https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-set-announce-2020-presidential-run-234647684.html


Bernie Sanders set to announce 2020 presidential run
Hunter Walker White House Correspondent,Yahoo News•January 25, 2019
Scroll back up to restore default view.
WASHINGTON—Three years after fighting a surprisingly competitive Democratic primary race against Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, is making another run for the White House.

Two sources with direct knowledge of his plans told Yahoo News that Sanders, an independent and self-described “democratic socialist,” plans to announce his presidential bid imminently. While Sanders has been considering a bid for months, one of the sources said he was emboldened by early polls of the race that have consistently showed him as one of the top candidates in a crowded Democratic primary field. In particular, the source said Sanders was heartened to see numbers indicating he is one of the leading candidates among African American and Latino voters, two groups he was perceived as struggling with in 2016.


Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, in the Capitol on Jan. 24, 2019. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images)
More
The source also alluded to a spate of recent polls that show Sanders as the most popular politician in the country. They attributed Sanders’ strength in the polls to the base and name recognition he built with the prior presidential bid.

“What the senator has this time that he didn’t have last time is he is the most popular elected official in the country right now,” the source said. “That’s light years away from 2016, when very few people knew who he was.”

A third source said Sanders’ bid will begin with an exploratory committee. Sanders’ campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.

In addition to these two sources, a former Sanders staffer who had not been briefed on the imminent announcement plans nevertheless said many recent signs suggest he is set to pull the trigger on a presidential campaign. Specifically, the former staffer said Sanders has been building out the infrastructure he would need for a White House bid.

“He’s already talking to staff and there are people he’s hiring. They’re nailing down contracts with vendors. … All the movement is there for him to run,” the ex-staffer said.

Although Sanders was ultimately defeated by Clinton last time around, his upstart campaign reshaped the Democratic Party. Sanders ran on a progressive platform that included a focus on eliminating income inequality, on campaign finance reform and an ambitious “Medicare for All” health care proposal. Those principles have become centerpieces for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and several Sanders-backed candidates won elections last year.

But Sanders’ impact on the Democratic Party went beyond his political vision. The primary battle between Sanders and Clinton was contentious, with Sanders allies contending that Clinton’s campaign was working in conjunction with the Democratic Party establishment to prevent a Sanders victory. These battles cemented divisions in this party that linger on as the 2020 election approaches.

After President Trump’s victory over Clinton in 2016, Sanders and his allies pressed for reforms to the Democratic National Committee that would make the party’s primary process more open and inclusive of what Sanders termed “the working people and young people of our country.”

Amid Sanders’ push for reform, the DNC assembled a “unity commission” to recommend changes that included members chosen by both Sanders and Clinton. Ultimately, the DNC made rules changes that included one of the main items on Sanders’ agenda, curbing the role of unelected superdelegates in choosing the party’s presidential nominee. At the same time, the DNC also adopted a rules change that would make it more difficult for independents like Sanders to seek the party’s presidential nomination.

In spite of this, Sanders’ allies consider that this new rule does not hurt his chances, because the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution last year recognizing him as a full member. A source who discussed Sanders’ 2020 plans with Yahoo News confirmed that he will be running as a Democrat.

Although he will be entering an extremely crowded Democratic field, Sanders is starting from a formidable position. Early polls of the race have consistently showed him to be one of the top candidates, probably due to the base of support he established in 2016. Sanders allies also believe his prior run could give him a head start organizing in key early primary states. Last October, Pete D’Alessandro, Sanders’s Iowa state coordinator for the 2016 race, told Yahoo News he was confident the senator would be able to build on the grassroots support and infrastructure he established in 2016 if he made another run.

“This was a movement. It still is a movement,” D’Alessandro said.

goddamn it can't there be a younger social democrat running....

look at who abstained in 2016: younger voters, POC, etc. groups that turned out for Sanders in the primary in large part and groups he could have excited/connected with, despite being an old Ashkenazi guy. personally i think he is still the most electable candidate in the field, all things considered.

and lost to trump straight up.

he basically split even with clinton on white voters and did worse with everyone else.

the only subgroup he beat clinton in...younger voters. who vote at like half the rate of their older counterparts.

i have no idea why anybody just assumed he was a more electable candidate than the person that beat him in the primary by 4 million votes.

theres literally no objective metric that points to that.

Sorry man but you are looking at this the wrong way, if he picks up *any* votes from the base, he wins the election. Were Hillary voters going to stay home if Sanders won? I think not. She ran such a poor campaign and carried so much baggage that just about anyone who was capable of winning the nomination had a better shot, and that definitely includes Sanders. I can't point to a state where he would have fared worse and any sort of bump in PA/MI/WI gets him into the White House. Different set of circumstances this time, I know, but he is still polling strong, still a progressive product in conventional packaging, etc.

history is very clear about dems candidates who run to the left at the national level or in close competitive states/districts. they lose.

presidential elections are won in the middle. especially for democrats.

bernie would have performed worse than hillary among moderates. and black people. and latinos. and urban voters. and suburban voters.

thats the entire ballgame right there for democratic party candidates.

people had this romanticized daydream of him possibly winning over white working class voters who voted for trump. but he split the wwc with clinton almost evenly. and even if he did marginally better with them...he would have done significantly worse than everyone else.

bernie would have had a demographically contracted coalition of voters compared to obama/clinton(h). in no realistic world does that amount to a victory.

no one is going to talk to me about conventional in an election with trump and much less while he is actually president.

bernie would have performed worse than hillary among
>moderates. and black people. and latinos. and urban voters.
> and suburban voters.

i don't see him doing worse among black, latinos, white women or young voters, all groups that hillary vastly underperformed in. urban vote, if we're using the term precisely, is not an issue for the DNC. suburban voters, eh, maybe, but she tried to steal votes in the burbs from the center/center-right and failed. again, let's not underestimate just how poorly she performed, even though she did win the populat vote.

>thats the entire ballgame right there for democratic party
>candidates.
>
>people had this romanticized daydream of him possibly winning
>over white working class voters who voted for trump. but he
>split the wwc with clinton almost evenly. and even if he did
>marginally better with them...he would have done significantly
>worse than everyone else.

i don't have that dream at all and i don't know many people who do. sanders' success will come in energizing the BASE, also some potential non-voters, independents and obviously the growing segment of far-left voters. just about anyone but the middle and trump voters (though he did get some potential non-voters, some of whom could be swayed by an equally forceful yet opposite message).

>bernie would have had a demographically contracted coalition
>of voters compared to obama/clinton(h). in no realistic world
>does that amount to a victory.

this sounds like it was typed in 2016 before the election. she got creamed. she used no momentum or lessons from obama. we already had the election and her fortunes didnt play out how you're describing, and the speculation about sanders is based on basic electoral politics tenets from 40 years ago.

is running a candidate who did worse in virtually every imaginable segment of the base lol.

hey i have an idea...in a party thats getting increasingly diverse and more feminine...dems should have run someone who does markedly worse with minorities and women lol.

'but bernie would have (insert something bernie has never done)'

if your whole argument is based on hypothetical outcomes that defy every historical trend on record (including the last primary and general)...its time to drop that argument.

thats not even good monday morning quarterbacking. its fantasizing.

you would literally have to 'throw history out the window' for it to make any degree of sense.

>she got creamed. she used no momentum or lessons from obama.

not even tryna be funny...but are you gonna say anything based on objective facts/data?

clinton won the 2nd most votes in history. more than obamas 2nd run. how exactly is that getting creamed and not using his momentum?

you run to win the election, which means winning the electoral college. she ignored or largely ignored key states and key segments of her base, several of which you named. beyond this "total" are any of *your* statements based on facts? if she did so well with women, latinos and black voters, how the hell did she manage to lose the election or even let Trump come as close as he did in the popular vote (which I realize is not particularly close)?

so far the poo-pooing of Sanders i see are people who are still deluded about the fact that she performed poorly. pointing to the popular vote is like telling me how well a soccer played on a futsal-sized field. the other group are people who want a candidate with similar ideas and records to his but in a younger, likely darker and possibly female body. sounds awesome. find me that person.

exactly.

no disrespect...but are you researching these things before you type them out?

you keep saying things dont matter that have historically been shown to matter. and matter a lot. in fact...entire elections have relied upon them mattering.

youre literally making stuff up to create outcomes based on completely hypothetical scenarios disproven by actual facts.

'lets completely ignore objectively demonstrated reality and throw out everything that actually happened just to wing it and try to reach our goal based on what i have a hunch could happen'.

thats not how things work.

>exactly.
>
>no disrespect...but are you researching these things before
>you type them out?

are YOU? did i ever say that a democrat has won the EC without the popular vote? did i ever say they should have pursued that strategy? they quite simply should have pursued a strategy that would have won the electoral college, and the popular vote, in their case, would have fallen in line without any issue.

what matters in winning the presidency is the electoral college. republicans have figured that out and have managed to win two elections (two of the three they have won in this century) without it. yet the dems aren't figuring that out. yes, they would win *both* the popular vote and the electoral college, yet they managed to neglect two battleground states (WI, MI) and take a piss poor approach in another (PA, where every union household they lost would, purportedly, be replaced by two moderate Republican ones in places like Bucks County).

>you keep saying things dont matter that have historically been
>shown to matter. and matter a lot. in fact...entire
>elections have relied upon them mattering.

OK, who wins the presidency in a split? The candidate who won the populate vote or the one who won the electoral college? Draw a straight line from the answer to what matters. Yes, the Dems would have won *both* with an effective strategy, however, again, weighing which one matters more and which aspect was neglected is a very easy task.

>youre literally making stuff up to create outcomes based on
>completely hypothetical scenarios disproven by actual facts.

huh? the winner of the EC is the president. that's a FACT. the DNC did not learn from 2000 where they had a re-run look at this. more established candidate, off the Clinton tree, capable of winning the popular vote comfortably, etc. they turned around and made many of the same mistakes and innovated new errors.

>'lets completely ignore objectively demonstrated reality and
>throw out everything that actually happened just to wing it
>and try to reach our goal based on what i have a hunch could
>happen'.
>
>thats not how things work.

not sure what you're reading because you're suggesting i said they should have pursued a strategy i never even mentioned and then just kicking back a ton of indignation instead of responding to the substance of an argument, most of which you seem to be making up for yourself.

>i don't see him doing worse among black, latinos, white women
>or young voters, all groups that hillary vastly underperformed
>in.

The notion that Trump would've somehow siphoned these voters away from Sanders in a general election is ridiculous. Primary politics and General Election politics are diff. animals.

>this sounds like it was typed in 2016 before the election. she
>got creamed. she used no momentum or lessons from obama. we
>already had the election and her fortunes didnt play out how
>you're describing, and the speculation about sanders is based
>on basic electoral politics tenets from 40 years ago.

Hillary missed the wide-open dunk.


-->

which some of them did with clinton (compared to obama). and it would have been objectively worse with bernie (based on actual primary data).

this idea that bernie would have appealed more in the general to the groups of people who voted for him the least in the primary is wild delusional and unrealistic.

>which some of them did with clinton (compared to obama). and
>it would have been objectively worse with bernie (based on
>actual primary data).

What data? I'm legit curious to see it.


-->

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

hillary won black voters by an over 50%(!) margin. they virtually split white voters (despite any pervasive rhetoric to the contrary).

ideologically self-defined...clinton and sanders virtually split 'very liberal' voters. clinton won 'somewhat liberal' voters by a healthy margin and ran away with moderate voters (who make up the plurality of voters...especially in the general).

age/education/income...bernie won voters under 30 (the least active voting bloc) and got curb stomped everywhere else at all ages, all incomes, and all levels of education (puts the bernie white working class folklore to rest).

clinton won 80+% of cities and 75+% of suburbs lol. those are where dems absolutely have to run up the margins to win statewide and national elections and bernie got absolutely crushed there.

bernies only advantage was in rural white counties and college towns.

sending a dem nominee into the general who is severely lagging behind in support from those many constituencies in the dem base was not the move lol.

once again...bernie was just the weaker candidate *all around*. thats the way it goes sometimes.

theres zero objective way to arrive at the conclusion that bernie would have turned out dem voters better than clinton. all objective evidence actually concludes the opposite.

It's good (and accurate) data - but it explains why (and how) Clinton decisively and soundly defeated Sanders in a democratic primary (including many primary elections in states which do not feature open primaries). What I was asking for was data that supports your claim that Sanders was the far weaker candidate in a general election against Trump - factoring in the aggregate electorate in a presidential election (not the vastly different electorate featured in a Democratic primary).


-->

The numbers were wrong, it wasn’t the Gregorian 2012!!
Like go sit down somewhere.


And I say all this as a person that voted for Bernie in the primaries because I liked his platform.

but its hard to act like reality aint reality lol.

i cant believe people are still carrying on about some of this stuff in 2019 like we didnt watch 2016.

Not a crisis of existence

something that is rarely talked about in liberal circles is culturally displaced whites who wanna destroy/'reform' the party they feel that they are entitled to own.

an increasingly diverse democratic party is less 'real' to them.

even with DNC cheating, I absolutely DID NOT want Hillary to be the candidate. this is just gonna repeat 2016.

supported sanders yet act like another run for him would some crushing blow to the DNC's chances, especially before he even has the nomination. i was a reluctant supporter of his but over time i think he's put even more substance behind his candidacy. again i also don't think you can extrapolate all the demographic numbers from the primary into a general election, it's a totally different set of circumstances facing someone in your party vs the opposition, and more specifically facing clinton or trump.

Clown ass

who can't handle more than 140 characters or express his own opinions. i could count on my dick how many worthwhile posts you've made over the years, so this is no surprise.

I wish they could take his policy ideas, air lift them and put them in a whole different person

every bit as progressive as bernie...good standing with the mainstream party...a strong record of actually getting stuff done (like cfpb). she obviously stumbled out the gate...but having a bernie endorsement and his army behind her would have made her a more formidable candidate and also kept bernies policy objectives at the forefront.

oddly...shes only 3 years younger than trump. but she doesnt look/act like it.

and the funny thing is, come the primary I'll probably still vote for Bernie. but I don't believe he'll win the primary and people severely underestimate the level to which he's a scapegoat for 2016.

(even though I blame Hillary far, far, far more. just a horrible candidate)

but neither will IMHO

In 2016 there was a plethora of established and credible polling that signaled Sanders soundly defeating Trump in a general.

According to RealClear Politics data, NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys had Sanders up by an average of 9 points. CBS News/New York Times polls showed Sanders ahead by an average of 15 points.

Ain't no way Sanders would've got swept in the rust-belt -- and he also would've won significantly more independent voters. In the midst of the red v. blue bonanza, people often forget that independent voters often comprise the largest (and most significant) % of voters in a general election.

-->

I'm here for you if you need to talk.
-->

My life will be fine

-->

the clinton campaign barely did oppo research on him and still relatively cruised to victory.

in a general election...he would have been absolutely bloodied.

what do they think was gonna happen when repubs showed clips of him regularly singing the praises of authoritarian fidel castro?

what about repubs running non-stop ads tying him to the brutal poverty, failed economy, and dissolved democracy of 'socialist' venezuela?

what about when republicans harped on the current fbi investigation into his wife?

how was he gonna get people to support his fiscal policy and stance against corruption when repubs run ads about how his wife bankrupted a financially solvent college with a shady real estate deal where she intentionally falsified donor financial info?

how was he gonna persuade voters to support medicare for all when repubs run ads about how it failed in his own home state?

how would he be able to attack trump for not showing his taxes when bernie refused to show his (except for one inconsequential year)?

bernie never really had to deal with being put through the political fire.

he could have conceivably been crushed in 2016 once repub super pacs went into high gear.

Brown people
Policing
Surveillance
Gun control
Women’s rights
Queer rights
Gerrymandering
Health care
Income inequality
Infrastructure


Are all bargaining chips to them.
Fuck them.

cuz they only view things through a lens tinted with a limited set of criteria.

everything else is identity politics.

white far lefties have well documented history of engineering political disasters for the left at large. they refuse to see error of their counter-productive ways tho.

So how are independents delusional by not supporting the two parties?

First, the idea that neither party cares about them is a matter for debate
Second, that care is important isn’t worth discussing because assigning emotions to entities is dumb
Third, one party actively and directly makes those items worse, actively and directly
Fourth, if the items are core to your well being then they’re non negotiable
Lastly, if the items are core to your well being and one party actively and directly makes them worse then you need to be invested in seeing them lose

That any of this is up for debate is more reflective of what threatens and individual more so than what one cares about

Maybe I'm slow this morning, but I don't follow any of what you just typed.

Both parties are economically beholden to the corporate interests that worsen most of your list. And all of those items on your list are economic issues, primarily (they are definitely mixed with other shit, but money is a BIG part of all of them).

If both parties are in bed with the corporate interests that make the problems worth, how is it that indies not trusting the two parties = not caring?
Also, the idea that there are no Black radicals left of Dems is ridiculous.

we're poor & imprisoned like fucking animals BECAUSE corporate interests profit from it
Black women are dying in childbirth BECAUSE of the poverty that corporate interests puts us in.
Race IS class
Shit there was a Darrick Hamilton study that showed race is a better indicator of class mobility in America than class, itself.
You can't seperate the two.

And shit, even if all that above is false (it ain't, but...) what fuckin policies have either party fought for on a national level that has actively improved our lives since, like 1992?

Help
Which is why in 2016, I voted for Senator Sanders
But in 2019 and 2020 the world has changed so dramatically and the situations are so dire that systematic long term solutions seem dumb

one more rapid and helpful than a federal minimum wwage increase or single payer healthcare?

Racism is economic.
And given how poor Black people are, talking about our political situation without talking about economics is suicidal.

You can keep your high brow take for white people.

let's get some short-sighted, knee-jerk, superficial solutions in here ASAP!

interesting to me that so many moaning and groaning about sanders here fucking voted for him just a hair over two years ago. strength of conviction, fellas, you've got it in fucking spades.

Fundamental skills required in efficient reading comprehension are knowing meaning of words, ability to understand meaning of a word from discourse context, ability to follow organization of passage and to identify antecedents and references in it, ability to draw inferences from a passage about its contents, ability to identify the main thought of a passage, ability to answer questions answered in a passage, ability to recognize the literary devices or propositional structures used in a passage and determine its tone, to understand the situational mood (agents, objects, temporal and spatial reference points, casual and intentional inflections, etc.) conveyed for assertions, questioning, commanding, refraining etc. and finally ability to determine writer's purpose, intent and point of view, and draw inferences about the writer (discourse-semantics).

In semiotics, linguistics, sociology and anthropology, context refers to those objects or entities which surround a focal event, in these disciplines typically a communicative event, of some kind. Context is "a frame that surrounds the event and provides resources for its appropriate interpretation". It is thus a relativistic concept, only definable with respect to some focal event, not independently.

and I see your whole "be terse, be cryptic, sound profound" approach. not interested.

that showed clinton ahead of trump...base their entire argument for bernie as a general election candidate on polls that showed bernie ahead of trump?

got it.

how do you make that logic work in your head?

i guess its 'credible polling' when your guy is leading?

bernie and hillary split the rust belt 50/50. hillary won the biggest states of pa and oh by over 10% in each state. bernie won wi and mi (mi by only about 1% even with a surge of independent bernie supporters in an open primary).

bernie lost the vote by wide margins in urban and suburban areas...where dems need to run up the score to win national elections.

so that equates to bernie winning the rust belt?

once again...how do you make that logic work in your head?

i think bernie supporters are relying way too much on cultural cues and personality folklore than actual voter behavior displayed in hardcoded election data.

to support that Sanders would've outperformed Clinton in a general. Those same polls had Clinton beating Trump in a general, but just barely, whereas they had Sanders winning by a comfortable margin.

This isn't even logic - it's just pollster math.

>bernie and hillary split the rust belt 50/50. hillary won the
>biggest states of pa and oh by over 10% in each state. bernie
>won wi and mi (mi by only about 1% even with a surge of
>independent bernie supporters in an open primary).

again - you're speaking as if the electorate math in a primary mirrors the electorate in a general, but it doesn't. Do you honestly think that Sanders would've gotten swept in the rust belt?

It's correct to note that Clinton had stronger support in the Democratic primary electorate (though Sanders certainly tested that in a way that nobody thought he could could) - but the electorate in a General election features markedly different voting trends/behavior. The aforementioned polls (again, not my opinion) reflected that.

>i think bernie supporters are relying way too much on cultural
>cues and personality folklore than actual voter behavior
>displayed in hardcoded election data.

I'm not supporting Sanders in this primary (he's not my first choice, though I would gladly get behind him if he emerges as the favorite), but it's funny that you are talking about "folklore" when I just gave you polling facts.

But I'd like to check out some data to support your claim if you'd like to share.


-->

>This isn't even logic - it's just pollster math.

then why would you provide poll results as 'objective data'? clue me in cuz im genuinely confused.

imagine basing medical research and development entirely on questionnaires on what doctors want to happen or think would happen in the near future.

the most objective data is actual results. which i keep stating but for some reason yall are trying to overrule it with wishes and theories.



>again - you're speaking as if the electorate math in a primary
>mirrors the electorate in a general, but it doesn't. Do you
>honestly think that Sanders would've gotten swept in the rust
>belt?

you and concretecharlie continue to base your entire outlook on 'i think...'. im basing mine on 'what happened...'.

nothing is guaranteed. but the best predictor of the future is the past (which is why we teach history and store data). and the best predictor of general election behavior is primary election behavior (which is why campaigns heavily target likely primary voters for their general election campaigns).

and theres a big difference between variance from a low turnout district primary to the general...and a national general election following a robust nationwide primary carried out over several demographically diverse states with millions of people.

in fact. do me a favor. name me any other *presidential* election in modern history where the stronger (allegedly) general election candidate lost in the primary (by over 10% at that lol).

cuz its honestly a phenomenon ive never heard of until 2016.

is it possible that youre overlooking consistently defined behavior...and retrofitting logic/common sense...just to appease your favoritism? give some serious thought to that question.



>It's correct to note that Clinton had stronger support in the
>Democratic primary electorate (though Sanders certainly tested
>that in a way that nobody thought he could could) - but the
>electorate in a General election features markedly different
>voting trends/behavior. The aforementioned polls (again, not
>my opinion) reflected that.

but the general electorate doesnt feature markedly different voting trends/behavior. maybe slightly different to marginally/nominally different. but not 'completely upending' entire history and conventional wisdom' different.

in fact...when you look at trumps victory strictly through the prism of historical trends and traditional/orthodox rules of thumb...it was completely predictable. running against 3rd term party incumbent, running against candidate relatively unpopular with her own party, etc.

it was a strong case of historical voter behavior patterns overshadowing the specifics.


>I'm not supporting Sanders in this primary (he's not my first
>choice, though I would gladly get behind him if he emerges as
>the favorite), but it's funny that you are talking about
>"folklore" when I just gave you polling facts.
>
>But I'd like to check out some data to support your claim if
>you'd like to share.


'polling facts'? did you really just say that? lol.

what claim do you want me to support with data? the results of the 2016 primary? you dont believe anything i said happened...happened?

>imagine basing medical research and development entirely on
>questionnaires on what doctors want to happen or think would
>happen in the near future.

Medical research \= presidential polling. Clearly, there is no way to definitively know how a hypothetical match-up would play out - that's why reputable polling becomes useful analytics (sort of how data analytics is used in sports to have some predictive sense of how a player/team might perform in the future in various scenarios).

Not an exact science - but to say it's absent of any utility is to ignore useful data at your own peril.

>the most objective data is actual results. which i keep
>stating but for some reason yall are trying to overrule it
>with wishes and theories.

Indeed. Like the results of Clinton actually losing an election to Donald Trump.

>and theres a big difference between variance from a low
>turnout district primary to the general...and a national
>general election following a robust nationwide primary carried
>out over several demographically diverse states with millions
>of people.

Indeed - and all of that was factored in by the polling data referenced above. Are you attempting to debunk that polling data? If so, based on what evidence? Just that Clinton beat Bernie in a primary? You watch boxing fam -- so you know that "styles make fights." But you're also discounting the now established fact (even according to DNC officials at the time) that the primary was skewed in Clinton's favor in a shameful manner. So, was it even a fair fight?

>in fact...when you look at trumps victory strictly through the
>prism of historical trends and traditional/orthodox rules of
>thumb...it was completely predictable. running against 3rd
>term party incumbent, running against candidate relatively
>unpopular with her own party, etc.

Trump's presidency defied a lot of conventional wisdom in politics (the conventional wisdom was that Jeb Bush & Clinton were to be the nominees based on historical trends) - but there are rumblings within both parties that create unpredictable electoral trends. For example, for the first time in history, more than 50% of the Democratic base now defines themselves as "progressive" - that's a direct reflection of the 2016 democratic primary, the influx of new energy in Congress; indicative of where the party will be trending moving forward.

>what claim do you want me to support with data? the results
>of the 2016 primary? you dont believe anything i said
>happened...happened?

I'd like something besides just your long-winded opinion.


-->

>Medical research \= presidential polling. Clearly, there is
>no way to definitively know how a hypothetical match-up would
>play out - that's why reputable polling becomes useful
>analytics (sort of how data analytics is used in sports to
>have some predictive sense of how a player/team might perform
>in the future in various scenarios).

data analytics in sports is based on actual *past* behavior. its compiling data on material actions that have *already taken place* to give insight into something that has not yet (like using primary data to give insight about general performance...which i have been doing).

thats the very opposite of what you are suggesting.

predictive polling is based entirely on subjective questioning/answering without *any* consideration for hardcoded past data. its literally just a collection of peoples opinions lol.

predictive polling is like forecasting the weather with no noaa radar data or historical trends. its going outside and asking your neighbors 'do you want rain or sunshine today?'.

*exit* polling is actually 'data analytics' and far more conclusive/useful. exit polls are results based on *real* voter behavior and concrete actions. thats where you analyze what people actually *did* and not what they say they wanted to do.

thats why...after elections occur...they dont go to pre-election polls to tell the story of what happened lol. they go to the exit poll data.

so I expect to see nary a link from you to any polling that suggests Kamala is a front-runner or a strong candidate when matched versus Trump lol.

-->

its just a view into how people feel at that moment in time.

which is exactly how i treat it.

intention isnt action.

i dont say shit like 'kamala is leading in polls so she is virtually guaranteed to win'. im more like 'kamala is leading in a progressive poll and im surprised this many progressives prefer her over progressive candidate x'.

feel me?

because to assume they are going to turn out in force because of social media outrage is historically misguided

"you shouldn't hector them"... I'm like L M A O

motherfucker, cast a vote or GTFO

and they also helped get obama elected twice.

it's a tough proposition but if we want things to move left and with enough speed to have a permanent mark on the barometer, they need to be involved in a significant way.

Betto/Kamalah?

Lol



... "A Beautiful Struggle"
https://m.facebook.com/jamelabullock
Www.reverbnation.com/jamela

MELa
Musically.Entertaining.Lyrically.Alluring.

he's got women, POC and younger candidates in the primary field against him, so if that's your gripe, just vote for your candidate in the primary and KIM.

meanwhile Sanders is still the most consistently strong-polling DNC candidate and he's continued to add progressive moves to his record since 2016. i don't necessarily support him for the nomination--will have to see the full field first--but i don't see how it's a bad thing that he's running again.

(if you consider the dem party his party)

and really hasnt done much to heal the wounds of 2016 that he was at least partially responsible for. like dude went out on a dem party unity tour and used it to bash the party lol.

he literally said dems are losing working class white voters because they rely too much on identity politics.

he has issues with the party but has no problem siphoning off their resources without fundraising for dems nationwide outside of his select handpicked candidates (who are mostly running in already-blue areas).

why wouldnt some people have a problem with him running?

>and really hasnt done much to heal the wounds of 2016 that he
>was at least partially responsible for. like dude went out on
>a dem party unity tour and used it to bash the party lol.

if a party that lost its ass at every level of government doesn't have polarization, polemic, conflict, etc, there is a problem. someone has to stir it and put it in a direction. look at the gains in the house and specifically the gains in the house for women and POC. mostly from the sanders wing, e.g. AOC.

>he literally said dems are losing working class white voters
>because they rely too much on identity politics.

is that wrong? i'd take it a step further and say they also performed worse than expected with minority voters for the same reason. white working class voters don't fit into the picture, and that's magnified on a substantive level by the lack of solidarity behind workers and organized labor in particular. in terms of minority voters, this whole "hey they wanna fuck you over and we think you're actually human" schtick has also worn paper thin. that's a big reason why more of them stayed home; it wasn't just that obama was black. that is simplistic and doesn't give black, latino and other minority voters enough credit for demanding action instead of rhetoric, demanding to be included rather than utilized. those are real issues for the DNC.

>he has issues with the party but has no problem siphoning off
>their resources without fundraising for dems nationwide
>outside of his select handpicked candidates (who are mostly
>running in already-blue areas).

that's a balancing act, he's inside the party, he's gotten people from his political tree into the mainstream. that means he's got to reconcile reforms within the party with operating within it. is he doing a perfect job? no. a good job? up for debate. but i don't see this as some grand, irreconcilable hypocrisy.

>why wouldnt some people have a problem with him running?

some people, sure, mostly bitter centrists. but again i see a lot of people who support his ideas turning on him for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology.

seriously do you research any of the shit you claim? you should start doing that before you post from now. seriously.


>look at the gains in the house and specifically the gains in
>the house for women and POC. mostly from the sanders wing,
>e.g. AOC.

this is objectively verifiably bullshit lol. of the 40 seats that dems flipped from red to blue in a house dem wave year...'sanders wing' candidates won...*1* (katie porter). and that 1 seat was in orange county ca where a dem wave wiped out the entire repub party. so she just rode a much larger trend.

'sanders wing' candidates blew 2 winnable elecions in ne (kara eastman) and ks (james thompson).

the dem takeover of the house was lead by moderate candidates who didnt run on medicare for all, free public college, etc. the 2 dem senate flips in az and nv were won by moderate candidates as well. a moderate also flipped a senate seat in al in a special election the year earlier.

because those are the types of candidate that are necessary to win the large majority of competitive elections in this country. regardless of what your favorite youtube news channel tells you.

in fact...i can make the case that association with sanders actually hurt stacey abrams in ga and andrew gillum in fl...as attacks against them as 'socialists' peeled away some moderate and independent voters that they otherwise would have gotten.

like andrew gillum lost by a wider margin than bill nelson...despite polling better the entire campaign and being projected to carry the entire ticket.

the 'sanders wing' candidates like aoc mostly just won non-competitive general elections in already-blue districts.

i mean...in a midterm with supercharged election turnout across the nation...aoc only won her district with 110k total votes. there was like 25% general election turnout for her lol.

to put it in perspective...the last general election that joe crowley (her primary opponent) won...he got 140k votes. over 30k more votes than her.

the only reason she was even in the general is because she won a sleep primary with *14%* turnout.

thats what you think the entire national party should model itself after? lol



>>he literally said dems are losing working class white voters
>>because they rely too much on identity politics.
>
>is that wrong? i'd take it a step further and say they also
>performed worse than expected with minority voters for the
>same reason. white working class voters don't fit into the
>picture, and that's magnified on a substantive level by the
>lack of solidarity behind workers and organized labor in
>particular. in terms of minority voters, this whole "hey they
>wanna fuck you over and we think you're actually human"
>schtick has also worn paper thin. that's a big reason why more
>of them stayed home; it wasn't just that obama was black. that
>is simplistic and doesn't give black, latino and other
>minority voters enough credit for demanding action instead of
>rhetoric, demanding to be included rather than utilized. those
>are real issues for the DNC.

so what does it say that bernie only evenly split white working class voters with clinton and performed considerably worse with minorities?

why would he be the solution these party problems?

like where are folks getting this unrealized enthusiasm for bernie within these demographic groups from? how was bernie gonna ramp up their turnout in the general when he couldnt even do that in a primary where they make up a larger proportional share of the electorate?

make it make sense to me lol.




>>he has issues with the party but has no problem siphoning
>off
>>their resources without fundraising for dems nationwide
>>outside of his select handpicked candidates (who are mostly
>>running in already-blue areas).
>
>that's a balancing act, he's inside the party, he's gotten
>people from his political tree into the mainstream. that means
>he's got to reconcile reforms within the party with operating
>within it. is he doing a perfect job? no. a good job? up for
>debate. but i don't see this as some grand, irreconcilable
>hypocrisy.

bernie hasnt brought an influx of voters into the party any more than the national party itself. 2018 primary and general election results showed this.

only 2 dem incumbents lost their primary. which is literally the average for an election year. there was no major electoral shockwave in the party. once again...this is bernie personality folklore.

tom steyers 'next gen america' organization registered more college age and millennial voters than every chapter (state and national) of 'our revolution' combined. by multiples of ten.

how come tom isnt mentioned as a pivotal figure in progressive folklore?



>some people, sure, mostly bitter centrists. but again i see a
>lot of people who support his ideas turning on him for reasons
>that have nothing to do with ideology.

'bitter centrists' make up more of the party than 'progressives' lol.

why would the people who win the overwhelming majority of the partys elections be bitter? wouldnt that be the losers (like claiming the primary election was rigged against you)?

i will never understand this notion that the democratic party is being held hostage by the *majority* of its voters.

why do yall feel entitled to control the destiny of a political party that you cant win a majority of voters in? and why are your candidates better for the party than the ones that the majority of voters choose?

i continue to ask this...but seriously...how does any of this make sense in your head?

>this is objectively verifiably bullshit lol. of the 40 seats
>that dems flipped from red to blue in a house dem wave
>year...'sanders wing' candidates won...*1* (katie porter).
>and that 1 seat was in orange county ca where a dem wave wiped
>out the entire repub party. so she just rode a much larger
>trend.

of the 40 they flipped, yes, that's about right, but states that flip are battleground states, purple states, whatever you want to call them typically. obviously a moderate is going to play better there and that they ran moderates in places like north carolina was one of the better strategic moves by the DNC. so that sort of skews the terms and obscures the fact that sanders definitely had an influence on candidates for office from the DNC, including some successful ones, and he's also moved the centrists into at least feigning progressiveness.

>'sanders wing' candidates blew 2 winnable elecions in ne (kara
>eastman) and ks (james thompson).

yea, thompson was disappointing, i thought he had a very ripe ground for a win there.

>the dem takeover of the house was lead by moderate candidates
>who didnt run on medicare for all, free public college, etc.
>the 2 dem senate flips in az and nv were won by moderate
>candidates as well. a moderate also flipped a senate seat in
>al in a special election the year earlier.

again we are talking flips in places like az, nv, nc, va, etc. i am not advocating some communist takeover of the DNC. you've got to play to win. in states like those, that still means straddling the middle. we are talking about a national level here though, and in the left-leaning battleground states, they can go a little further left that they can in those places.

>because those are the types of candidate that are necessary to
>win the large majority of competitive elections in this
>country. regardless of what your favorite youtube news
>channel tells you.

it's pretty funny because i watch zero broadcast news and actually work for a huge print publication.

>in fact...i can make the case that association with sanders
>actually hurt stacey abrams in ga and andrew gillum in fl...as
>attacks against them as 'socialists' peeled away some moderate
>and independent voters that they otherwise would have gotten.
>
>like andrew gillum lost by a wider margin than bill
>nelson...despite polling better the entire campaign and being
>projected to carry the entire ticket.

how does that correlate with sanders? i am not disagreeing, i'd like to hear your argument. gillum and abrams both got torpedoed by right-wing corruption and bigotry, but i am all ears if you want to tell me how their association with progressives was what really did them in.

>the 'sanders wing' candidates like aoc mostly just won
>non-competitive general elections in already-blue districts.

i don't discount flipping seats from red to blue but similarly you shouldn't discount flipping seats from centrist to progressive, at least if you were on board with sanders's ideas in 2016. that's also important work, as is pushing the remaining parts of the DNC establishment left.

>i mean...in a midterm with supercharged election turnout
>across the nation...aoc only won her district with 110k total
>votes. there was like 25% general election turnout for her
>lol.

yes, we know, anyone who read beyond the lede in a story about her is well aware. regardless of how she got there, her ascent has been significant, her presence has done as much as some congresspeople's entire terms do. i am just not following your desire to belittle what has been a pretty significant impact inside of a short time here.

>to put it in perspective...the last general election that joe
>crowley (her primary opponent) won...he got 140k votes. over
>30k more votes than her.
>
>the only reason she was even in the general is because she won
>a sleep primary with *14%* turnout.
>
>thats what you think the entire national party should model
>itself after? lol

clearly it's not but un-earthing more candidates who can win without corporate money, connect with a wide array of voters and push issues that differentiate them in substantive ways from the GOP are important goals to pursue. there is nothing wrong with celebrating them. do you think the GOP was nitpicking and infighting about how Trump won? fuck no, and it was a lot more controversial and less conventional than anything we are describing here.

>so what does it say that bernie only evenly split white
>working class voters with clinton and performed considerably
>worse with minorities?

again, you're looking at two very different opponents in a primary as opposed to a general. i just don't think you can extrapolate the results like that.

>why would he be the solution these party problems?

he shouldn't be. like doc said, exporting his ideas into a different person with some further refinement would be ideal. that's a fantasy. is he still the closest thing the party has to someone with actual liberal policies and charisma? probably. if you have someone else in mind, again, i would love to hear all about them.

>like where are folks getting this unrealized enthusiasm for
>bernie within these demographic groups from? how was bernie
>gonna ramp up their turnout in the general when he couldnt
>even do that in a primary where they make up a larger
>proportional share of the electorate?
>
>make it make sense to me lol.

ok but you're ignoring, for example, voters under 35, which is a bigger bloc than some of the groups you're mentioning. two keys now to winning elections are energizing your base (polarized environment) and getting traditional non-voters to vote (something both he and Trump did, a lot of people want to hear *something* and that something said with *conviction*).


>bernie hasnt brought an influx of voters into the party any
>more than the national party itself. 2018 primary and general
>election results showed this.
>
>only 2 dem incumbents lost their primary. which is literally
>the average for an election year. there was no major
>electoral shockwave in the party. once again...this is bernie
>personality folklore.

that's a look at one election, meanwhile taking the longer view they lost the senate, they lost ground in terms of governors and mayors, etc. they were in crisis and there was denial about that crisis that is starting to fade. it isn't a one-size-fits-all solution and some point you've decided i am some bernie bro advocating a total shift left at every rung of the party. i am not but i do find it strange that one-time supporters are looking to pluck date against and blame the guy that resonated with them just a short while ago. it's almost like the real bernie bros who just cannot accept the fact that he had his own shortcomings and that he wasn't outright robbed by superdelegates and the media and whomever else they want to blame. that sanders is running again neither represents salvation nor doom, but you sure as hell seem to be sold on the latter.

>tom steyers 'next gen america' organization registered more
>college age and millennial voters than every chapter (state
>and national) of 'our revolution' combined. by multiples of
>ten.
>
>how come tom isnt mentioned as a pivotal figure in progressive
>folklore?

there's a lot of people doing great work and as usual we are prisoners of the same messiah syndrome that would have us believe jackie robinson was the only black baseball player in the '40s or that every answer to a question about south american history is bolivar. but let's not let backlash knock things even further out of perspective either.


>'bitter centrists' make up more of the party than
>'progressives' lol.

not really, i think you have several sub-groups within the party and not all centrists are bitter either. but even so you've got a solid block who are going to vote dem and you don't sweat them too much. it's more looking at people would vote dem if they voted but may not or people who wouldn't vote at all but might be compelled to give a shit by someone with sound ideas and charisma. whether or not the candidate that can appeal to those groups is sanders this time around, i can't say for certain, but there is an argument that he could be that candidate. in this field, i don't see too many others with a compelling argument for. i think harris is a potentially strong candidate, but i get the sense she is building herself up on this stage for future elections more so than gunning for it all right now.

>why would the people who win the overwhelming majority of the
>partys elections be bitter? wouldnt that be the losers (like
>claiming the primary election was rigged against you)?

oh there are definitely bitter AF bernie bros out there. and again, the bitter centrists are more the people at the top of the party, the corporate shills who eat off populism. their mask was lifted by the results in 2016 and the path to them, and they feel their hold loosening.

now i do think there is another group of centrists that i would consider more frustrated than embittered by the party's shift left. they are well-meaning people often with a very sound concept of how government operates. i just think they have a bit of an antiquated and oversimplified idea of the difference between the two parties. they still consider republicans to be defenders of the status quo, and democrats to be those who seek to incrementally implement change and open up the system. i would argue that more recently, republicans have been aggressive reactionaries and that democrats have been relegated to defenders of the status quo, who also have a tendency to turn desired social change into a political commodity, and then parade that as progress.

>i will never understand this notion that the democratic party
>is being held hostage by the *majority* of its voters.

again i don't think we can divide the party along a single line and i have never said it was "held hostage." i do think there is a sentiment among the base that is to the left of the controlling figures in the party, and that's nothing new. look at the healthcare bill in 94 and certainly obama care. most of the DNC voters were in favor of a single-payer plan yet in 94 it wasnt even considered and in 09 it was sacrificed at the altar of practicality under threat that the bill wouldn't pass at all. so yes, i do feel that the party is to the right of its constituency and has been for some time.

>why do yall feel entitled to control the destiny of a
>political party that you cant win a majority of voters in?
>and why are your candidates better for the party than the ones
>that the majority of voters choose?

so who is "y'all" exactly? we are looking at a very limited sample of one primary and a handful of mid-term races and drawing conclusions. the party is definitely moving left and i don't see the need to panic and thwart that. further i think right now the voting public as a whole--and i don't think this is a good thing, but it's real--is in that mode that Chomsky described many years ago. He said something to the effect of his going to lecture halls and getting ovations, knowing that he could have said the exact opposite things with the same vigor and had the same reaction. that has heightened today. for whatever reason, people crave strong ideas, and in trump's case their crave authoritarian ones (nothing new, centuries of it are detailed in Fromm's Escape from Freedom). that same craving can be satisfied by someone with big ideas on the left, maybe not as easily, but it can be. can it be satisfied by someone from the center? probably not IMHO.

>i continue to ask this...but seriously...how does any of this
>make sense in your head?

straw men abound, man, but it's cool, you are the smartest guy in the room! your trophy is in the mail! part of me wants to say fuck this, but instead i'd rather look for common ground because obviously we are two people with similar interests and concerns. that's something that the party should be doing as well.

Like we’ve said, he outperformed last time because
he faced one opponent, who happened to be...let’s
just say not ideal.

I’m not being complacent and I agree that none of
us should be.

But, I don’t see this as a big deal. Especially once
debates start. *shrugs*

warren nosediving, harris being attacked/tarnished relentlessly even by black folks, and biden still extolling the virtues of friendly bipartisanship even at the expense of dems losing...im on edge fam lol.

>warren nosediving, harris being attacked/tarnished
>relentlessly even by black folks

Nosediving? I knew she was putting up disappointing numbers, but is she nosediving?


And Hillary was attacked/tarnished for 25 years and still beat Bernie.

and biden still extolling
>the virtues of friendly bipartisanship even at the expense of
>dems losing...im on edge fam lol.

Yeah, fuck that. You officially off the Biden train now, man? lol

i prolly meant faceplanting instead of nosediving. i dont think shes cratering any more than she did in the aftermath of that episode. i just meant she came out the gate with a self-inflicted gun wound.

and the biden shit...i have no idea what the fuck he is thinking lol. i understand calls for bipartisanship. but i dont understand bipartisan friendship taking precedence over getting a dem elected.

shit we just came off a midterm where several elections involved family members of repub candidates trashing their relative and endorsing the dem. uncle joe better catch up lol.

he is completely misreading the party electorate on that one. thats not gonna play well at all on a stage with a charged up bernie/kamala/liz.

he honestly sounds like a relic from a bygone era in the last few spots ive seen him speak. i think people love the idea of biden (myself included) but would reject the reality of biden once we have something to directly compare him to.

We're gonna lose this one.

not to fuck up a perfectly winnable election.

we might be more informed/educated than the repub base in general. but when it comes to political competence? yeah we are far dumber.

different situation entirely. i think this election is a lot more winnable, somewhere near a mid point between 04 and 08. but yeah, i was mindful that trump could win last time and i think he has to be a slight favorite against the field this time. any incumbent has an edge plus his detractors are balanced out by his cult following. i think he is beatable but has to be at least a slight favorite at this point

who nobody is asking to run but apparently still feels hes our political savior.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1089132395444535297

even worse than 2016.

possibly handing trump 2 more supreme court seats and unified federal government control *again*.

you can see it coming from a mile away.

2000. 2004. 2016. the same groups of people are predictably doing the same dumb shit they did the last few times they did the same dumb shit.

the only way I see the Dems losing to Trump in 2020 is if they try to emulate the failed strategy of 2016 -- i.e. pre-selecting the establishment NeoLiberal "favorite" and ignoring the grassroots momentum that's happening on the ground.

Hillary's rallies lacked authenticity and energy (not to mention supporters) -- while Sanders was drawing thousands upon thousands at every major event and had the grassroots energy behind him.

If the Dems blame "Bernie Bros", Russia, WikiLeaks and ignore their own infrastructural failures - then I would echo your sentiment that 2020 is bound to be a disaster.

But if the Dems actually wise up and assess who can beat Trump in a *general* election (not just the primary) - then I believe there are 2-3 candidates who could wipe the floor with Trump in 2020.


-->

the entire point of a primary *is* to assess who can beat the opposing partys candidate...using the democratic will of party voters.

bringing out the most voters in elections *is* grassroots momentum. which hillary did by 4 million more votes.

grassroots isnt just about phonebanks and college rallies and colorful signs. the entire point is to motivate voters to actually vote.

hillary beat bernie by greater than a 10% margin lol. i mean...bernie did better than people initially thought he would...but thats not even a close election for a non-incumbent.

trump ran against his party establishment and won because the base chose him. bernie ran against his party establishment and lost because the base chose his opponent.

theres no way to spin that.

bernie constantly advocated for the democratic primary to be opened up to non-members of the party because that was his only path to victory lol.

bernie supporters always complain about 'rigged' elections...but they continue to ignore the democratic will of the large majority of party voters because it didnt benefit their favorite candidate.

like your entire premise is that the party should have chosen the candidate that the least people voted for lol.

you dont find that at all hypocritical?

if that isnt a prime example of pre-selecting a candidate over the objections of actual voters...then what is?

like you dont think its a bit hypocritical to rail against 'neoliberal' party barriers like superdelegates...but still support a candidate who stayed in the primary well past the point of being mathematically eliminated just so he could continue to bash the imminent nominee and then go to the convention and beg *those same* superdelegates to switch their votes (that lined up with actual democratic will of the majority of party voters)?

You're showing Sept 2020 type emotions in Jan 2019.

fear and anger are the biggest driving forces in election outcomes (something the republican party has figured out a long time ago).

optimism has never won an election. in fact...its more likely to lead to complacency than victory (like 2016).

dems panicked in virginia in 2017 when polls tightened to a toss up late in the race. then went on to win the gov race by their biggest margin in a generation and flipped more state leg seats in history period.

dems assumed they had florida in the bag in 2018 based on consistenly leading polls and a popular charismatic candidate at the top of the ticket. they blew both governor *and* senate race in a democratic wave year.

theres a message in there (if you didnt already learn it after 2016).

Don’t get me wrong, I wish Bernie wasn’t running
for the same reason I don’t want Biden or
Hillary or Kerry.

I think it’s time for fresh faces.

However, I don’t see Bernie cracking the top 3 even
this time around.

Which would really put that “rally the base” argument
to bed.

In other words, when he loses this time around
there isn’t an argument for Bernie bros.


On another note, has Tulsi dropped out yet? She
just lost all her votes lol. So there’s another
positive. She’ll be gone even sooner.


I don’t think it’s time to panic.

the danger (imo) is...that even tho the majority of dem voters might not want bernie...he could back into the nomination with a hairline plurality because of a crowded contest where the mainstream non-bernie vote is split.

even tho trump won his primary...it stands to reason that he benefited at least a bit from a large ass field that divided a lot of the voters who would have gone against him.

cruz and kasich teamed up in ohio to combine their voters for kasich...and they actually beat trump in the rust belt state that got the largest margin in during the general.

the dem proportional delegate/vote system alleviates a lot of what im worrying about but not all of it lol.

and i actually think warren could 'steal' more voters away from bernie than tulsi.

it aint time to panic...but when you look at mcgovern/nader/stein/etc...you see the same type of endemic patterns developing without significant course correction.

iono fam...if i see dark clouds approaching...im reaching for an umbrella lol.

But it seems reasonable that one could assume the opposite. There were people who voted for Bernie in the primaries who just didn't like Hilary.

Hell you were one of them. I was even one of them, though the outcome was decided by the time my vote was cast.

I think he loses voters to everyone from Warren to even Kamala. I get they're being attacked, but so is Bernie about to be attacked.

And again, there was a real lack of enthusiasm for Hil among some.

Kidding aside, if Tulsi stays, she definitely pulls away support from him.


And I just don't think this is a Trump situation. In '16, the story was "Trumps is no one's second choice, so when candidates drop, their voters will embrace someone else"...that didn't happen because Trump is the GOP. We just didn't realize it at the time how BAD they were.

I think that argument (that as others drop out, their voters will move to someone other than Bernie) will hold in this primary. Im saying this and I don't even think the party is nearly as centrist as you do lol

If the party is as centrist as you think, you shouldn't be sweating at all man.

I also think the gloves will be off this time, and my guess he performs even worse this time around with women and POC.

I could be wrong, dog. I'm just not worried. Irritated? Yes. But not worried. No about this lol.

im operating under the assumption that almost all of 2016 bernie voters are hardcore stans...when im a personal testament to that not being entirely true. thanks for pointing that out to me and making it blatantly obvious. im kinda sitting here dumbfounded that i had the blinders on to a possibility that included my own behavior lol. im legit questioning why im still using that assumption.

in all of the volunteering i do/did...the progressive activism...i can honestly say bernie super fans were prolly a minority of bernie voters ive met. most were somewhere between leaning/possibly/meh/never again shit with him (even vex said bernie isnt his 1st choice lol).

im also assuming almost all of bernie voters were anti-establishment in general when...like you said...they could have just been anti-clinton.

a good preview will be the next dailykos straw poll that comes out now that he has announced. if he hasnt taken a sizeable leap to the top...then we can kinda see where the winds are blowing.

and you are right...comparing trump and sanders in any way is a reach on my part. trump overwhelmingly had the support of his base (to the point where he ran against fox news and their favorite candidates and won). bernie ran against a damaged and unpopular establishment candidate in a year colored with a lot of 'change' sentiment...and the base voted against him by a healthy margin.

it feels like he has actually lost some support too. black people and white women hate him lol. the candidates he and his organization endorsed largely got pulverized in primaries. even dem state organizers/voters in lily white iowa wanna look elsewhere (i think i posted that article on here recently).

add to that...dems never elect old presidents. they always go younger than the gop predecessor. of course that could mean that bernie wins the nom and gets beat in the general (like kerry who was older than bush). but if dems win the prez...its almost certainly gonna be with someone younger than bernie.

i have no idea why im ignoring all of this lol.

Why did you vote for a candidate in the primary who you feel was clearly inferior to Clinton in a general election matchup with Donald Trump?

-->

And at the time 2015, there was a small space to advance ideas by being race neutral.
That the floor could be lifted for all based on his ideas for attacking money.
But that time has closed. And the existential crises of our time can’t just be addressed by giving people more access.
What 2016 ramped up was racism, sexism, religious extremism, threats to democracy itself, illegitimate courts, women’s rights, guns, war, global alliances, and global economic corruption ... Bernie’s plans don’t have the range, depth, or specificity to tackle that. We live in an entirely different world than we did approaching that election and senator sanders has not communicated his adjustment to that world.

just speaking for myself...i firmly believed bernie was a better candidate than clinton while they were competing.

but the primary results are what they are. clinton appealed more to just about every segment of voters but college kids and hicks.

bernie got beat by over 10 points. thats not a slim margin. thats blowout territory in any national election.

and i think something like 7 primaries bernie won were proportional ties. so he only won something like 16 convincing victories to like 34 for clinton or something like that.

it became kinda clear she was the better candidate to represent the dem party coalition in the general. i reached that conclusion *later on* with the benefit of hindsight/evidence.

I'm in NH (and worked for Bernie's campaign here - and he won the state huge) - but curious as to where other people voted given that NH is right after Iowa.

The reason I ask is because if you say it was clear that Hillary was soundly defeating Sanders (which was the way the math was playing out - particularly w/ the superdelegate buffer) - then I'm curious as to what case you were making for Bernie given your current perspective.

>it became kinda clear she was the better candidate to
>represent the dem party coalition in the general. i reached
>that conclusion *later on* with the benefit of
>hindsight/evidence.

Really? How was that so clear? She didn't rally independents who lean democrat. She didn't mobilize enough of the progressive base. She got life-long democrats - for sure - but in the general she didn't get as many swing-voters as expected. I think Bernie would've done much better given the dynamics of 2016: it was a populist season - and Trump was actually able to commit fraud and play the populist card precisely because Bernie wasn't his opposition.

Hillary was so unpalatable to way too many segments of the electorate in a way that Bernie simply wasn't. Now, she still won the popular vote - but her underwhelming performances in Florida, the rust-belt, and with independents really showed her weakness in the general matchup against Trump. She would've fared much better against Jeb Bush. But it wasn't that kind of party.

-->

>The reason I ask is because if you say it was clear that
>Hillary was soundly defeating Sanders (which was the way the
>math was playing out - particularly w/ the superdelegate
>buffer) - then I'm curious as to what case you were making for
>Bernie given your current perspective.

when i say it became clear hillary was the better candidate...i mean after the primary was over...the results were in...the dust was settled...the data was parsed. 'with the benefit of hindsight/evidence'.

that wasnt me interjecting my personal opinion (my personal opinion *during* the primary was that bernie was better). that was me looking at the data afterwards...which was fairly conclusive. my preferred candidate was weaker in just about every aspect but young and rural voters.

i didnt pay any attention to superdelegate count reporting during the ongoing primary because i knew it was bullshit and meant nothing (superdelegates have never officially pledged opposite the winner and overturned the will of the voters...which is something bernie was trying to convince them to do at the convention).



>Really? How was that so clear? She didn't rally independents
>who lean democrat. She didn't mobilize enough of the
>progressive base. She got life-long democrats - for sure -
>but in the general she didn't get as many swing-voters as
>expected. I think Bernie would've done much better given the
>dynamics of 2016: it was a populist season - and Trump was
>actually able to commit fraud and play the populist card
>precisely because Bernie wasn't his opposition.
>
>Hillary was so unpalatable to way too many segments of the
>electorate in a way that Bernie simply wasn't. Now, she still
>won the popular vote - but her underwhelming performances in
>Florida, the rust-belt, and with independents really showed
>her weakness in the general matchup against Trump. She
>would've fared much better against Jeb Bush. But it wasn't
>that kind of party.

clinton actually *overperformed* with some 'swing voters'. she won many suburban districts that obama failed to ('romney-clinton' districts). she actually laid the groundwork for the coalition that propelled the 2018 house wave.

its just that she underperformed with traditional/ancestral democratic voters/districts compared to barack obama. places like miami/dade in fl and union districts in the rust belt.

and 'independents' tend to vote against the incumbent party regardless (democrats in this case). its why obama won nc in 2008 then lost in 2012. this is why it is extremely difficult for a party to get 2 presidents in a row nowadays. clinton didnt do any worse with independents than incumbent party candidates have done in recent memory.

and i think people falsely believe that 'independents' are significantly 'swingy'. but the large majority of them are just consistent dem/repub with no label (and tend to flow towards the partisan lean of their state). independents only consistently swing elections vs the majority 2-party vote in places like fl, nv, and increasingly now az. places like maine dont really count since their elections are swung by actual independent candidates and its basically like a major party up there.

when you see analysis that says stuff like 'independents voted this/that way' it doesnt mean the majority of the group just swung in unison in one direction. it moreso means that independents that typically lean/vote left turned out in greater numbers than those that typically lean/vote right...and vice versa.

'independents' arent necessarily an ideological/cultural voting bloc (like devout 3rd party voters...who they get lumped in with). otherwise independents would overwhelmingly all vote for independent candidates. its mostly just a default category for a bunch of voters with no official partisan affiliation (but who still have a partisan preference/lean).

which is why bernie potentially performing better with 'independents' in the general doesnt mean much when he performs worse with the actual party base. the base drives party victories...especially on the national level.

bernie doing worse than clinton among democrats but somehow pulling in enough indies to win a national election would be a historical anomaly. the first of its kind. especially when you consider...like i mentioned before...that the majority of independents tend to vote against the incumbent party.

i asked this earlier in here but i dont think i got an answer...name another year in recent memory where you think the supposedly stronger presidential general election got beat in the primary. because that would seem to be another historical anomaly and i never really heard this type of sentiment til 2016. this wasnt even the narrative after carter/kennedy.

"Let's have nineteen people spend a YEAR beating the shit out of each other, and specifically out of our eventual nominee, seeding resentments, misleading memes, explicitly claiming our eventual nominee is no better than Trump. Then we'll really know our candidate is tested and ready!"

We had a ten-way primary in 2004. I think that's the biggest one in the modern age (until this one blows it out of the water). We ended up with exactly the candidate everyone expected from the beginning, only he was sorely weakened by attacks he'd received from the left (which depressed base turnout) and no more prepared for the attacks he'd receive from the right. And Bush, who nobody imagined could possibly be reelected, finally won even the popular vote.

The exception to this kind of scenario is the nightmare that Reeq seems to be imagining -- the Donald Trump scenario, where some idiot outsider candidate catches on, badly loses the general (Bernie, McGovern), or if not, is woefully unprepared for the job (Trump).

Big primaries might SEEM more just or democratic. (They really aren't; 20 candidates out of 100 million Democrats is really no better than 3 or 4.) But they certainly don't make it easier for the party to win.

I wish fewer people were running, sure. I hope a
top 3-5 are sorted out fairly quick.

But it’s better to have a primary rather than an
anointed candidate. I know you don’t want to
believe that, but even the perception
that the nominee was hand picked is a bad
look.

Even though it was seen as Hilldawg's 'turn' there were about 8 candidates and Obama upended it.

'16 with Biden backing off the primary was supposed to be damn near a formality. Hillary vs a few bums, but Bernie flipped that one as well lol. I know it speaks to Hillary as a candidate but Bernie's refusal to dip out once it was mathematically impossible for him to win, and all the bad blood that ensued only helped Trump

There were many reasons she lost.. some self inflicted and being a shitty politician, but I'd put more blame on Bernie than say, Comey.

>I know it speaks to Hillary as a
>candidate but Bernie's refusal to dip out once it was
>mathematically impossible for him to win, and all the bad
>blood that ensued only helped Trump

It's funny when I hear this from Hillary people (not saying you're one of them) - being that she stayed in the race against Obama way longer than necessary (after it was mathematically impossible for her to win) - and then there was some bad blood there as well. People forget that the Clintons played dirty tricks against Obama -- all Bernie did was point out some facts about Clinton (and he even pleaded for people to stop talking about her emails). His challenge to her was remarkably substantive - not on some "oh well I guess we should take him at his word when he says he's not a muslim born in kenya."

>There were many reasons she lost.. some self inflicted and
>being a shitty politician, but I'd put more blame on Bernie
>than say, Comey.

No blame on the DNC for rigging the primary? Bernie actually rallied with Clinton in New Hampshire to endorse her and urge his voters to support her - and then she didn't want to really be seen with him after that. What else could he have done?




-->

The Clintons were far worse towards Obama than Bern ever was to her. Thats indisputable, but I think once he got the nom, she fell in line harder, even though it was out of self interest. If you peep her convention speech for Obama she crushed it. Bern's was on some bare minimum. Bernie campaigned for her some. He didn't trash her, but you could always feel him gritting his teeth, you could tell he wasn't into it.

I think the distinction in 08 is that aside from maybe those PUMA hags, you ou got a sense that the two camps had reconciled and were all about getting Obama the W (especially once Palin hit the scene). In '16 the resentment carried on through. Maybe part of it was everyone knew Trump would lose. Maybe it's as hard as Bernie felt he could ride for her without feeling phony. Whatever it is the fracture btween factions still hasn't healed, and I think his presence in this race is giving people pause that here we go again.

Id also say that for all the people who don't want Bernie in this race, NO one wants Hillary getting any ideas.

but unlike '08, there was a real legitimate scandal within the DNC of heavily favoring Clinton over Sanders as the party's clear choice (debate questions being fed to Clinton and not Sanders; bullying dems who endorsed Sanders; clear motive from DNC officials to inhibit Sanders and his campaign) - this isn't speculation, the DNC dumps proved this (and even Donna Brazile conceded).

Had the primary been adjudicated with neutrality - there could've been significantly more room for reconciliation. Given what actually happened, I'd say Bernie was gracious and took one for the team when he clearly did not want to (as you accurately pointed out).

>Id also say that for all the people who don't want Bernie in
>this race, NO one wants Hillary getting any ideas.

I just saw a report today saying she's not ruling out a run. God help us if that's the case.


-->

This is the 4th? candidate post

...and we had to wait for Bern to declare to get an end of the world reply...surprise, surprise

Deflecting like hell in those Kamala and Beto posts

+1, Trump will not run uncontested

Geek down chicken little.

So people will overlook the issues...and pick up the posts at his last ZOMG reply

+1, dude claims he voted for Bern

But has been the energy keeping that Bernie Bro flag flying skrong

Weird.

Since they're apparently fucking up right now as a party what SHOULD they do?

DNC reformed some of the process, like reducing the impact of superdelegates

Medicare for all is now a party platform

Etc...

But OMG, he's ruining the primary...LOL

nobody from 2016.

lol


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427156-clinton-not-ruling-out-running-in-2020-report

Hillary Clinton

HILLARY DIANE RODHAM CLINTON
Likely 2020 Dem contenders to face scrutiny over Wall Street ties
Mueller’s selective prosecution of Stone, Venezuelan-style
Trump seeks to shift narrative after Stone indictment
MORE
, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, reportedly has yet to rule out running for the Oval Office again in 2020.

CNN White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny said Sunday on CNN's "Inside Politics" that Clinton told people "as recently as this week" that she isn't "closing the doors to the idea of running in 2020."

"I’m told by three people that as recently as this week, she was telling people that look, given all this news from the indictments, particularly the Roger Stone indictment, she talked to several people, saying 'look, I'm not closing the doors to this,' " Zeleny said.

"It does not mean that there's a campaign-in-waiting, or a plan in the works," he continued.

The former secretary of State has previously not ruled out another presidential bid, saying last October that she would "like to be president."

Zeleny added that Clinton believes running "could be a possibility,” given that she won the popular vote over President Trump in 2016 and that several former Trump associates have been indicted in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in that election.

Most recently, Trump's longtime adviser, Roger Stone, was indicted Friday on seven counts as part of that investigation.

"Most losing presidential candidates never totally close the doors to running for president, something that’s really hard to do. So I put this in the category," Zeleny said.

"But I think we have to at least leave our mind open to the possibility that she is still talking about it," he added. "She wants to take on Trump. Could she win a Democratic primary to do it? I don't know the answer to that."

Meanwhile here are Jeff Zelenys latest bylines

Sources say Trump's not angry at Giuliani: 'Rudy's not getting fired'
https://kxlf.com/cnn-us-politics/2019/01/22/sources-say-trumps-not-angry-at-giuliani-rudys-not-getting-fired/

Regrets, 2020 Democrats have a few
https://www.kitv.com/story/39834664/regrets-2020-democrats-have-a-few

A Biden campaign plan takes shape, waiting only for the candidate himself
https://kxlh.com/cnn-us-politics/2019/01/18/a-biden-campaign-plan-takes-shape-waiting-only-for-the-candidate-himself/

And a couple more Biden, Trump, Beto joints
In the last 30 days

Notably absent of his bylines anything about the number of women running.
It tells you a lot about who his sources are that in the last 30 days all he’s written about are the musings and ruminations of white men. And taking that into account, the idea that he’s generated a news cycle off sources is kind of humorous.

i swear half the political press made their name in dc by writing clinton gossip columns. old habits die hard.

And he's like the only Dem not for Russia sanctions. And Tad Devine, and that bitch ass nigga is 90

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oica5jG7FpU

Old Atlantic article

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/

New ABC article about Sanders going to South Carolina

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Politics/sanders-targets-black-voters-south-carolina/story?id=60602123

we literally have not talked about actual issues since the Democratic National Coronation of Hillary Clinton.

I am not even saying he automatically has my vote, nor am I Bernie or bust, but you would be blind to not recognize that the new energy in the Democratic party and the participation of everyday Americans now inspired to run is because of his 2016 campaign.

We can get into the whole primary vs general and relive 2016 but 2020 will be vastly different since people at least now know who he is. My mom voted for Hillary in the 2016 primary in North Carolina before she got the chance to see the debates and understand his platform, and she fought me hard in 2016 during the entire cycle about my not rocking with Hillary as the candidate. She is looking at Sanders in 2020 now. I think no matter what this will be an actual fairer gauge of his candidacy since he has national name recognition and there will be a bigger pool of candidates to stir the discussions.

TO BE FAIR, as much as I knock Hillary for being a horrible candidate that Trump was able to beat, she also was Bernie's opponent. His platform was clear, but he hasn't necessary been challenged on a fair playing field yet. And Warren and Gabbard may be able to articulate hybrids of his platform better and still be more "electable" (though I would prefer Gabbard at this point).

But that is what the primary is for.....unfortunately the DNC is arguing now that they have no legal binding to run fair and transparent processes as part of the lawsuit stemming from 2016, but we'll see what happens.

before the people have even had a chance to chime in.

Whether it's Kamala, Elizabeth, Bernie, Tulsi, Beto or Biden (or someone else) -- virtually everyone in this thread would vote for one of the aforementioned over Trump - yet the fervor among different factions within the Democratic party threatens to further fracture cohesion and prevent a "big tent" feeling moving into 2020.

Let them compete. It's waaaay too early to be awarding any candidate with presumptive legitimacy.

-->

hopefully the issues raised make them consider some of the their positions
this is normal for an election cycle in the social media age
nothing special here

as you assess the field?


-->

i wish he would have anointed a younger proxy instead of directly dragging some of the divisiveness/baggage from the 2016 primary into the next election.

the republican primary in 2016 was 10x uglier than the current dem primary could ever get (mostly because the bases allow for vastly different degrees of pettiness). clinton/sanders were still attacking each other on real issues. trump/cruz/rubio/bush were attacking each other on dicks/wives/fathers/etc lol.

i just hope dems now have the same political maturity and party discipline that repubs have when it comes to licking their primary wounds and coming home for the general. we tend to get in our feelings more and hold grudges that affect the likelihood of us voting.

either way...im voting for the dem nominee regardless of who it is (tulsi is gonna take some prayer for me to pull that lever lol).

and I think there's a good chance that it will. Unlike 2016 when essentially nobody dared to step up and challenge Clinton except for Sanders (and O'Malley lol) - we will have an entire panel of good ideas being debated - so there won't be a clear delineation between the "progressive" and the "centrist" - but instead a continuum of ideas that will be more about substance than cult of personality (I hope).

>the republican primary in 2016 was 10x uglier than the current
>dem primary could ever get (mostly because the bases allow for
>vastly different degrees of pettiness). clinton/sanders were
>still attacking each other on real issues.
>trump/cruz/rubio/bush were attacking each other on
>dicks/wives/fathers/etc lol.

lol exactly - that's why I'm more optimistic to let the democratic primary play itself out in the spirit of open competition. I do have concerns about the DNC's ability to be a neutral arbiter though. Again, I think the one way the Dems can lose in 2020 is to adjudicate the primary without true neutrality.

>i just hope dems now have the same political maturity and
>party discipline that repubs have when it comes to licking
>their primary wounds and coming home for the general. we tend
>to get in our feelings more and hold grudges that affect the
>likelihood of us voting.

Yes I think there was real bad blood after the 2016 primary - and it did suppress the momentum (though Clinton still won the popular vote of course) - but enthusiasm and 'big-tent' cohesion is going to be key. There was also some pretty nasty vibes going around after Obama beat Clinton in 2008 - but Obama was an anomaly in terms of his ability to transcend political norms and appeal to wide swaths of people across the country. Dems can't count on that kind of personality force -- there needs to be real unity.

>either way...im voting for the dem nominee regardless of who
>it is (tulsi is gonna take some prayer for me to pull that
>lever lol).

lol I still think Tulsi is the strongest candidate in the general election - but I agree that it's going to be a very difficult task for her to win the democratic primary.


-->

Fair ones at least.

Glad to have them in the mix.

>Fair ones at least.
>
>Glad to have them in the mix.

Unfortunately that's a very real question here, isn't it? Whether the 2020 primary will be adjudicated fairly and with neutrality. If it is, I believe the natural winner will emerge with real big-tent unity. If the DNC tries to DWS the game again, old wounds might re-open.


-->

-->

somebody said that on facebook and i bout lost it lol.

random but your reply reminded me of that.

in this very post even


we are so fucked

He's probably not my first choice, but I don't think him running is by itself a bad thing, and could in fact be good. I think "this one candidate running with a dozen or so other folks a year before the first primary means Trump's going to win in 2020" is some galaxy brain shit.

Trump ain't making it one lap around the track. Bernie probably would try and pace himself, but them bones would give out around lap 2. Hillary probably would win just by outlasting the other two.

Trump is disqualified attempting to call an Uber

Bern's not allowed to run.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

she lost the general?

LOL

Mofos already talking about "IT'S (NAME OF PERSON NOT IN FAVOR)'s FAULT"

Election is 645 days away.



Bernie upsets the whole "hand-picked candidate" dynamic that many democrats *really* want, democratic primary-be-damned.

Having spent the previous four years not growing to the times, and repeatedly demonstrating either the want to ability to, phaving the hubris to think he can combat what ails the world
And then tangentially all of the folks that are excited for this.

Win or lose, the very idea is laughable.

Ageist, but I'd much rather support a "young" (40s to 60s) candidate.

The obvious concern is health issues (including mental health) due to age that are complicated by the stresses and rigor of presidency.

Also, I think people (in-general) would have an easier time voting for a middle-aged candidate that they know less about than a senior that they already have a set-in-stone opinion of.

aside from the physical issues you mentioned (biden and bernie would literally be older than life expectancy in the usa lol)...the party should be changing with the times and have a 'face' that represents somewhere in the range of the majority of its voters.

the median age of voters overall in presidential elections is 48. democrats disproportionately rely on a good amount of voters even younger than that in order to win (compared to repubs). its increasingly harder to pull those voters in when your candidate is increasingly older (which is why dems historically vote in a prez that is younger than his gop predecessor).

plus older career politicians tend to accumulate a number of votes in the past that run counter to the progressing vision of the current party mainstream (crime bill, gay marriage, etc) and increases their political liability. even progressive bernie voted for the crime bill.

He championed, being Democratic Party policies this cycle

Now we're back to...not a real democrat...something something about Ross Perot...etc

The demographics that Bern brings into the party, combined with the existing base, is a W

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Gandhi

He successfully pushed for good ideas in 2016, but who is he to the left to right now.

Sanders influenced the party heavily and the party developed the most progressive platform ever after the 2016 primary. It's funny how much some lament and smear Sanders when he's been fighting for progressive policies (medicare for all, marriage equality, economic, racial, social justice, non-interventionist foreign policy) for 40 years - yet you claim he hasn't evolved to today's standards? lol The entire Democratic party has essentially evolved to where he's been for damn near a half-century. He godfathered AOC's style -- so if you dislike him so heavily - you probably will dislike the future of the Democratic party.


-->

But I don’t turn to her for how to blow wild backs out.

But that was a common theme/excuse man.

Look, I’m with you on about 80-90% of this.

But we can’t pretend that everything from Russia to
Comey to Bernie to Stem weren’t blamed.

Folks acted like she was the first candidate to
get primaried or face a 3rd party challenge.


2016 burned a lot of people cuz of that feeling
of entitlement- which also lead to complacency.


I wish Bernie wasn’t running. I wish the field was smaller.

But... this still better than 16. I don’t think we freak out
because he’s running.

https://twitter.com/literalbanana/status/1087490762302906368?s=20

...for now, I know Hilary tried too, and so did a lot of people but right now the Dems need a better candidate that people haven't heard of, a new face, somebody who t.rump hasn't said dumb shit about.

I just want a person who doesn't have much serious dirt on them that will make the wishy washy voters (and electoral college) hear one thing that will make them think it outweighs everything else they stand for.

I know no politician is completely clean or hasn't made at least one or two minor questionable things but I'm tired of t.rump and his people being a big bully and calling names like it's grade school, somebody who can take the heat and use it to their advantage instead of going back & forth with that clown.

if that person is out there, i hope his presence doesn't impede them in any way

I don't think Sanders can win, and I'm not happy about his positioning regarding the ways that he was helped by Russian inference in our last election.

When the reality sets in for Sanders that he can't and won't win (he's too far left), I hope he will be a Democrat cheerleader and not a divider. I'm not holding my breath.

With that said, it's frustrating to watch so many actual Democrats mull entering the race that won't win, either. It makes me wonder what people are evaluating on the so-called "listening tours" and exploratory committees.

I kind of think the electoral map of the country is still pretty red, even though there have been some interesting purple spots and a blue wave in the House.

One quality of a strong Democrat presidential candidate, to me, is someone who can win votes--actual votes-- in the general election. For the most part, I think the red map will hold in 2020. Things may be contested, here and there, but...at the end of the day...

It seems that even though there may be disagreements about Trump, many Republicans like things about the policies that have come out of the last 2 years. The electoral map strikes me as still being in their favor. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2020 election was close.

I think the onus is moreso on Democrats to nominate a candidate that appeals to Republican and Independent voters vs. the other way around. I *do* think there is an actual chance Democrats can nominate that type of candidate, but they need a good strategy.

Backlash about Trump and the Republican party doesn't necessarily mean that, as a whole, voters won't elect a Republican (even Trump again). Trump and Republican backlash definitely doesn't mean voters are looking for progressive, left of center/far left candidates, either (or even a centrist Democrat). I haven't seen evidence that the country *votes*--key word--*votes* progressive or left of center.

I got $50 on any bet against him winning any of the Carolinas and/or Georgia in any Dem primary.

if he runs as an independent: this bet is null and void.