've been critical of some his campaign staff picks (Sirota for example) It's highly unlikely he'll get my vote in the primaries, but if he is nominated then I'll be voting for him.... I mean, unless this information you have that proves he's worse than Trump is finally made public and confirmed.

[leftofcool]

19. No thanks

[Chemisse]

25. LOL - I thought you were going to say Beto O'Rourke

Particularly when you asked:

So the question becomes: Which Candidate will stimulate the non voters to suddenly take interest? I propose the most radical candidate will draw in the non voters at a greater rate than repelling the usual Democratic voter. Further, Trump might be rejected by the GOP who are now wondering if hanging onto Trump’s coattails will bring them the same fate as their 2018 mid term losers. A radical candidate will be needed to differentiate from the usual corporate candidates and stimulate the new, young voters and those who feel they have been disenfranchised by the usual choices.

I don't know if O'Rourke will go anywhere, but surely he is more 'radical' at this point (in his own way) and more appealing to young non-voters than Sanders.

The party has moved leftward, thanks to Sanders, so now he needs to stand out among a small but noteworthy group of progressive candidates. He may do that, but it's not a slam-dunk.

[rgbecker]

34. I'm eagar to hear more from Beto. His talk about "Taking a knee" was moving for me.

I do think he could get a crowd going, but does he have enough experience in politics to convince the old guard that he knows what he doing. I suppose it will depend on his staff in a lot of respects.

[louis c]

26. Biden-Harris

Last edited Sun Feb 24, 2019, 09:41 PM - Edit history (2)

Stop trying to overthink this thing. Biden brings Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan into the fold. Harris energizes the base and moves the Democratic party into the future.

I like all the candidates in the Democratic Party and I will not disparage one of them. After all, any one of them could be the nominee. But we need to take our best shot to win this thing, and my preferred ticket is our best shot, IMHO.

I really do think Trump is Hitler, so winning in 2020 is more important to me than anything else.

[Horizens]

27. Good Post

I'm undecided but have been thinking that Biden/Harris would be a good ticket. Brown/Harris would also be a strong ticket particularly regarding PA, MI, WI and Ohio.

[elleng]

28. Right, and it's damned early to 'think' at all.

[rgbecker]

35. Wouldn't it be great if we could pick a team of President and Vice President?

If we could balance the appeal. Wouldn't we have a better chance of beating the GOP? I think Hillary could have used a stronger VP. I think there is tendency for the candidate to not pick too strong a VP who might overshadow the President. Oh, reminds me: I read Sanders says he would choose a women for VP. I wonder who Harris might pick!

[louis c]

42. Bernie needs to balance his ticket by picking a life long Democrat

[Awsi Dooger]

31. 46% in the Florida exit poll said Andrew Gillum was too liberal for the state

I'll keep mentioning that because it was one of the most startling numbers I have ever seen, after studying exit poll and political math since 1992.

It shouldn't be possible to reach 46% in that category no matter what you say or do. Candidates who lose by 30% don't threaten that number. For it to show up in a 50/50 race means we really butchered the nomination process because almost everyone who didn't vote for Gillum basically didn't consider it, deeming him too far to the extreme. DeSantis was called too conservative by "only" 35%, which is still a high number but within the high normal range.

Andrew Gillum basically created his own outer space tier with that 46%.

I don't want to attempt that nationally. Bernie Sanders would mean Florida is not in play. In a decade or so when the demographic changes have taken greater hold nationally, then we can nominate further to the left. Right now against an incumbent electability needs to be front and center.

I'd give anything to have Gwen Graham as Florida governor right now. Unforced error.

[radical noodle]

61. I liked Gillum

but voted for Graham in the primary because I thought she was electable, but for him in the general. We desperately need a Democratic governor down here. The 46% too liberal stat doesn't surprise me because the push from the GOP here was "socialist, socialist, socialist." Get ready, because they've found that's a winning refrain and will do it again in 2020.

[Gothmog]

32. I strongly disagree with this approach

I will not support a candidate who I think is not electable. Warren is electable but I have strong doubts about sanders. I have other candidates on my list ahead of Warren and sanders at the bottom of my list

I was a delegate to the National Convention and watched sanders delegates attack and call my daugther the C-word because she would not try to get me to change my vote

I was there when the sanders delegates booed Congressman John Lewis. I was warned about this stunt 30 minutes before it happened by the Clinton campaign whip. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this event and declined. That incident will be used against sanders if he runs in 2020.

I was at the Texas delegation breakfast when a group of sanders delegates marched in and demanded that we condemn Clinton and change our votes to sanders.

sanders spoke to the Texas delegation the next morning and his speech was again solely about himself. There was a mini-riot due to his delegates the prior morning and the only thing that sanders talked about was himself. sanders did nothing to deal with the fact that his delegates were out of control and did nothing to try to help Hillary Clinton win the general election.

Finally a group of sanders delegates yelled at my daughter and called her the c-Word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. Again sanders was asked to tell his delegates to behave during the convention and sanders refused

Many democrats do not believe that sanders really tried to help Clinton. Many democrats blame sanders for helping trump win Sanders clearly took a large number of actions that were designed to hurt the party and help trump.

[Gothmog]

33. Has sanders released his tax returns?

Senator Warren has released her tax returns

Link to tweet

[rgbecker]

36. I wonder if after Bernie releases his tax return people will have anything to bitch about.

O, Yeah....there will be: He's not a Democrat. and He's divisive. And he's grumpy. And his ship has sailed.....I guess he may as well put off the tax release until he sees how he does on Super Tuesday. Probably has all sorts of illegal shit to cover up.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

38. He promised the tax returns last time and he never came though.

Has he signed the pledge that he's a Democrat, or will that wait until after Super Tuesday?

Has he stopped being divisive?

After Super Tuesday his campaign will likely be over (numerically).

[rgbecker]

40. You left out "He's too Grumpy!"

[CrossingTheRubicon]

41. Goes without saying. LOL.

[Autumn]

112. It so sad you aren't here to discuss Bernie's taxes. You came close though, you almost made it

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2019, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

a month before being PPRd. Oh well so long.

[susanr516]

62. I live in one of the Super Tuesday states

I am truly undecided at this point. There are 4-5 that I like and 2-3 I have reservations about. I do know that I will not vote for any candidate in the primary who has not released his/her tax returns.

[Eko]

78. Wanting him to release his tax returns is entirely reasonable.

Just as reasonable as all of the people running for the Democratic nomination releasing theirs. Is he somehow exempt from this?

[vsrazdem]

103. I agree, along with the other 4 or 5 running who have not released theirs yet.

[Eko]

104. Well then

We agree lol.

[vsrazdem]

105. Yes, we do. I am getting tired of Bernie not showing his taxes. I still support him, but

frankly I am over it already. Just get them out there. It is getting ridiculous.

[Eko]

106. He will at some point I think.

And then there will be outrage of the day here for a bit and then we will find another outrage of the day to move on to. Doing my best to stay out of that as much as possible and be reasonable about all the candidates, none of them are saints.
Keep on keeponing!
Eko

[vsrazdem]

107. I agree, but the sooner the better. Primaries are not birthday parties, so there is bound to be

some animosity among supporters, but I hope we can keep it to the policies and stop bashing people personally with petty stuff. We cannot constantly keep putting candidates down to the point where if they win the primary, it affects them getting elected.

[Eko]

108. News said he just released them.

Can we move on? Prob not,,,,, sigh. I agree with what you are saying.

[vsrazdem]

109. Thank goodness.

[brooklynite]

37. "Which Candidate will stimulate the non voters to suddenly take interest?"

Your theory is that ENOUGH non-voters will become engaged to offset the middle of the road voters who will be scared off. If they didn't show up in sufficient numbers to win the nomination for Bernie in 2016, why assume they'll help win a GE in 2020?

[MrsCoffee]

39. Don't bother asking what I think if you are just gonna tell me what not to say.

If Bernie had proven that he could bring in the most voters, he would have won 2016. He failed spectacularly.

I don’t think I have the patience for another season of Bernie Math.

[sheshe2]

56. Bingo Bingo Bingo!

[Garrett78]

43. A campaign focused on turning out those who never turn out...

...or on flipping those who voted for Trump is doomed to fail.

Inspire and turn out the base. There will inevitably be some who vote who have never voted before and there will inevitably be people who voted for Trump (because they had been conditioned to hate Clinton, because he was something new and different, because they're just fickle like that) who will vote Dem in 2020. That will happen with no effort on anyone's part (especially with Trump's "strongly disapprove" number of around 50%). Let it. It would be suicide, though, to spend limited resources on making those be the keys to victory. All this hand-wringing over white males, for instance, is terribly misguided.

[Gothmog]

44. Charlie Cook-The 2020 Path Democrats Shouldn't Take

I tend to agree with Charlie Cook. We need to run a candidate who can beat trump https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/2020-path-democrats-shouldnt-take

If this election is going to be a referendum on Donald Trump as a person and president, then Democrats ought to have a good shot at winning. But if the election becomes somewhat more complicated, with Democrats embarking on a path that is considerably more ideological than the one that Presidents Clinton and Obama pursued—the former going center-left, the latter further left, but not too far—then that could make for a considerably more competitive general election. The most recent growth area in the Democratic Party has been among college-educated, suburban women, and their movement toward the Democrats is more the product of their aversion to Trump than an embrace of democratic socialism.....

But when these same voters were asked how they felt about voting for someone who was a socialist, 43 percent said “very uncomfortable” and another 29 percent “have some reservations.” Just 4 percent were “enthusiastic” and 21 percent “comfortable.” Among all adults, 6 percent viewed socialism very positively, 12 percent somewhat positively, 27 percent neutrally, 14 percent somewhat negatively and 36 percent very negatively. According to First Read, the morning newsletter published by NBC News’s political unit, just 9 percent of independents and 13 percent of moderates view socialism favorably, a flashing red light for Democrats contemplating embracing that approach.

It is very clear, listening to Trump as well as to GOP strategists, that they are building up democratic socialism as the straw man to knock down in this campaign. Their goal obviously is to make electing a Democratic president an unacceptable alternative to Trump. So it basically comes down to whether Democrats want this election to be about Trump or about embarking on a new and different philosophical direction. One of those paths seems to be very risky.

I want to run a candidate who is electable. Beating trump is the most important thing

[rgbecker]

45. If the Democrats hand the GOP the Socialist label to hammer on we are in trouble.

Thank goodness Sanders is sticking to his actual policy initiatives rather than getting distracted by the GOP talking points.

People may not like voting for a socialists but they are supportive of Universal health care systems like Medicare for All. They want the public school system to now include college level work and they are OK with having the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Our other progressive candidates will bring out those who feel the system is rigged and those that have not been interested in voting for the the best of two undesirables. Look for a victory by bringing in just 10% or 20% of those that vote for "none of the above" and thus stay at home.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

50. Good point. But we have no leader and no media savvy. Repetitious propaganda

Brainwashing is going unanswered and low infos are hearing it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Here's what matters..what state those "none of the above" are from. If they are from WI MI and PA

Each with 42% trump approval or TX (41% approval) great! We have to have the three (or comparable substitute from a state where his approval is higher) or Texas.

I am totally about who can win those or we are stuck going further down the abyss and you will see the dipshit for an extra 4 years of agony.

[Scruffy1]

54. I've said it a thousand times.

You have to give people a rason to vote. He knew how to use emotion, even if it was hate.

[workinclasszero]

57. Bernie has the 30 and under vote on lockdown

Also independent voters and I think lots of working class voters that fell for tRump's lies the last time around.

Biden has 60 and older possibly and lots of Hillary voters although I fit in both of those categories and am backing Bernie.

No way he gets any useful youth vote. His record will reflect poorly on him in this day and age regarding race and gender issues.

Bernie can and will draw from a much larger base of voters than Joe Biden could ever hope for.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

64. Nah. Beto is going to take all the youth vote.

Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt) appears to be past his due date.

And Joe Biden is a shining liberal with a great record compared with Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt), a candidate who missed a vote on Russian sanctions because he was dealing with rampant sexual abuse in his own campaign and who has failed to release his promised tax returns.

Yesterday's news.

[brooklynite]

59. The gettable votes are in the middle

Sanders couldn’t rack up enough new left-wing voters to offset the votes that Clinton got; how’s he going to do it this time?

[rgbecker]

75. Do you think Clinton voters wouldn't support Sanders over Trump?

Will they sit at home because there is not a middle of the road candidate?

Sanders will have a hard time in the primaries, but if he succeeds he will easily beat Trump. He will win all the non crazies and bring in a bunch of lefty voters that have been waiting for a government that works for the workers rather than the corporations.

[brooklynite]

81. I was using that as an analogy...

Where is the sign that, in addition to centrist Democrats, middle of the road Independents or Republicans would be attracted to him?

[forklift]

66. Another pro-Bernie screed

replete with Democrat bashing

[forklift]

68. Where are those tax returns ?

That issue will not go away.


#whatishehiding

[rgbecker]

76. Why hold back?

Don't forget: Divisive, grumpy and not a Democrat. Keep repeating, there are surely a few Fox viewers that fall for the argument most repeated rather than looking at the policy issues.

When those tax returns are released, if they ever are, Sanders will be toast so don't worry it so much. Oh, and they will be released as several states are going to require that for a candidate to be on the ballot. Maryland and NJ so far.

[forklift]

77. ...

rather than looking at the policy issues.

Tax returns are a part of vetting and reveal a lot about the honesty, integrity, character of law abiding, sources of revenue, any debts that could make a candidate beholden to some interest etc.

People who balk at revealing tax returns usually have something that they are hiding.

It is a part of the vetting process and policy issues mean diddly without proper vetting.

[TexasBushwhacker]

71. This!

"Tell me why you think we should spend our money trying to get Trump voters to vote Democratic rather than trying to stimulate more non voters to show up. Tell why your candidate will do better than Sanders at stimulating those non voters."

While I don't agree that Sanders is the best candidate to get non-voters to participate, I think this writer is correct. There are plenty of disappointed Trump voters, but that doesn't mean they will vote for the Democratic candidate. They're more likely to vote 3rd party or stay home.

I've thought about it a lot, and my choice to GOTV is for Beto to run for POTUS. VP is good too, but I really think he can do it. Hell, let's do an all Texas ticket - O'Rourke-Castro. MILLIONS of Latino voters would register and vote. Turn out in Texas in 2018 was damn near DOUBLE what it was in the last midterm in 2014 (8.3 million vs 4.4 Million). Wrap your head around that for a minute. As many Texans voted in 2018 as in 2016. THAT IS UNHEARD OF!

I know he's young and hasn't been elected to a statewide office. He's been in trouble with the law and he drops the occassional F bomb. And he would be running against this.

I just don't think Beto cannot run. His time is now.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread rgbecker.

[Hortensis]

79. Guessing it's because you 're searching for a candidate who has

to run as a reforming outsider because no one who knows him or her and cares about progressive government, certainly none of his colleagues and all those earnest, well meaning, progressive party donors, would support him?

That's the usual reason pols run as crusading outsiders. Other roles are already taken. (Damn those reputations!) On the plus side, because they get to badmouth everyone who rejected them, claim it's because they're so superior and "only I can do it!," and son-of-a-gun, even find people to believe it?

[rgbecker]

80. I see you are "Undecided".

Can you pick the top 3 you think will get Trump supporters to vote Democratic in 2020? Or who will stimulate some of the 40% that don't vote? Which progressive candidate cares the most? Should we go with the one who raises the most money from "progressive party donors"? Are you holding off deciding so you can see to whom the money goes?

I'd like to see the undecided at least pick their favorite so far...they can change anytime. It seems odd...maybe people just want to see who the most popular candidate is before getting behind one out of 12.

[brooklynite]

82. Biden / Hickenlooper / Bullock

[Gothmog]

83. Opinion: The myth of ideology, and why Democrats' energy isn't all on the left

Link to tweet

The vast majority of Democratic primary voters then and now do not identify as democratic socialists. Perhaps Sanders capitalized on unaffiliated anti-establishment types and Democrats who preferred him despite his ideology and not because of it. Move forward to the 2020 contests. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is providing the most substantive, interesting agenda that committed progressives could hope to see. Yet she is lagging in the polls. If this was all about progressive ideology and policy plans, she’d be running rings around the rest of the field.

As for Sanders, he benefits this time around from 100 percent name identification. However, the flip side of 100 percent name ID is that he’s no longer new, no longer saying things no one else will. He’s just as much of a democratic socialist as he was in 2016, but in the space of a few days we’ve seen that the “energy” isn’t all on the left; it’s drifting toward a centrist, young, optimistic candidate. Voters follow the energy and the ethos. They don’t carry around a thermometer gauging where on the scale of ideological purity each candidate rates.....

All you need to be is progressive enough to win a Democratic primary. Seeming more moderate than the Sanders clan is an advantage in the general election.

Why are pundits, the media and party insiders so convinced that ideological extremism equals energy/success? Part of it may be wishful thinking for progressives. However, part of the difficulty is linguistic. "Moderate” sounds to many ears to mean mild-mannered, prone to compromise and wishy-washy in beliefs. Nonsense. If ever there was a radical moderate, a fervent centrist Democrat, it’s O’Rourke. And gosh, he’s showing that can be exciting.

[rgbecker]

84. I'm excited about Beto too! The picture shows him younger than I thought, though.

We'll see just how radical of a moderate he turns out to be.

[Gothmog]

85. If the economy is strong, trump can win

We have to nominate an electable candidate

[rgbecker]

86. Pakman is saying exactly what I'm saying.

It is all about turnout. A few percentage point increase in turnout for the Democratic Candidate will swing the election to a win.

We need a candidate that will stimulate that turnout. Someone who brings a clear choice from the same old same old. Trump has got people fired up so he should be beatable no matter who the Democrats nominate but a game changing candidate will be needed if Trump's economy stays strong.

A younger version of Sanders would shift my support but we need someone that will move the status quo.

Right now, as long as Trump and Sanders both don't release their tax returns, they just won't get the support they need. Anyone that releases their tax returns will do better, just check on what happened to Clinton!

[Gothmog]

87. sanders is not electable and would depress turnout

You cannot win with out African American support and sanders lacks support from the demographic group in the real world. I was at the National Convention when sanders delegates engaged in a planned stunt of boing Congressman John Lewis. The Clinton campaign warned her delegates about 20 to 30 minutes in advance. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this stunt and declined.

I really doubt that sanders will have any significant support from this key demographic group.

I doubt that sanders will ever release his tax returns

[Stuart G]

88. I talked about "infighting" in another post..So, the proof is right here right now.

Yes, most of us will support the final nominee. I will. With money and work if I can.......

....But look at the responses in the thread. Read them closely. Right here there is a feeling of strong dislike.
People are very strong supporters of Bernie, or very strong non supporters. They dislike him. He just does that. Why? Well, Bernie is Bernie. Can Bernie win the nomination? Maybe. If he wins the nomination, can he win the November 2020 election? Very difficult. Very unlikely....Why?..look at the feelings here in this thread. Yes, Bernie has great ideas. But he represents a presentation that doesn't appeal to enough voters to insure a non infighting situation...

..We will need everyone in order to win. No Jill Stein or any non - involvement. Total and complete dedication to overcome the opponents. It is not just Trump. It is all of the Republicans and their un official helpers. Yes, Russia is one of them I think. There are others. But we must be united to win. We must be totally behind our candidate to win the swing states. People are arguing about...socialism and don't even know what that implies. They just hate it out of their gut. Further, arguing about it, is a waste of time. Bernie represents that argument.
... We don't need that argument or anyone that represents that argument in any way. We need a total unifier, not a "maybe unifier." We must be unified to win. Right now, right here is proof. Be honest, and this thread is the proof.

[Gothmog]

89. Donald Trump has a plan to win re-election with just 45 percent of the vote

We have to nominate a strong electable candidate or trump may win

Link to tweet

And that’s why, as Axios reports, they are planning to hold on to the minority of voters who support the president while working overtime to launch a scorched-Earth campaign against the eventual Democratic nominee.

“The GOP]is going to make whoever the nominee is radioactive well before they get the nomination,” one former Trump campaign aide explained. “That’s Trump’s strategy. Stay at 45-46 percent [in the polls] and just make the other guy radioactive.”

Given Trump’s own unpopularity, the campaign reasons, the only way to get him back into the White House will be to convince swing voters that the Democratic nominee will pack the Supreme Court, end the Electoral College, and grant reparations to black Americans.

Throughout his first term, Trump has consistently posted lower approval ratings than any of his predecessors. FiveThirtyEight’s average of public opinion polls at the moment gives Trump an approval rating of just under 42 percent with a disapproval rating of 53 percent.

[Blue_Tires]

92. I guess I'm fucking wired differently or something

I don't need "motivation" or "excitement" just to get off my ass and vote, and the fact of the matter is the folks who actually believe that bullshit are also saying on the flipside that nothing about Trump's insanity, fascist leanings or overt racism was enough to motivate them to get off their asses and vote against him, which makes me question their ability to think.

Bernie is done; he's had his chance and if his campaign managers didn't have their heads up their asses, they would have cashed in. With no Hillary boogeyman he can play goodguy against, St. Bern is positively ordinary and that's before I even get to the unsavory stuff....

[rgbecker]

93. I'm sure most on the DU will vote and always have.

But 40%, or so, don't vote regularly and just sit back and take it as it comes. Certainly you know someone who fits in this category? The ones I know laugh at me when I suggest they could influence the outcome. They think it is funny that I think it makes a difference who is office. It just seems the rich end up on top while the rest of us just struggle along.

Bernie may indeed have trouble this election cycle, but whoever is the candidate would be wise to court the "None of the Above" voters rather than try to win over the Trump lunatics.

[TreasonousBastard]

94. Bullshit. Actual elections, not polls or opinions, have shown that actual voters...

don't really like extremes on either side. For some reasons, right wingers tend to get a little more support at the polls than lefties, but the truth is that neither wild side is in it for the win.

In '16, both Trump and Bernie were experiments bringing in outsiders because the "establishment" seems to have lost relevance. Obviously didn't work too well with Trump and piss and moan all you want about how Bernie didn't get a fair shake, but Hillary still won the nomination and the popular vote in the general. Trump was a failed anti-etablishment vote himself who became the biggest fuckup ever in the White House. Polls be damned, does anyone really believe Trump could win again facing a serious candidate?

Yes, getting young and new voters is important, but who really believes Bernie is any better at it than Harris or Butti-whatever?

One of our strongest contingents is black women, and why shouldn't we believe that with Bernie we risk losing more of them than we get in new blood?

[Gothmog]

95. Washington Post-'Electability' and 'Bernie' don't belong in the same sentence

Link to tweet

“A combined 58 percent of voters are either uncomfortable (37 percent) or have reservations about (21 percent) Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid. For Elizabeth Warren, it’s a combined 53 percent. And for Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke, it’s 41 percent of voters expressing either reservations or discomfort.” Given that the overwhelming number of voters know who Sanders is, there is no excuse — as there is for other candidates — that they have insufficient information to decide whether to vote for him. Sanders is about as well known as former vice president Joe Biden, yet the poll shows that Biden’s comfortable/uncomfortable rating (48/48) clearly outpaces Sanders’s (37/58).....

Sanders’s age, the “socialist” moniker he embraces and his 2016 campaign problem with women are not going to change during the race. It’s unlikely his personality or his familiarity with foreign policy will improve, either. (The guy is 77, and if we have learned anything from Trump, it is that septuagenarians don’t change their personalities nor attend to habitual deficits in knowledge.) Oh, and on Sunday he again promised to release his tax returns, which he promised over a month ago would be “soon.”

[rgbecker]

96. I'm dying here waiting to see who you come out for.

I'm guessing not Clinton. Sanders is not electable and his supporters are jerks and can't be controlled so are you just going to wait and see who wins the media? Have you got any policy issues that would swing the deal?

I think Beto and Harris are showing better comfortable/uncomfortable ratings because of their lack of exposure...where does Buttigieg fit in? Still need to see all these tax returns...at least Warren isn't holding back.

[Gothmog]

97. Electability is my main criterion

sanders is not electable. Sunday night, I gave to three candidates. My older two kids are pushing Warren and one of my middle child's best friends has already maxed out for the primaries for Warren. My daughter's best friend is like another daughter and I am pleased to see that she is so passionate at this stage (she is a lawyer who worked for Neal Katyal's firm) I also like Joe Biden, Beto, Julian Castro, Senators Harris, Warren, Booker and Klobuchar and a couple of other candidates.

I doubt that sanders will ever release his tax returns and let us know who owns Old Towne Media, LLC

I am in no hurry to make my selection. I will support the nominee of the party but there are several strong democrats who can beat trump. sanders is not one of these candidates. I have made some donations now including being a first day donor to Beto (I met him at the National Convention). It will be an interesting primary process.

BTW, Hillary Clinton is not running right now and I doubt that she will change her mind. My middle child and her husband heard Mayor Pete in Austin and like him. I am not convinced yet that Mayor Pete has any accomplishments to justify being POTUS. Time will tell

I am worried that sanders is still trying to divide the party with people like Sirota and attacks on other candidates.

[Gothmog]

114. Messina Says Sanders Can't Beat Trump

I agree with Jim Messina on this https://politicalwire.com/2019/04/17/messina-says-sanders-cant-beat-trump/

Jim Messina, who managed Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, told ABC News that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cannot beat President Trump in 2020.

Said Messina: “I think if you look at swing voters in this country they are incredibly focused on the economy. I think today you look at it and say that Bernie Sanders is unlikely going to be able to stand up to the constant barrage that is Donald Trump on economic issues.”

[rgbecker]

115. So Biden then????

[Gothmog]

116. Harris, Booker and Beto are also viable

All four of these candidates are electable. I have several people who I like. Electabilityis my main issue.

[Gothmog]

98. If sanders is the nominee, trump wins

Link to tweet

[artislife]

99. I supported him last time

And he is on my list.


I do have a problem with his age. My other two choices are Inslee and Harris.


edited to add:

I am grateful that he came forward and pushed the conversation back to New Deal Democratic conversations. I can see his influence in the new Democrats and on many platform pages of our candidates.

[Gothmog]

100. According to this study trump could win

There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable. This theory is wrong in that most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[rgbecker]

102. Thanks for posting this article.

They think the economy will not play as big a role as Trump's character and use the 2018 election as evidence.

A middle of the road Democrat may do well if Trump is indeed the candidate. If things change possibly because the GOP gets nervous and the election nears and polls show any one of the 20 Democratic candidates beating him, a moderate Democrat may be fighting with a moderate republican. Those that often stay home because the choice is not clear and nuances of politics are too complicated will have no candidate to turn to and will continue to not participate.

I'm lured by the siren call of the 40% who don't even to bother to vote in a presidential election. These high percentage rates of no shows are really pronounced in Texas, Tenn, W. Va., Ark. More than 45% stayed at home in 2016 in these states.

A simple, straight forward, no bull shit campaign to address these people's issues will propel the Democrats to victory no matter the Republican candidate or message.

[Gothmog]

110. According to Jim Messina, trump will beat sanders easily

Link to tweet

Political adviser Jim Messina, who managed former President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, answered a question Wednesday that has been on the minds of Democrats looking ahead at the 2020 presidential race.

"Can Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump?" ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked Messina on the Powerhouse Politics podcast on Wednesday.

"No," Messina responded.,,,,

"I think if you look at swing voters in this country they are incredibly focused on the economy," Messina replied. "I think today you look at it and say that Bernie Sanders is unlikely going to be able to stand up to the constant barrage that is Donald Trump on economic issues."

[BlueFlorida]

111. Trump is chomping at the bits

because he wants a real landslide of 45+ states. Sanders will give him that opportunity.

[Gothmog]

113. trump Shows That He Is Totally Terrified Of Joe Biden

trump wants to run against sanders and is afraid of Joe Biden

Link to tweet

The Republican Party would love to run against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) because they could make the election all about Sanders and socialism instead of Trump. They want to run against Buttigieg because they think they can use his sexual orientation and youth against him.

The person that Trump can’t figure out is Joe Biden. Trump has tried the “Sleepy Joe” attack but has flopped. Trump has now moved on to trying to attack Biden’s populism by coining him “1% Joe.” This also won’t work, especially coming from Donald Trump. Trump fears Biden’s populism and former vice president’s appeal in Rust Belt states.

Biden scares Trump, and that fear is never more obvious than when Trump starts talking about his potential opponents in 2020.

[Gothmog]

117. Nate Silver- Sanders Can Win, But He Isn't Polling Like A Favorite

Nate thinks that it is possible for sander to win the nomination but this is not likely. sanders is not going to be the nominee of the party. sanders thinks that getting 30% of the primary vote is sufficient which means taking the fight to the contested convention. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-can-win-but-he-isnt-polling-like-a-favorite/

Historically, though, candidates who are polling at only about 20 percent nationally despite the near-universal name recognition that Sanders enjoys don’t have a great track record. From our research on the history of past primary polls, I found 15 candidates from past nomination processes who, like Sanders, (i) polled at an average of between 15 percent and 25 percent4 in national polls in the first six months of the year before the Iowa caucuses5 and (ii) who had high or very high name recognition.6.....

Achieving a delegate majority could be hard for Sanders
You could also argue that the three winning candidates from the list — Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 — aren’t good comparisons for Sanders, especially from a “The Party Decides” standpoint where preferences among party insiders and activists are leading indicators of voter preferences. Romney, for instance, had the backing of the GOP party establishment as a potential consensus choice, whereas Sanders largely lacks it from Democrats. Obama was a rising star, rather than someone left over from a previous cycle, and gained a lot of momentum among party elites as the 2008 cycle wore on, even if they also liked Clinton. McCain, who ran against the party establishment in 2000 but was someone the party could live with in 2008, is in some ways the most favorable comparison for Sanders.

In many respects, however, Sanders is more similar to Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, George Wallace in 1972 and 1976 or Ron Paul in 2012, candidates who represented important constituencies within their respective parties but who didn’t have an obvious way to unite the rest of the party behind them or to win a delegate majority.

At times, Sanders’s strategists actually seem to be leaning into the strategy of being a factional candidate. The Sanders campaign may have all kinds of reasons to feel aggrieved by how the party establishment has treated it, especially when it reads articles like the one in The New York Times that suggest the establishment is out to get it again! Nonetheless, the campaign hasn’t sought to mend fences when conflicts have arisen this year. Instead, Sanders aides told The Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere that they think they can win the nomination with as little as a 30 percent plurality of delegates. That’s a risky strategy since it would necessarily entail a contested convention, where party insiders would play an outsized role. Nor would Sanders, a 77-year-old white man, reflect the various constituencies of the Democratic Party (and the demographics of the delegates themselves) as well as someone like Harris might.

sanders will not be the nominee if sanders only gets 30% of the primary vote. There are too many real democrats who have long memories and who will not forgive or forget. If this gets to a floor fight, the delegates for the other candidates will not support sanders and the super delegates will get to break any deadlocks after the first ballot.

[rgbecker]

118. I guess your worries are over. He doesn't have a chance of being the Democratic Candidate.

Thanks for kicking my post.

Still not picking someone to fill his shoes?

[Gothmog]

119. Candidates in Bernie Sanders's polling position mostly lost.

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

120. I have a good number of candidates who I am considering

I have a large number of candidates who I am considering. For example, this made me smile and I liked Senator Harris before this

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

121. Bernie is hoping for a brokered convention.

Link to tweet

[rgbecker]

122. I'd like to see some link indicating that

"Bernie is hoping for a Brokered Convention" from Bernie himself.

I think he's hoping he can build his support to a majority.

[Gothmog]

123. The Atlantic article is from the sanders campaign

Nate's article is based on an article in the Atlantic that quotes sanders people https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/bernie-sanders-thinking-he-will-win-it-all-2020/587326/

“There’s a three-out-of-four chance we are not the nominee,” Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s current campaign manager, says he tells the senator, “but that one-in-four chance is better than anyone else in the field.”...

He’s counting on winning Iowa and New Hampshire, where he was already surprisingly strong in 2016, and hoping that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris will split the black electorate in South Carolina and give him a path to slip through there, too. And then, Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention. They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen.

[rgbecker]

124. Sorry, doesn't even mention "hope".

Shakir seems to think all the other candidates are in a similar boat, only smaller. Are they also hoping for a Brokered Convention or is everyone just going to have to settle for one, like it or not?


Personally, I'm confident the primary voting will sort it out very quickly...especially with California moved up to the spring.

[Gothmog]

125. Nate is right that there is no way for sanders to get majority of delegates with 30% of primary vote

I really doubt that sanders will get 30% of the democratic primary vote in the real world with no or little support from African American voters. If there is a contested convention, sanders will not be the nominee

[Gothmog]

126. The choice is Woke or Win

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[rgbecker]

127. Could be the issue will change as the GOP comtemplates Trump's chances in 2020.

Will they jump, stay in the plane and hope Trump can land it or throw him out and fly it themselves?

Saw a prediction of 75% turnout for 2020. Please don't ask for link.

[Gothmog]

128. Washington Post-Opinion: If the economy keeps its momentum, 2020 will be Trump's to lose

If trump does not destroy the Obama recovery, then 2020 will be a very close election. I reject the concept that we can afford to nominate a weak/far left nominee. trump will beat a far left candidate easily if the economy remains strong

Link to tweet

One wonders whether, at some point, the economic boom will be so huge that it will drive opinions on its own. Once Democrats settle on a nominee, voters will have to make a choice: Do they stick with the guy they’ve got, warts and all, who has contributed to such good times? Or are they willing to take the risk that the next president, even if he or she is a better person, will screw things up with a new agenda?

One election model from Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, suggests the economy will be the winning factor. His “time for change” model has a solid track record in predicting the outcome and direction of presidential races, and data he published last month show that, so long as the economy continues to grow at a 2 percent clip, Trump should be a favorite for reelection even if his job approval rating is as poor as it is now.

Indeed, it’s even better than that for Trump. The model calculates an average gain of 2.5 electoral votes for every one-point Trump shaves off of his net job disapproval. According to the model, even if gross domestic product growth slumps to 1 percent, Trump could win the minimum 270 electoral votes he needs for reelection by lowering his net job disapproval rating to 7 percent. Right now, that number is around 10 percent.

Media attention is focused on the Mueller report and other congressional investigations. But if the economy keeps its momentum, even that or Trump’s failure to trumpet his success might not prevent him from winning a second term.

[rgbecker]

129. Gas will be $4 a gallon in 2020.

Inflation rate looks great if you don't look at energy and food prices. Climate change and Trump's trade wars will show that the sky is the limit for these necessities.

We'll need someone like Bernie to point out the true economic condition of the middle class. Biden is hoping the moral high ground will win the day. Blasting Trump for supporting Nazis is not going to shift the economic arguments to the Democrats' side.

[mtnsnake]

130. Very interesting post. I think it's the best argument I've heard for Bernie Sanders yet.

[rgbecker]

131. Thanks mtnsnake!

Gothmog keeps kicking this so at least it is getting some exposure. I think after the idea of Biden settles down, people will be back to looking at who is stimulating the 35-40% that don't bother voting. I don't see Biden doing it. Maybe my Senator Warren will be able to do it with her barrage of good ideas. I'd certainly switch to her if Bernie stumbles.

[Gothmog]

135. Most Believe Socialism Is Not American

Here is some polling that supports the concept that socialism is not in favor with American voters https://politicalwire.com/2019/05/06/most-believe-socialism-is-not-american/

A new Monmouth poll finds 57% of Americans say that socialism is not compatible with American values, while just 29% say it is compatible.

Key finding: 42% have a negative opinion of socialism in general, with another 45% having a neutral opinion and just 10% holding a positive view of socialism.

Meanwhile, 39% of Americans have a positive opinion of capitalism in general, while 40% have a neutral opinion and another 17% hold a negative view of capitalism.

[rgbecker]

136. Thanks for the encouragement.

55% (Majority) are positive or neutral!

" The poll finds some contradictory opinion on what socialism means to the public. Most Americans say that socialism “takes away too many individual rights,” either a great deal (35%) or somewhat (25%). Just one-third say this phrase describes socialism not much (13%) or not at all (20%). On the other hand, half of the public feels that socialism “is a way to make things fairer for working people,” either a great deal (15%) or somewhat (35%). Just under half, though, say this describes socialism not much (11%) or not at all (33%)."

" Applying these terms to a policy proposal that many say has its roots in socialism provides an illustration of this dissonant opinion. Specifically, a majority of Americans either strongly (41%) or somewhat (17%) favor creating a universal health care system while fewer than 4-in-10 either strongly (26%) or somewhat (11%) oppose this idea. When asked how they view this proposal in systematic terms, 37% describe universal health care as a socialist policy while just 4% describe it as a capitalist policy. However, a majority (53%) say they see universal health care as neither socialist nor capitalist."

"Democrats are the most likely to strongly favor (65%) establishing a universal health care system and see it as being neither socialist nor capitalist (76%). A plurality of independents (42%) strongly favor universal health care and 55% see it as neither socialist nor capitalist. A majority of Republicans (54%), though, strongly oppose universal health care, with 75% saying it is a socialist policy.

“We shouldn’t ignore the possibility that ‘neutral’ could be a way for some Americans, especially Democrats, to couch their policy preferences without using a term that has historically negative connotations. This is going to be a real challenge for left-leaning candidates in the 2020 presidential race. The party base seems to be saying, ‘We like your platform, just don’t use the word socialism to describe it,’” said Murray."

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050619/

[Gothmog]

137. Washington Post-Opinion: Voters aren't playing along with the media narrative

Link to tweet

The mainstream media narratives persist: The Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left. There’s a war between the status quo Democrats who just want to get rid of President Trump and the radicals who want fundamental change. Leftists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) control the terms of the debate. Democrats want ideological agreement more than electability.

The problem with all of these “takes” is that there is little or no evidence that they correspond with reality. To the dismay of the pundits and the cable TV news execs who pine for high-decibel shouting matches between two evenly matched sides (Good ratings!), at this stage in the race there is extraordinary consensus around a moderate Democrat well-situated to beat Trump.

The latest Hill-HarrisX poll shows former vice president Joe Biden opening up a 32-point lead over Sanders, whose claim to the party’s heart is evaporating before our eyes. The latest Morning Consult poll shows Biden expanding his share to 40 percent (up 4 points from the previous week) and Sanders tumbling to 19 percent (down from 27 percent in February). In other words, available evidence suggests that at present the predicted story lines aren’t emerging....

However, the gap is striking between the race that the mainstream media has been covering and the actual race to date. Rather than assuming that Sanders rules the roost and that African American voters are going to be the most progressive and most open to left-leaning newcomers, reporters should spend less time on Twitter and more time with regular voters. They would be surprised to find that they have been extrapolating from a small segment of super-progressive, mostly white Democrats. Their “take” is therefore not a very accurate representation of the party as a whole or of the current state of the race.

[Gothmog]

138. Gallop-Less Than Half in U.S. Would Vote for a Socialist for President

This polling would make it very difficult to win with a socialist candidate on the ballot https://news.gallup.com/poll/254120/less-half-vote-socialist-president.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than half of Americans (47%) say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who is a socialist -- the same percentage Gallup found in 2015. A socialist candidate is the only one among a dozen hypothetical candidates about whom a minority of Americans say they are willing to give their vote....

In spite of the expanded tolerance for diversity, candidates labeling themselves as socialists may struggle to gain traction in a presidential race, as Americans have not become more open to such a candidate. Even as political figures advocating socialist ideas have gained popularity in Democratic circles in recent years, less than half of Americans remain willing to give an avowed socialist candidate their vote. This creates a challenge for the Democratic Party, as it seeks to avoid alienating the Democratic socialists within its rank and file, while still aiming to win a national election.

[rgbecker]

139. I guess Bernie will have to settle for 47%!

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265

What percentage voted for Trump in 2016?

The population of the USA is 325,719,178. 62,984,828 people voted for Donald Trump. 62,984,828/325,719,178 = 19%. 136,626,025 people voted approximately at the last Presidential election. The electoral role population is about 245,289,093. 62,984,828/245,289,093 = 26%. Or 136,626,025 people voted. 62,984,828/136,626,025 = 46%. Therefore depending on what figure you take; the total US population, the total Electoral role or the number of people who voted you get three different answers; 19%, 26% or 46%. Thank you for the question.

[Gothmog]

140. The GOP has large oppo file and would use this and other material if sanders was nominee

Trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

I am so glad that sanders is being vetted this cycle and will not be the nominee

[Gothmog]

141. Bernie's mystery Soviet tapes revealed

In addition to the Oppo that the GOP already had accumulated, this comes out with even more material that will show up in ads if sanders is the nominee

Link to tweet

Sanders’ opponents, though, will likely find much in the tapes to call outlandish. And in a campaign season in which Democrats are concerned about nothing more than defeating President Donald Trump, there’s plenty of material that Democratic voters might worry the Republican Party could spin into a 30-second negative ad.

[Gothmog]

142. New CNN poll: A majority of Americans say they think President Trump is going to win a second term

Link to tweet

A majority of Americans say they think Donald Trump is going to win a second term, according to a CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, even as the President's reviews on issues other than the economy remain largely negative.

The new poll finds 54% say their best guess is that Trump will win the 2020 election, 41% feel he will lose. Americans are slightly more apt to say Trump will win now than they were to say Barack Obama would win a second term in May 2011, in a survey conducted just after the death of Osama bin Laden (50% thought Obama would win in that poll). The new numbers on Trump are a reversal from December, when a narrow majority of 51% said they thought Trump would lose his bid for re-election.

The shift over that time comes mostly among those who disapprove of Trump's handling of the presidency. In December, 81% in that group said they thought the President would lose, and now, that's fallen to 67%. At the same time, the share who approve of the President and think he will win has held mostly steady (88% now vs. 85% in December).

The dislike those disapprovers hold for Trump is palpable in the poll. Asked to explain in their own words why they disapprove of Trump, Trump's behavior is a central reason. The most frequently cited responses are lying (13%), racism (11%), incompetence (11%) and not acting presidential (7%). Immigration, named by 7%, is the only specific issue that merits mention by 5% or more.

[rgbecker]

143. You might enjoy this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=144370

[Gothmog]

144. From the Washington Post-The GOP is giddy about running against a socialist

Link to tweet

Republicans are downright giddy about all this. What’s a scarier term to the American public than “socialist”? And with one of the leaders in the Democratic Party embracing it, their pitch to voters that Democrats want to radically change the country to something unrecognizable just got a lot easier.

“You add up things like packing the Supreme Court, getting rid of the electoral college, the Green New Deal and Medicare for none and you have a prescription of turning America into something it never has been and never should be,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said recently. “So we intend to be on the offense in running our races."

“We’re going into the war with some socialists,” Trump told a fundraiser in April.

This could be the defining debate of the 2020 election. Trump is so happy with that. Sanders is fine with that. The rest of the candidates aren’t so sure. But given the way this debate is shaping up, they may have no choice but to pick a side.

[LibFarmer]

145. It's all over for Bernie nt

[Gothmog]

146. New poll: Capitalism is more popular than socialism

Link to tweet

A new Pew Research poll finds that “a much larger share of Americans have a positive impression of capitalism (65%) than socialism (42%).” The partisan gap is significant, though: “Nearly eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaning independents (78%) express somewhat or very positive reactions to the term, while just over half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (55%) say they have a positive impression.” The intensity of anti-socialism sentiment (63 percent of Republicans have a very negative view) dwarfs that of pro-socialism sentiment (only 14 percent of Democrats have a very positive view).....

First, “socialism” is a red flag for Republicans and Republican-leaners to a degree that “progressive” (which 40 percent of Republicans view favorably) is not. There’s not even all that much payoff among Democrats, since 33 percent of Democrats have a negative view of that term, while only 12 percent have a very positive view of socialism. If you want a Democratic nominee to have the broadest ideological appeal, the most unifying descriptor among Democrats is “progressive” (88 percent), not socialism (65 percent).....

First, “socialism” is a red flag for Republicans and Republican-leaners to a degree that “progressive” (which 40 percent of Republicans view favorably) is not. There’s not even all that much payoff among Democrats, since 33 percent of Democrats have a negative view of that term, while only 12 percent have a very positive view of socialism. If you want a Democratic nominee to have the broadest ideological appeal, the most unifying descriptor among Democrats is “progressive” (88 percent), not socialism (65 percent).

[LongtimeAZDem]

149. He was a deadbeat dad who supported Communist dictators; he would be shredded in a general election

[Gothmog]

150. Analysis How Trump wins in 2020: Americans see his opponent as a "socialist"

Link to tweet

But there is one matchup in which Trump actually leads: When voters have to choose between him and a candidate they believe is a “socialist,” Trump led 49 percent to 43 percent.

This is obviously a hypothetical exercise. The idea that the Democratic nominee will call themselves a socialist is far-fetched (even Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont prefers to be called a “democratic socialist&quot . And just because Trump argues that his opponent is a socialist doesn’t mean they will be viewed by everyone — or even most people — accordingly.

But the finding does hint at how central this question could be to Trump’s reelection hopes. Given Trump’s long-standing unpopularity, a big question has always been whether he will be able to take the eventual Democratic nominee and drag them down to his level. He showed he could do it in 2016 with Hillary Clinton, who ended the campaign as unpopular as Trump was, but it’s not clear whether he’ll be able to do it again.

Trump also has some material to work with. The Democratic candidates in the first debate two weeks ago went further to the left on issues such as health care and immigration than in any modern Democratic primary. Many of them embraced single-payer health care, and some even said they would eliminate private health insurance. Many said they would decriminalize crossing the border without documentation, making it a civil matter. And many said they would support health-care coverage for undocumented immigrants, which California only recently became the first state to experiment with.

[Gothmog]

153. Why Elizabeth Warren Is Trump's Weakest Opponent

Link to tweet

Even if voters aren’t dwelling on policy specifics, their ideological perception of the candidates makes a huge difference. Democrats deliberately avoided invoking polarizing cultural issues when competing for swing districts last year—a strategy that allowed them to comfortably win back the House majority. The relative few who invoked a populist message like Warren’s lost winnable suburban seats.

It’s Politics 101: When there are more conservative (and moderate) voters than liberal ones, it’s very difficult to put together a winning coalition with just a progressive base. The only way to do it is by betting that Trump is so toxic that a critical majority of voters will automatically reject him. That strategy didn’t work well for Hillary Clinton in the last election.

Warren also carries other specific vulnerabilities into a matchup against Trump. She currently relies on a faction of white liberal support, struggling to win over African-American voters to her side. If Democrats believe the key to winning is by rallying their diverse base, it’s hard to see Warren accomplishing that goal. Her nomination threatens to be a double-whammy: turning off swing suburban voters without any gains in nonwhite voter turnout.

But make no mistake: They’re playing with fire. Trump is highly vulnerable, but he has the ability to win a second term if the Democratic nominee appears as extreme as he is. Warren has a realistic chance of becoming the next president, but she also could jeopardize it all for the Democratic Party.