Newsweek: BERNIE SANDERS WILL FACE DONALD TRUMP IN 2020 ELECTION, DEMOCRATS SAY

[madville]

BERNIE SANDERS WILL FACE DONALD TRUMP IN 2020 ELECTION, DEMOCRATS SAY
BY NICOLE GOODKIND ON 11/24/17 AT 1:50 PM

The 2020 presidential election is Senator Bernie Sanders’ race to lose, according to a new survey of more than a dozen top Democratic strategists.

The survey, conducted by The Hill, reveals a Democratic field crowded with old faces. At a time when the party could use some fresh blood, most contenders for commander-in-chief have been around for decades. Sanders, who will be 79 years old in 2020, currently leads the pack.

“His people have never gone away,” Democratic strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill. “And he has a loyal core following out there that will be with him come hell or high water.” Sanders is the most popular politician in America, with an approval rating of 75 percent, according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll.

Since losing the 2016 primary to Hillary Clinton, Sanders has toured the U.S. to promote his political group, Our Revolution, and his Medicare-for-all bill. His frequent travel has led many to speculate that he’s drumming up support for another presidential run. Advisers to the Vermont senator also have indicated that he’s eyeing the top job. When one of Sanders' associates was asked if his team was thinking about another run, the associate simply said, "Yes, is the answer."

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020-presidential-elections-721906


--------------------------------------------------------------------

It's way too far out but still interesting. Even in a couple of years Bernie could still be sitting on a reliable primary voting base of 30-35%, that would be an interesting head start in what will likely be a crowded field of 5 or 6 legitimate contenders fighting over the remaining 65-70% of voters.

[Irish_Dem]

1. Biden or Bernie would be great. We are going to need an older, trusted, stable figure.

People have no idea the amount of damage that Trump will leave behind.

[oberliner]

3. Old white men

Not the way to go.

[Irish_Dem]

6. They can choose a rising star running mate. After living through the Nixon years, we are going to

need a Gerald Ford type. People are not going to want to gamble on an unknown.
But somebody diverse can run if meets the stable wise figure criteria.

[oberliner]

10. I think we should nominate a woman

Preferable one who isn't white.

I do understand your argument, though.

[Irish_Dem]

20. I totally love the idea of a POC female, but I keep thinking about the Nixon aftermath.

It was so horrible, and destabilized the country like Trump is doing.
We needed a certain type of president at that time.

But I am open to looking at all options.

[oberliner]

23. Long way to go

A lot will happen between now and then no doubt.

[Irish_Dem]

26. If you are old enough to remember the Nixon era, you well know how very bad things are going to get.

Young people have no idea.

[pangaia]

49. Enjoyed the discussion btw you and Oberliner..

May I say..
The Nixon years can not hold a candle to the horror of right now and what will happen.....

I have no idea what kind of candidate is right.... or can win...

[Irish_Dem]

53. I agree, I think it will be worse than Nixon and that was bad.

That is why we are going to need a special leader to unite the country, repair and heal.

[DonViejo]

131. And we ain't even halfway through this yet. eom

[Irish_Dem]

132. Yes it is early days. We are just in the beginning of it all.

The middle and end of this story have not yet been written.

[DonViejo]

139. From what I have read, and heard from assorted talking heads...

we're only 25% there. If we believe that then, we ain't seen nothing yet. I well remember the Watergate hearings, we're not even close to that either.

[Irish_Dem]

143. Yes I would agree, 25% sounds about right.

Unless the powers that be decide to take a short cut and just get Trump to make a deal....then we could skip a lot of the Nixon drama, it was so damaging and lasted too long. And Nixon was less dangerous than Trump. I remember clearly thinking Nixon was medicated there at the end.... looked like he was on valium, was docile.

[DonViejo]

145. I cannot see him talked into getting out of office...

He and Bannon have pretty much split the party; the base hates the leadership and the leadership is terrified of the base. Trump and Bannon will lead the charge against all levels of the GOP leadership

Interestingly, I heard an interview with Norman Ornstein the other day. He said the base is the 35% approval rating in polls, which is 65% of the GOP vote. I have a feeling things are going to become very, very nasty and dirtier than they already are.

[Irish_Dem]

146. I think it would require very delicate handling, but Trump could be bought off and

scared enough to make a deal. He doesn't like the job, hates the WH.
Loves money and fame. A deal cut giving him and his spawn immunity,
cash inducements, etc might work. There would have to be a big face saving
cover on all of it.

Oh it is going to get quite bad. Trump's pathology is such that he will get more vindictive and dangerous when cornered. And Congress is afraid of the Deplorables and Trump. So it is going to be quite a show. A bad one. I agree with you.

[thegoose]

301. You may be right

Seems like we're of the same generation. Nixon was awful, but he finally got shut down. Here, we have a hideous spewer of lies and a sycophant congress that constantly wants to blow him to forward its disgusting agenda. Look at all the weaklings who originally despised the orange piece of shit who now bend over to take the cheetoh. Ryan...Cruz...McLipless...

Corruption? Please. It's off the table. Morality likewise.

[Irish_Dem]

306. Some members of congress have been bought off by the Russians too.

At any rate quite a few totally corrupt congress members.

[Control-Z]

93. Sanders would not be stabilizing. eom

[Sophia4]

107. Why do you think Sanders would not be stabilizing?

In my view, he has the ideas about programs we will need as we move into an era in which many of the jobs we have done for a century or so disappear.

His ideas, in my view, will help us deal with the new technologies. I also like his personality. He conveys the care and love he has for others. And he speaks without fear.

Why do you think he would not be stabilizing? I think he would be.

His age troubles me, but a lot of young people really, really like him.

[Irish_Dem]

133. I love Bernie and I am older. I think he would be stabilizing.

But others have hard feelings from the primaries I think.

[dhol82]

157. I am old and I dont see Bernie as being a positive attribute for 2020.

Just my opinion.

[ClarendonDem]

303. What do you find negative about Bernie?

Just curious.

[dhol82]

305. First and foremost, in 2020 he will be 79.

Second, he is not a Democrat.
Third, I think he has wonderful ideas that have very little basis in economic reality. His ‘pie in the sky’ declarations are fantasy. This country is currently being dismantled. It will take years and an amazing amount of money to put it back together.
He’s a very nice man. He should not be president.

[madville]

9. Say Kamala Harris has a strong showing in the Primary but Bernie gets the nod

She'd be a good VP pick.

Teaming up with Bernie like that could be a make or break career move though.

[oberliner]

13. I would prefer to see a woman at the top of the ticket

Just my two cents.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

148. Would love to see that!!

Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!

[guillaumeb]

11. This old white man agrees.

But if age is a hindrance to office, most of Congress should retire.

[Wwcd]

36. Exactly. We've had enough of 70+ white men.

What happened to the "we need young people running!" claims.

Now 70+ is a-ok?
Weird.

[Irish_Dem]

40. I agree with you in general, but it is going to be a shit storm when Trump

leaves.

Going to take a very special person to stabilize the country and do mop up.

[Wwcd]

47. Agree. But Bernie Sanders is an extremely divisive person.

We need a healer. Bernie is not even close to that persona.
Plus he's got some unanswered critical questions left over from his last campaign.
He can't keep pretending they don't exist.

Gotta come clean or walk on.

[Irish_Dem]

51. I see Bernie if a very different light. But I understand there are hard

feelings in the Dem ranks about Bernie.

But he is a fine public servant and would do a good job.
But he may not overcome the rancor from the primaries.

However, there are other fine leaders who can do the job as well.

[Wwcd]

59. Thank you.

Recognizing the divisive position he has created in the Party is a good start to healing all affected.

Appreciate it.

[Sophia4]

113. Is it really Bernie who divided the Democratic Party?

Or was it maybe the anger toward Bernie on the part of people in the Party who did not support him?

After all, Bernie volunteered and campaigned for Hillary with a lot of energy and enthusiasm after the Democratic convention. So strongly so that many of his supporters were upset with him about it.

I can't think of a thing that Bernie did to divide Democrats other than honestly offer himself as a potential presidential candidate and run a fair campaign.

What did he do that was so divisive? I can't see it.

Anyone should be able to run in the primaries. That's a part of democracy.

[LiberalLovinLug]

258. Exactly

Its like blaming Obama for "dividing the country" and stoking racism. When it is all on the people that reacted to his win and position that voluntarily divided the country.

Same goes for Bernie. He's the most popular politician in America right now. It would be stupid not to push him as the front runner. They should be pleading with him to run. And those that still cannot get over the primaries (even though they won!), will try and divide the Democratic party, and refuse to vote for him.

It would be amusing to watch this place blow up if Sanders DID win the nomination for 2020.

[juxtaposed]

78. Divisive, Lacking persona to heal,Unaswered Questions?, Hiding answers to hard questions,

Not coming Clean... Sounds just like a R/W radio show 24 /7 everyday. Same points raised as R/W radio everyday.

[Wwcd]

81. Who listens to RW Radio?

[juxtaposed]

86. Your points are what is spit every day on R/W radio even the $11 million B/S

[Sophia4]

108. I don't see Bernie as at all divisive.

What do you think is divisive about him?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

149. Why the ageism?!

[bagelsforbreakfast]

114. The Al Franken thread needs more posts... n/m

[Roland99]

230. At the least, need youth and diversity at the VP

Since there’s an increasing chance they’d take over after death by old age.

[still_one]

12. No they wouldn't be, and I doubt either will run, but if they do, I would bet money they wouldn't

get the Democratic nomination.

[pnwmom]

38. There are plenty of experienced Dems in their 50's and 60's. We don't need

to go with people who will be pushing 80.

[Sophia4]

115. Who do you like?

[pnwmom]

117. I haven't settled on anyone yet, but I like Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff,

Corey Booker, Amy Klobucher, and others. And of the older candidates, I"d prefer Elizabeth Warren to Biden or Bernie.

[Sophia4]

120. I like Bernie, but I would be surprised if he really runs again.

I think he is more likely to help push some other candidate forward.

But that is just my guess.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

152. I like him Bernie too... I'm guessin' he's going to bow out gracefully...

would be interested in who he would endorse as his successor.

[StevieM]

169. Welcome to DU!! I am not a Bernie fan but I fully expect him to run again.

Biden too.

[NastyRiffraff]

45. No and no

I like Joe Biden, but I think his time for a presidential run has past. Bernie? Just NO. No thank you. No.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

69. +1.

[delisen]

76. Biden and Bernie do not have what is needed

If they were not male nobody would be backing them now. They are too weak on Trump and Russia.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

153. Bernie weak on tRump?! You're kiddin', right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. Can we please have someone who hasn't already run & lost a primary before? Please? nt

[Sophia4]

116. Did you say that when Hillary decided to run?

She had run and lost a primary before. Should that have disqualified her?

Personally I don't think so. I think that having run in a prior campaign gives a candidate the name recognition they need to win. So I don't think that is a problem.

[Tarheel_Dem]

126. No I didn't say it when Hillary decided to run. I'm saying it now. That's my privilege.

[bettyellen]

2. Oh god no. He'd never bring the blue wave we need with him.

He'd rather destroy the DNC than admit any good in it.

[MANative]

8. Agreed. I'd vote for Bernie over tRump, but not happily. Nt

[tomp]

32. Really?!!! Are you serious?

Any sane person should be overjoyed to vote for sanders over trump. I can understand he might not be your favorite candidate, but given sanders vs trump you would not be happy to vote for sanders?

Let me guess, you're one of thse people advocating unity at all costs against trump, but you don't mind denigrating sanders. You realize ther are broad forces on this board who would have one's head for denigrating virtually any other Dem.

[MANative]

63. Except Bernie isn't a "dem" and his "bros" did no favors for our candidate in 2016.

Yeah, it would be no contest to choose him over the ass currently squatting in the Oval, but my enthusiasm for the idea wouldn't be stratospheric.

[charlyvi]

71. Mine would be none at all.

Against Trump, I'd hold my nose and do it. Against anyone else, I probably wouldn't

[tomp]

87. that puts us not on the same page....

...and puts you both in the category of "part of the problem.".

you are straining the left wing of the party by lobbying for more centrism. one day, and possibly very soon, you will dare the left once too often to split into its own party. good luck with that, but don't say you weren't warned.

[charlyvi]

136. Wrong

Last edited Fri Nov 24, 2017, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I’m as lefty as you get, have been for 66 years. Bernie Sanders does not define the left. If you think he does then it is YOU who are part of the problem.

[tomp]

206. I never said he defined the left, so don't put words in my mouth.

I can testify to my own left credentials and there's no need for a pissing match on that subject.

Are you looking for someone to the left of sanders that you could happily vote for over trump? Tell us, who could you vote happily for?

[Wwcd]

84. But Trump won't be availible to run in 2020. So who is our Dem running against

Anyone running against Trump in 2020 is merely a hypothetical at this point.
Trump won't be running for anything again by that date.

[tomp]

207. we'll see. nt

[stevenleser]

164. Yep, he'd be a terrible President. I wouldn't be happy to vote for him either.

He has no idea what he is doing. You could tell that in the debates vs Hillary. He has the standard Progressive line down that some 15 million progressives in the country can also regurgitate as appropriate given the questions. Beyond that, he doesn't really have much understanding of the issues and I have zero confidence he can run the government and country.

If elected, Bernie's ineptitude would cause a lot of damage to the Democratic/Liberal/Progressive brand. He would probably lose in four years to another crazy Republican, maybe Cruz.

[Demsrule86]

189. I am not a Sanders fan.

I would vote for him in the general but not with enthusiasm...and never in a primary.

[kcr]

265. Bernie is good at whipping up crowds. He'd be a disaster as President.

I'd happily vote for him over Trump because a progressive disaster would be a million times better than a KKK disaster. But I would still rather have a competent nominee.

[ghostsinthemachine]

205. Wow, just wow (nt)

[guillaumeb]

14. Where was that wave in 2016?

Low tide.

[bettyellen]

18. Too many fair weather Dems fell for Russian propaganda and suppressed the vote. Not getting fooled

By that crap again. They're discrediting themselves right now trying to "primary" Dems.

[guillaumeb]

29. Too manu "occasional" Democrats fell for Trump's racism as well.

And the lunacy of supply side tax cuts.

[bettyellen]

68. If they fell into support for Trump they are not ever liberal. Even if some don't like it, being

Liberal includes a serious commitment to social justice. I understand that's a reason many will not join w Dems but screw them.

[Agschmid]

74. Yup.

[delisen]

67. Exactly and. Too many were easy marks for

Putin's propaganda mill. They wer far too slow to acknowledge the war with Russia and even today many seem unwilling to forcefully deal with it.

I am disgusted with the old boy politics and would be revolutionaries who targeted the Democratic candidate as the enemy.

[bettyellen]

73. Several people I know in real life were sharing Russian propaganda- they still have no shame about

It, but they should. They suppressed the vote, as Putin had hoped. Fuck that.

[sarah FAILIN]

15. I agree

I didn't like him as a candidate then and not in 2020. I'm a centrist person, but he makes me feel like a republican.

[Wwcd]

50. He makes me cringe. Its the Rape Fantasy book that makes me feel so.

He was 30 yrs old. Not a curious teen.
Wtf.
Puke

[Wwcd]

37. He's proven his affinity to destroying the Dem Party over damning the RW.

He has nothing new to add.
Move on Bern..your luster wore off when you showed your hand with your Senate voting record.
2 people voted against the Magnitsky Act.
Going against our greatest allies around the globe.
And we're not buying that excuse he gave either.
Shame on you Bernie.

[dembotoz]

4. Cue the Bernie haters

[Wwcd]

64. He created them.

We've good reason to be suspicious of bernie sanders.
He gave us many.

[charlyvi]

72. +1000

[R B Garr]

118. ++++++Exactly!!

Well said, thank you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

150. Seriously!

[Lil Missy]

260. I dont hate Bernie. I just want a Democrat in 2020

[dembotoz]

263. Yep the Bernie haters

[L. Coyote]

5. Year of the Woman is a likelier scenario at this point.

[bettyellen]

16. I agree there will be no equivocation about women's rights with what's going on now. WE are the base

men need to sit down and acknowlege we are not just "at" the table, we vote. Young men do not.

[PubliusEnigma]

7. That'll be the day.

[L. Coyote]

19. It would be a Putin and Trump dream come true.

[Me.]

58. Boom

Where did that 10 mil come from?

[Wwcd]

79. We've yet to have an answer & the one they gave is full of holes.

Guess they should check with Old Towne Media & who its connected to.
But Mueller's already on that with Manafort's testimony implicating Devine.

We'll have to wait for Mueller to reveal his indictments of all the Congress peeps who took Kremlin Cash.
There's a lot of them too. I expect many will be cutting deals rather than face the music.
They'll talk & they'll resign from office.

Should be interesting when the dust clears, to see who's left standing.
Mueller misses nothing. He's like Batman.

[Me.]

83. OMG...Can't Wait

Could take a while, wonder who in congress besides Roherbacher, could McConnel/Ryan be on the chopping block? I read about Mueller today, how he likes to surprise, and is fierce in apprehending those he considers criminals.

[juxtaposed]

82. Sean Hannity

[Me.]

85. Cute

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Pretty doubtful, IMO, but the pundits love to stir shit

and keep the Hillary vs. Bernie squabble going.

[Wwcd]

39. Yup, they sure have been keeping that fight going.

There is no other reliabe & bigger divide currently playing in the Anyone but Repubs Party.

[awesomerwb1]

22. I don't hate Bernie

Just don't want him to run again. (I wasn't thrilled about Hillary either).

[mcar]

24. Wow, a dozen say

Not exactly a majority of Democrats, is it? What a ridiculous headline.

[sheshe2]

88. It's The Hill after all...

They like to stir things up. I use to like there posts, not anymore.

[mcar]

98. Yes. But shame on Newsweek for that ridiculous headline

They should have considered the source.

[madville]

25. I'm curious to see if the GOP can mount a primary challenge against Trump

Assuming he is still there of course. Could be possible if they can line up behind one primary candidate early. The article is assuming it's a given Trump will be running in 2020.

[Irish_Dem]

27. I think Putin hacked the GOP primaries. If they can get a clean vote this time, who might beat Trump

in 2020?

[cwydro]

28. Never happen.

Bernie will never win the presidency.

[Butterflylady]

41. And all the pundits said Trump would never

Be the nominee, let alone win and look how that worked out. I never thought there were that many ignorant people. Boy was I wrong. In this world today anything is possible.

[cwydro]

44. Sadly, my mother predicted his win.

And I was in no way confident in a Hillary win.

My sister was the only one completely confident. She’s not been the same since.

But then, none of us has.

[Vinca]

30. I love Bernie, but I'd really like to see the next generation of Dems up at bat.

[tomp]

34. How about we try a true progressive over a centrist...

...which we've never done, before putting the old generation out to pasture? Who is equally or more progressive and has anywhere near the support sanders has?

[Wwcd]

42. He's not as Progressive as he claims to be.

But it was an unused useful cool label to grab.

His voting record does not reflect the Progressive values he claims to have.

Sen Paul Wellstone defined Progressivism.
Sanders is a long way from living that progressive record.
But he sure talked a good talk..

Meh.

[Irish_Dem]

57. I would so love a real progressive. I am sick of GOP lite.

The people deserve some help with education, healthcare, etc.

[sheshe2]

90. Who is it you are calling "GOP lite?"

...and what exactly is a "real progressive"? I see those terms tossed around a lot.

Irish_Dem
57. I would so love a real progressive. I am sick of GOP lite.

Did you happen to read the Democratic Platform?

The people deserve some help with education, healthcare, etc.

[Irish_Dem]

94. Look at some of the Dems who fought Obama on healthcare and other issues.

These are not progressives.

[sheshe2]

99. So you are condemning Democrats with a broad brush...on a Democratic board?

They are Democrats.

Plus what about the platform? Did you read it?

[Demsrule86]

268. And they are gone...replaced by Republicans but are we better off without them in the minority.?

[mcar]

101. Kind of like "neo liberal"

Or corporatist, turd way, DLCer.

[lapucelle]

103. GOP lite might be the "progressive Republicans"

whom Nina is so eager to endorse.

[GulfCoast66]

96. To young to remember McGovern?

That did not work out so well.

[Irish_Dem]

125. Nixon beat McGovern. How'd that work out?

Dagnabbit, I had a McGovern bumper sticker on my little VW bug, bright yellow.

[GulfCoast66]

135. You make my point

I was responding to as plea for us nominating a progressive for once. I was just suggesting we had done so and the results were suboptimal.

Of course, this liberal is still trying to figure out what the fuck a progressive is except a liberal whose candidate did not win.

[Irish_Dem]

138. "I'm a dreamer and I'm not the only one."

I can be quite practical as well and I see your point.

I just cannot give up on the world I see, the one we must have if humans
are to survive as a species and become an advanced civilization. A world with clean air, food, and water. Sick people can see doctors, young people can get an education and good jobs. Enough money for people to raise their families.
A planet were people are safe and respected, and can go about their daily business unmolested. And we will not be wiped out by war and climate change.

I just cannot give up on that world, I have seen it in my head since I was a child.

[GulfCoast66]

156. Respect that and agree

But if we do not win it means nothing. And if liberals vote against any liberal even a little more centrist than they are...we will never win.

[Demsrule86]

269. Good tune...but our country has lurched right...not unlike the 90's when Clinton stopped 16 years

of GOP rule.

[Kentonio]

280. Gosh a progressive lost 45 years ago?

That must obviously prove we can never ever run another progressive..

[GulfCoast66]

292. I was mainly responding to the complaint we had never run a progressive

Once someone tells me what a progressive is vs a social democrat liberal like me I will tell you if we should run one.

I guarantee you I do not want a progressive in the mold of when the term was coined that cared only about economic issues.

No term gets thrown around more than progressive. I have come to see it as a term for liberals who think they are too cool to identify with we common democrats.

[Irish_Dem]

123. Yikes, looks by the responses being a progressive is not popular ........ sigh.

[Demsrule86]

272. I am a progressive...I simply don't agree with you...it is better to win...we don't have the

conservadems anymore ...now we have Republicans...and that is way worse...we will never hold the majority without centrist Dems and that is a fact...I am sick of losing. Also, there is no indication that this country has moved left...you run a candidate that the righties can demonize as a 'socialist', we will lose...probably a McGovern style loss...we can't afford that...already the GOP is stacking the lower courts which will cause deep trouble for all progressives and Americans for years.

[Vinca]

140. I'm sick of centrists, too, but surely we've got some progressives under 75.

[stevenleser]

166. Sanders support is very weak. He is only +6 against Trump in polling right now. Anyone with Sanders

name recognition should be killing Trump.

My preferred candidate for 2020 right now is as progressive as Sanders but can actually win in red states.

Pete Buttigieg.

[delisen]

75. I'm finished with the male candidates

The are unable to bring about the equality revolution we need to survive.

Please especially no more "jobs" candidates who lack the honesty to point out the coming reality of mass automation

and the normalizers of Trump need to give up their presidential ambitions.

[NanceGreggs]

31. Trump won't be running in 2020. n/t

[StevieM]

208. I predict that he will. He can't stand not to be the center of attention.

And the fact that he has broken the law and committed impeachable offenses shouldn't be a problem because Republicans will just ignore the facts and say that he didn't.

[NanceGreggs]

216. It's not up to him.

Even if he survives the Mueller investigation (extremely doubtful), his numbers are in the toilet and have steadily gone downhill since he's been in office.

The problem here is that the Trump brand is destroying the Republican brand. The GOP aren't going to back a proven loser, and inflict even further damage to their party. Whatever is left of his "base" by 2020 wouldn't be enough to re-elect him.

The Republicans may be stupid, but they're not stupid enough to want another four years of being in damage control mode literally on a daily basis. They see the disapproval numbers, they see the headlines.

At this point, the PTB in the Republican party probably want rid of him even more than we do - not because they care about the country's well-being, but because they care about their own survival.

[StevieM]

218. Why would tanking poll numbers be a problem when they are clearly fake numbers ginned up

by the establishment who are trying to stop him from making America great again?

The GOP base will not accept that Trump is deeply unpopular. They will simply say that he is popular and the pollsters are lying.

And his popularity will not fall so low that even most Republicans want him gone. Why would they? He hates all the right people. And he validates that they are indeed the real Americans.

[NanceGreggs]

222. The PTB in the GOP ...

... know those numbers aren’t ginned-up. They know that they have been losing ground among their own constituents. And if they were hoping that wasn’t the case, they got proof of it in the recent elections where Dems soundly defeated Republicans across the board.

"The GOP base will not accept that Trump is deeply unpopular. They will simply say that he is popular and the pollsters are lying."

What difference does that make? No one who is dissatisfied with Trump is going to vote for him just because they're told he's actually more popular than the poll numbers show. That makes zero sense.

We’re not even a full year into this “presidency”, and Trump’s approval numbers are already the lowest of any POTUS in modern times. Where do you think they’d be three years from now?

Republican voters may be stupid – but the PTB in the party aren’t. They know that those sinking numbers mean they are losing the trust of their own voters. The I’ll stick with Trump no matter what crowd are a small portion of their base, and not nearly enough to re-elect him.

Trump has already done irreparable damage to the Republican brand in less than a year. Why would they invite a second round of four years of damage when they don’t have to, when they can try and salvage what’s left of their credibility as a party by running a candidate with NO Trump baggage to be overcome?

Besides all of the above, Trump hates the job. And as much as he loves “attention”, that “attention” has led to investigations into his personal finances, along with those of his family and friends. If he’d foreseen what was coming, he never would have run in the first place – and right now, you can be damned sure he’s regretting that he ever did.

[StevieM]

224. What I am saying is that GOP voters who like Trump will not believe that they are in the minority.

Last edited Sat Nov 25, 2017, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

They will reject the poll numbers that indicate other people don't like him. So they won't throw him out due to a fear of losing.

And I think most Republicans are very satisfied with Donald Trump.

As for TPTB in the Republican Party, I don't see what they can do if Trump can get the votes to be renominated. They can't control who people vote for. If they could, they would have stopped Trump in 2016.

I agree that Trump hates the job, but I think he will run for re-election anyway since, after all, being president is his birthright.

[NanceGreggs]

235. What difference does it make ...

... if they don't "believe they're in the minority" if they actually ARE in the minority?

The GOP doesn't have to run Trump. They could tell him up-front that the party will NOT give him any support, financial or otherwise. They can keep him from running on their ticket with that threat alone.

You seem to be missing the point that we are less than a year into Trump's "presidency", and he's already lost ground among Republican voters. Where would he be three-plus years from now at the rate his approval numbers are sinking?

The PTB in the GOP are already distancing themselves from Trump. They contradict his more ludicrous statements, and have found ways to circumvent his bullshit.

"I think most Republicans are very satisfied with Donald Trump." His approval numbers don't bear that out.

Exactly WHAT do you think the GOP could run a Trump re-election campaign on? "We know the majority of the country doesn't approve of him, doesn't trust him, and see him as incapable of delivering on any of his campaign promises - but let's give him another chance, and hope he does better"?

There is simply no point in trying to re-elect a loser, when they could put up a candidate that ISN'T a pussy-grabbing proven liar who spends his days golfing and putting out ludicrous tweets. Their task in 2020 will be to come up with someone who is the opposite of Trump - it's the only way they can hope to recapture the voters who are fed-up with his antics - and think of how many MORE voters would be fed-up after another three years, if he lasted that long (which he won't).

Republicans like to play offense - and the last ten months have been nothing but having to play defense. Even the most dedicated RW media spokes-mouths are now phoning it in; they're sick and tired of having to defend the indefensible - and it shows.

Do you really think the Republican PTB want four more years of being in damage-control mode every single day, of having to come up with excuses for Trump's ignorance and stupidity, of having to reason-away mindless "tweets", of having to face angry voters who aren't getting anything they were promised - of having to actually DEFEND the man who is bringing their party down?

Those who were easily manipulated into voting for Trump in 2016 will be just as easily manipulated into voting for whoever the GOP run in 2020 - and the PTB know that.

It's simple. If the sales numbers on the product you're pushing are consistently dropping, you come up with a "new and improved!" product. You don't keep trying to convince consumers that they should buy your failing product because it's the best they can come up with.

[StevieM]

242. I certainly appreciate all the work you are putting into your very thoughtful posts.

Maybe I am not being clear. So let me try again.

When a GOP primary voter is told that Trump is polling at 35 percent it means nothing to them. In their mind it is a lie. He is actually very popular. So it wouldn't cause them to vote against him.

I believe there is a floor to how low Donald Trump can go with Republican voters. He is a racist, misogynist, hate-mongerer, who wants to help the rich and who tells them that conservatives are the true American patriots--what's not to love? (From their twisted perspective, that is).

I don't see what the GOP establishment can do to prevent Trump from winning. They cannot keep him off the ballot. I don't think they can credibly deny him the nomination if he wins it in a contested race. Besides, Trump seems to have taken control of the RNC. I suppose the big money donors could refuse to support him. But they didn't support him last time either. And this time he will probably get more small-money donations from the grass roots.

In any event, if the GOP wants to get rid of Trump they can simply impeach and remove him. They will certainly have enough reasons. But I don't see them doing that. I think they fear that the grass roots Republican voters are totally under his sway and they will vote lawmakers who impeach Trump out of office, even 5 years later. Trump will certainly campaign against them. And I believe that GOP voters will listen to him.

[NanceGreggs]

249. ...

"When a GOP primary voter is told that Trump is polling at 35 percent it means nothing to them. In their mind it is a lie. He is actually very popular. So it wouldn't cause them to vote against him."

It wouldn't cause them to vote FOR him either.

The GOP can't impeach him now - it would be political suicide to do it before the mid-terms. They can still hope the staunch Republicans will vote (R) - but even the loyalest voters would head for the hills if they saw that kind of instability within their own party.

Besides, they know that Mueller's investigation will do the job for them.

Again you're ignoring the obvious question. Where do you think Trump's approval rating would be three years from now? It's been a steady drop since he took office, and it's still going down. He loses ground every day - and Mueller's findings have yet to be finalized and made public. And don't think that "all Republicans" will ignore those findings - they won't. As I said, the Trump-no-matter-what crowd is a minority of the broader GOP base.

"They cannot keep him off the ballot." Of course they can - and they would.

[StevieM]

278. I thought I addressed the question you posed when I said that Trump has a floor IMO.

I don't think he drops below 30 percent. I don't think GOP voter abandon him, even if it is shown that he colluded with the Russians. They will either refuse to accept that he did it, regardless of the evidence, or they will decide that it wasn't wrong for him to do what he did.

Maybe I am wrong, but I am not making my theory up out of nowhere. I am basing it on what I have seen happen in the past.

I don't see how the GOP establishment can credibly keep an incumbent president off the ballot. I don't see how they can keep any possible candidate off the ballot. I fully expect Trump to be challenged in a primary, maybe even forced into a dog fight for the nomination. But I don't see him losing.

[NanceGreggs]

302. Think of it this way

The Republicans are a business; a Republican president is the CEO they hire for a four-year term.

At the end of those four years, that president’s employment contract is up – so they can offer him a new contract, or hire a new CEO.

Now, what is the point in re-hiring a CEO who has caused nothing but headaches for the Republicans, has been embroiled in one scandal after another, wars with his own party members, and is only approved of by a small minority of employees – when you can simply replace him with someone more likeable and with no baggage to be overcome?

The GOP can keep Trump from running as a Republican in their primaries – and easily so. That means his only option would be running as an Indy – and given his low approval numbers, he wouldn’t be able to garner the donations necessary to finance an independent campaign.

Were Trump to run as a Republican in their primaries, it would be a bloodbath. His challengers for the nomination would dredge-up every knuckle-headed move, every failure, every insane tweet, every ludicrous statement – plus whatever findings Mueller announces at the end of his investigation (and they’re going to be whoppers!)

The GOP certainly does not want that dirty laundry aired because it raises questions as to why they backed Trump in the first place. And there’s no way all of the challengers will enter into debates without pointing to Trump’s “baggage” in order to make themselves look like the better candidate by comparison.

If Trump survives his full term (HIGHLY unlikely), the GOP will laugh in his face at the idea of giving him another four years. There is absolutely no reason for them to do so, when a new “bright-and-shiny” candidate who doesn’t pose any threat to the GOP brand can be put in his place.

[StevieM]

307. Well I certainly feel guilty for not putting as much thought or effort into my posts as

you have clearly done. You make a very compelling case.

I just don't see it playing out that way. I cannot imagine the GOP suddenly declaring that the incumbent president does not have the right to appear on the ballot. That would essentially mean that the GOP had abandoned the primary process. And I think that the various state party chairs would be very reticent to be the one to take that kind of action.

I don't think GOP primary voters see Trump and his antics as a headache--they see him as vindicating their status as the real Americans.

[NanceGreggs]

308. The GOP can keep him ...

... from running for re-election simply by pointing out what I've outlined above.

It wouldn't be a matter of "declaring he has no right to be on the ballot". It would be a behind-closed-doors discussion with him, explaining that they'll be backing someone else, financially and organizationally.

They'd allow him a face-saving exit, where he announces that he's not seeking re-election because (whatever reason he chooses goes here).

As for the die-hard Trumpers, keep in mind just how malleable these people are. The PTB talked them into voting for Trump - they can just as easily manipulate them into supporting someone else.

The biggest stick they could use is to tell him how humiliating it would be for him to lose the nomination and that with his low approval ratings, that is the most likely outcome.

"I don't think GOP primary voters see Trump and his antics as a headache--they see him as vindicating their status as the real Americans."

His failing numbers don't bear that out. There's a lot of buyer's remorse already surfacing - and as he marks his first year in office, he will be marking a year in which he accomplished nothing: Obamacare has not been repealed and replaced with something better and cheaper, there's no border wall, Hillary hasn't been "locked up", etc. - AND he's made staunch enemies of a lot of very powerful people in the party.

It's been an interesting discussion, and I thank you for engaging. But my money is on Trump not lasting his full term anyway. The PTB in the GOP know that - that's why they're desperate to push through "tax reform" before the shit hits the fan re Mueller's findings. It's what they want, no matter what Trump wants - because you and I know he hasn't a clue what's in that bill. He just wants his name on "something", while the party wants tax breaks for their wealthy donors.

[TheCowsCameHome]

33. Neither will be running in 2020

What nonsense.

[StevieM]

209. I predict that Trump and Sanders will both run. Biden too.

I like Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington and Tom Steyer.

[sheshe2]

35. Harvard-Harris on line poll???

[Wwcd]

46. Haaha..really! There it is again. Been proven skewed many times & yet if its all ya got I guess

..we'll keep seeing it.
Geez, when ya have to specifically create a poll to show how wonderful you are then there's no wonderful there.
Duh. Harvard Harris. pfffft

[sheshe2]

55. That poll keeps coming up and has been debunked.

As for 2020...right now all I care about is 2018 and having tRump tossed in jail.

[Wwcd]

61. That's all we should be looking at now. Without a 2018 super win,

we won't have to consider 2020.

2018 is that critical.

[StevieM]

110. It's incredible that they would actually publish that as if it was a regular, scientifically

conducted poll.

Whether Bernie is the next president or not remains to be seen. But what is already known is that it is ridiculous to cite a poll like that one as evidence of his popularity.

[Mike Nelson]

43. I predict...

...neither Trump nor Bernie - as a Democrat - will even be running in 2020! However, Bernie may run as an Independent... not sure how he plans to get back in, yet... Hopefully Trump will have defected to mother Russia.

[StevieM]

170. I predict the exact opposite.

I fully expect Trump to run again.

And I think Bernie will once again seek the Democratic nomination.

[LexVegas]

48. ...

[get the red out]

52. Neither

Jeb Bush was supposed to have won the R nomination too.

I won’t take this with a grain of salt, I will take it with the whole shaker!

[alarimer]

54. Well, let's just do away with primaries then.

Jeez, I like Bernie but this is way premature. He hasn't even said he is running; neither has anyone else.

(I would vote for a ham sandwich at this point; pretty sure it wouldn't do a worse job. Hmm, maybe I'll change my name to "Ham Sandwich" and run, just to see what happens.)

[Me.]

56. Boy...Talk About Killing The Incentive To Vote

and is BS thinking he'll pull that running as a Dem again?

[lapucelle]

60. According to The Hill

12 Anonymous "Sources" = Democrats

[riversedge]

65. article title: How Dem insiders rank the 2020 contenders............

I thought the OP was a poll, until I clicked on this. ta ta.

[lapucelle]

70. Article content:

Last edited Fri Nov 24, 2017, 09:09 PM - Edit history (3)

"The Hill interviewed nearly a dozen prominent Democrats to find out who has captured the party’s attention in recent months and who has fallen out of favor."

Mea culpa: According to The Hill,

Fewer than 12 "Prominent Democrats"= Democrats

The original link was to a secondary source That relied on a publication famous for its "inspired story lines" based on sketchy "data". The Hill based its opinion on speculation of fewer than a dozen anonymous Democrats and the sourced assertion that "there’s also no clear standout in the potential field".

Newsweek then repeated a click bait headline not supported by facts:

"Bernie Sanders will Face Donald Trump in 2020 Election, Democrats Say"

.

Hopefully the young writer of the piece originally linked to (Nicole Gooodkind) did not also pen Newsweek's misleading headline. It is unfortunate that she relied on a largely unsourced story at The Hill and the further musings of progressive strategist Brad Bannon in writing her story.

[R B Garr]

121. ++++++++

Thank you, lapucelle.

[sheshe2]

141. All

Almost 12 of them according to the article.

From your link:

Mea culpa: According to The Hill,

Fewer than 12 "Prominent Democrats"= Democrats


The original link was to a secondary source That relied on a publication famous for its "inspired story lines" based on sketchy "data". The Hill based its opinion on speculation of fewer than a dozen anonymous Democrats and the sourced assertion that "there’s also no clear standout in the potential field".

What is fewer than 12? No wonder I stopped reading newsweek long ago. Fewer than 12 and more than one...ooookay.

[lapucelle]

233. Why. The Hill talked to fewer than 12 anonymous Democrats

and they agreed that there is no standout out in the field.

From this dubious story (the only sourced quote concerned the "no clear standout" statement) a novice newbie at Newsweek (stuck working on a holiday weekend, as she made clear on Twitter) breathlessly concluded "It's BS's nomination to lose!"

As Holly Golightly remarked, "the mind reels".

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

62. Good Lord no!

I am still unhappy that Bernie didn't get the nomination, but even with that I was a bit bothered by his age.

No Biden. No Bernie. No Hillary. No John Kerry. No to anyone who is already 60. We absolutely need a younger candidate.

To fixate on having a woman of color at the top of the ticket is equally foolish but in a different way. Ideally we'd nominate the very best person, but to set such qualifications ahead of time is a mistake. At some point such a person will run, and at some point will win. But we can't simply force it to happen.

I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren run, but I doubt that will happen.

[sheshe2]

142. Ummm...

Elizabeth Warren is 68 now.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

151. I know. And that sort of concerns me.

But she looks and behaves like someone at least a decade, maybe two decades younger. In fact, it's almost impossible to believe that Hillary Clinton is only two years older.

However, I seriously doubt she'll run. Her chance would have been in 2016, but she chose not to challenge Hillary. And that's that.

I am seriously concerned by the fact that the same old names come up over and over in these sorts of discussions here. That and the deifying of Nancy Pelosi (age 77) and Dianne Feinstein (age 84). Contemplate this:

The top three Democrats in leadership are 76 (Pelosi), 77 (Steny Hoyer) and 76 (Jim Clyburn). The top three Republican leaders, in contrast, are 46 (Paul Ryan), 51 (Kevin McCarthy) and 51 (Steve Scalise). Pelosi and Hoyer have together led the House Democrats for 14 years now. Ryan, of course, replaced John Boehner just last year after an open election process. (And while rank-and-file Republicans get to vote on who will chair the NRCC, Pelosi picks the leader of the DCCC.)

It gets worse.

House Democrats do not have term limits for their committee chairs, as Republicans do. The average age of the Democratic ranking members on the 22 House committees this Congress is 68. The average age of the Republican chairmen is 60. On only four of the 22 committees is the top Republican older than the top Democrat.

The seniority rules mean that the most important committees are led by the oldest members. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary, John Conyers, is 87. Ways and Means ranking member Sander Levin is 85. Nita Lowey, ranking on Appropriations, is 79. Maxine Waters, ranking on Financial Services, is 78. For context, the Republicans who lead those crucial committees are 78, 64, 61 and 59.

Maybe this is what should give us pause: Those who said, Don't trust anyone over thirty are now themselves well over 60, hell, well over 70 by now. And they collectively aren't willing to yield an inch of power and control. I see that as scary.

And I'm one of that generation. It's time we started bowing out.

[StevieM]

212. The two potential candidates I like the most, Tom Steyer and Jay Inslee, are both over 60.

And I will be thrilled if one of them runs.

[lapucelle]

154. E Warren will be over 71 in 2020.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

160. Yes, And Bernie Sanders, whose name is at the top of this thread,

will be 79. Hillary Clinton, who's likewise often touted, will be 73.

With all due respect to them, and to certain others, it is long since time to move on, to start cultivating younger Democrats.

[StevieM]

211. I can't imagine that HRC or John Kerry will run again. But I also cannot imagine that

Sanders and Biden won't be running again.

I think Elizabeth Warren is also likely to jump into the race.

[librechik]

66. oy

[TreasonousBastard]

77. Starting the primary wars a bit early, are we?

If, for some obscure reason, we manage to elect an 80 year old part-time liberal, we better make damn sure he has a good vice-President.

[jalan48]

80. Works for me.

[RelativelyJones]

89. Yes, because Democratic strategists are always such worthy prognosticators.

[ismnotwasm]

91. .

[Skidmore]

106. +1 nt

[MrsCoffee]

95. The Russians would absolutely love that.

There isn't a more divisive politician out there right now than Bernie.

[GulfCoast66]

97. As for me, I will only vote for a member of the Democratic Party

In the primary. A current member.

And if we screw up and let a non democrat run under the banner of the Democratic Party I will sadly vote for them and watch Trump win a second term.

[Tavarious Jackson]

100. Hillary voters will not vote for Sanders and he will need them. TRUMP 8 years it looks like nt

[aikoaiko]

173. Wait? What? Those who begged, asked, and demanded unity won't unify....

...around Bernie if selected to be the Democratic candidate?


I'm shock, shocked I'll tell you.

[Tavarious Jackson]

175. There was never unity nt

[Demsrule86]

270. If Sanders was the nominee, I would vote for him of course...but I won't vote for him

in a primary and my most ardent Bernie Millennial supporters (kids) won't vote for him this time in a primary. I hope he doesn't run.

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. Jeebus, I wish these prognosticators would take a walk, or eat a delicious cupcake before they....

take pen in hand. This is just more speculative bullsh*t. Biden & BS will not be on the ballot in '20, but neither will Trump.

[TomCADem]

104. And He Would Throw The Democratic Party Under The Bus Along the Way...

...Bernie can barely make it a month without attacking the Democratic Party ala Trump attacking Republicans. Quite frankly, I am tired of meglomaniacs who feel the need to tear everyone around them down in order to make themselves look better.

[ananda]

105. I voted for Sanders in last year's primary ..

.. and I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat!

[LongTomH]

112. +1000 I walked precincts for Bernie in 2015/2016 when the temperature was in single digits.

I was 71 years old then; If Bernie runs again, I'll do it again at 75.

[Maven]

109. LOLOLOL

More than a dozen people, you say?

[murielm99]

177. No, nearly a dozen.

How many is that? Ten? Nine?

[NurseJackie]

187. Ha!! :-D

[traladeda]

111. Have we run out of Democrats?

There are so many good Democratic candidates, why are we even considering an Independent for the Democratic ticket?

[Hekate]

129. I can name half a dozen strong up-and-coming Dems in California alone

We have plenty of strong outspoken Dems, some two generations younger than Bernie, some well-seasoned and one generation younger than his 79 years.

[DFW]

119. I would be very surprised to see either of them nominated

Stranger things have happened, but I think there is about as much chance of Trump vs. Sanders as there is of Sean Hannity facing Stephen Colbert, and I doubt either would be interested in that drastic a pay cut.

As for "Democrats say," WHICH Democrats say? I know a few top Democratic strategists, myself, and NONE of them say anything of the sort. The ones I know don't expect Sanders OR Trump to be the candidate of a major party in 2020. I think that by then, Republicans will have decided that Trump is too toxic for their tastes, and Democrats will be tired of Sanders dropping in for a few months of fun and then dropping out again when the nomination goes elsewhere.

Trump can get the word from the RNC that the convention will not nominate him. Then he can use his conventional out: "My job here is done, and I did it twice as fast as my predcessor."

[Lunabell]

122. Wish we had a Justin Trudeau

Or Justine.

[Stinky The Clown]

124. *This* Democrat says no.

[Lil Missy]

127. Darn, I have to wash my hair that night.

[Hekate]

128. Oh for the love of Pete

[riverwalker]

130. No, just no n/t

[Historic NY]

134. Done with the old...

old white men one near 80 and the other 75. Sanders will never win because he has no appeal to the black voter.Besides he isn't a Democrat.

[elehhhhna]

137. This is not because Bernie is some attractive magnetic figure. "It's his policies, stupid."

[lapucelle]

144. NEWSWEEK (quoting a dubious source that "polled" fewer than 12 anonymous people):

BERNIE SANDERS WILL FACE DONALD TRUMP IN 2020 ELECTION, DEMOCRATS SAY, AS LONG AS GENERIC DEMOCRAT DOESN'T ALSO RUN"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029878900#post8

[PragmaticLiberal]

147. I hope not.

Whoever our nominee is needs to be able to rally the Obama coalition..and frankly, I don't see Bernie as that person.

[juxtaposed]

155. are there any Bots posting in this thread? please let me know

[democratisphere]

158. Well THAT is NOT going to happen!

What else have you got from that Magic 8 Ball?

[ucrdem]

159. "The survey, conducted by the Hill," that also commissions those monthly Harvard-Harris polls

showing "Sanders is the most popular politician in America," which lame meme is also featured in this lame non-news. In other words this is basically a paid promotion.

Been there.

[ZX86]

161. Bernie will be the next POTUS.

Nobody cares about age, race, or gender. It's the issues and policies that matter and Bernie has been right on the issues for decades. People value trust and leadership. Bernie has promoted the same values year after year whether they were popular or not. No one is viewed more trustworthy than Bernie. No one is more popular than Bernie.

[Me.]

162. OK

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. May I join you?

[Me.]

167. Please Do

[sheshe2]

190. Me too, me.

[Me.]

193. It's More Than Laughable

Should he think to make another try it will have to be as an Indie (as a whole lot of Dems will not put up with his using the party again) and more importantly, there's a whole lot of oppo, that's never been used, waiting in the wings to be dumped all over another attempt to run. And he still has a lot of 'splaining to do...like where are his tax returns and where did that unaccounted 10 mil come from.

So, yes....

[ZX86]

195. And by "...a whole lot of Dems" you mean the vocal but tiny minority

of Democrats that hasn't accepted the results of the 2016 primary and moved on?



The vast majority of Democrats support Bernie Sanders. It's time to unify behind the most popular politician in the nation and defeat Trump and Republicans.

[George II]

197. Those ratings are among voters in Vermont only, NOT "the nation". Why not give us the link?

[Me.]

198. I Mean Those

who believe a poll like this.....some of them even seem to be pushing an agenda here on Democratic Underground.

[sheshe2]

214. Where is the link?

No source then not true...PS Harvard Harris is and internet poll and those #'s are for VT only.

[ZX86]

234. It really doesn't matter whether you personally accept Bernie's popularity or not.

Pro tip: If you really don't like Bernie and his policies, ignoring his popularity won't advance your agenda. You should promote candidates that make it clear they are opposed to his policies and the alternatives they offer instead. If the first thing your favored candidate does is sign on to Bernie's Medicare for All bill, all that does is bolster Bernie's leadership status and front runner in the race for president.

[George II]

293. Your tip could be reversed, too.

[ZX86]

165. Bernie's popularity is no laughing matter.

If you can name another politician that can fill an arena at the drop of a hat like Bernie please let me know.

[Me.]

168. Sez You

[lunamagica]

182. Too bad they don't vote

[ZX86]

183. Don't you mean when they're allowed to vote?

New York City's Board of Elections will acknowledge it broke the law and be making serious changes in its practices, according to the proposed settlement of a legal fight over the purge of more than 200,000 voters from city rolls.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/board-elections-admit-purged-200-000-voters-rolls-article-1.3586490

[lunamagica]

194. GMAB! If anytjing, rhis affected Hillary more than Sanders. There's no way NY would have voted for

him.

Besides, did NY decide who'd be the candidate? Hillary beat Sanders by 4 million votes. Even if everyone of those 200,000 votes had been for Sanders (absurd), Hillary would have still won, by MILLIONS.

It's a well known fact that young people are apathetic when it comes to voting. Sanders held his rallies in college towns. For many -not all, it was a cool, free way to spend an evening. But from that, to voting...well, obviously they didn't feel motivated to do so.

[ZX86]

225. You can't have both ways.

Claiming voting irregularities are inconsequential in the primaries but devastating and game changing in the general smacks of partisan hackery.

[lunamagica]

251. Who is having it both ways? Hillary beat Sanders by 4 million votes,

and received more than three million more votes than trump. That's consistent.

To say that 200,000 votes (and who knows how many of those were for Hillary) doesn't change the outcome when she was MILLIONS of votes ahead of him is absurd

[ZX86]

256. 2016 primaries are history.

Hillary will never run for president again. She will never be president. Bernie on the other hand is the most popular politician in the nation, will run as a Democrat, will win the nomination, then beat the living crap of whatever the Republicans put up. I know that there is a vocal minority of Democrats that have a hard accepting this is the most likely scenario going forward but trust me. This is a good thing. Once we all start enjoying universal healthcare, free college, and $15.00 minimum wage we'll all have a good laugh and wonder what the big stink was about.

[lunamagica]

257. Mark my words. Bernard Sanders will NEVER be president

[R B Garr]

283. Vermont doesnt have free health care.

Vermont doesn’t have free college. Vermont doesn’t have $15 minimum wage.

Interesting observation about the “good laugh,” though. Indeed.

[MrsCoffee]

291. Nope. Michelle Obama and Joe Biden kick his ass in a popularity contest.

Just sayin....

That bullshit Harvard Poll has been shown up big time.

You are in for some major heartbreak. Sanders will never run as a Democrat again on any ticket for any office. I know that there is a pitiful minority that are having a hard time accepting this, but trust me. This is a good thing.

Once we band together and sweep the midterms and 2020 elections, we'll all have a good laugh and sigh in relief that we didn't fall for that shit again.

[Demsrule86]

196. If he was that popular...he would have been the Democratic nominee.

[ZX86]

227. The same can be said for Hilliary in the previous general election.

[lunamagica]

252. She won the popular vote by more than three million votes. That's popular

She was the people's choice.

[Demsrule86]

277. That is true...in fact I supported Pres. Obama and worked for his campaign...it was a much closer

race,but Pres.Obama was more popular and won. It still doesn't change the fact that Sen. Sanders didn't win in 16 and nothing has changed in my opinion that would improve his chances.

[George II]

200. There are a number of politicians who can do so.

[ZX86]

226. Well they better hurry up and get on the stick.

Bernie's walking away with this thing.

[Adrahil]

171. Wanna bet? $100 to your favorite charity.

How confident are you?

[MFM008]

176. I do

I still can't get excited about a guy who's almost 80.
We Democrats win with candidates under age 50.
Anyway Senator Sanders would have to be a Democrat and once again he has left us.

[ZX86]

180. The most popular politician will be the next POTUS.

Bernie is the most popular politician in the country. It's really as simple as that.

[sheshe2]

191. If it is as simple as that then why???

Oh never mind...what is past is past. Me, I am focused solely on 2018.

[sheshe2]

215. Then by all means...

Give us a source (with a link) that says that, a reliable one and not the Bogus 'Harvard Harris' poll.

[ZX86]

228. I don't post links Bernie's popularity polls

anymore than I post links climate change data. People who ask for that kind of information are not really interested in facts.

[sheshe2]

231. So...

You never link to what you post? Ever?

I have never been to a site that allows that kinda he said/she said type of post.. all sites I post on require that to verify and validate the facts. Funny you do not wish to do that on things like climate change and Bernie. When you state a fact, you back it up.

So, therefore your points are moot.

[ZX86]

236. I post links all the time.

But only to breaking news stories or issues that are in legitimate dispute. I'm not going to post links debunking creationism for example. Dinosaur bones are not going to stop existing because creationist choses not to believe in them. Your refusal to accept his popularity does not affect his popularity or his effectiveness as a vehicle for social change.

The first thing any serious Democrat candidate for president does is sign on to Sander's Medicare for All bill. That should tell you something.

[sheshe2]

239. Ah.

Yet you do not link to the post you made on that Harvard Harris Poll...is that not legitimate enough to post a link? You are right. I do not accept his popularity to a post you refuse to link to.

ZX86
236. I post links all the time.

But only to breaking news stories or issues that are in legitimate dispute. I'm not going to post links debunking creationism for example. Dinosaur bones are not going to stop existing because creationist choses not to believe in them. Your refusal to accept his popularity does not affect his popularity or his effectiveness as a vehicle for social change.

Dinosaur bones...interesting.

As for Medicare for all...I just signed up at 65. My opinion, it sucks. It is complicated, covers shit and needs a hell of a work to be for all. I had better coverage through work, then when I lost my job...Obamacare saved my life.

[ZX86]

241. There are 28 million Americans that Obamacare has left behind.

Obamacare may have saved your life but it's killing them.

[sheshe2]

246. Ah.

No link once again, 28 million that were left behind: Where? Who? How?

Who were these 28 million? How and when did this happen? Facts please. Links please. Were they the ones that were left behind when the GOP and trump tried to kill Affordable healthcare.

Oh wait...here's one.

Hmmmm

One Of The Stupidest Anti-Obamacare Arguments Is Making A Comeback
It takes genuine chutzpah for Republicans to complain Obamacare doesn’t cover enough people.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/one-of-the-stupidest-anti-obamacare-arguments-is-making-a-comeback_us_59403222e4b09ad4fbe39eb3

There have been a lot of truly dumb and audaciously dishonest things said about the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, over the years.

snip//

Sure, an estimated 20 million people have health coverage because of the law, and the national uninsured rate is the lowest it’s ever been. But some people remain uninsured. Train wreck!

“Obamacare itself has woefully fallen short of its goal to cover the American people,” Vice President Mike Pence said during an remarks to Department of Health and Human Services employees Tuesday.

And here’s Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price ― who absolutely knows better ― lamenting this state of affairs on Twitter Tuesday, using a chart Pence displayed on stage at HHS headquarters.

Link to tweet

/photo/1

First, that “only 10 million enrolled” refers solely to the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchange marketplaces, and completely ignores the law’s Medicaid expansion, which has provided coverage to more people than the exchanges in 31 states and the District of Columbia, which adopted the expansion.

I know you stated you do not do links. Try reading this one in full. You might have a better understanding of what you post if you do.

[ZX86]

250. I'm not a Republican.

Why are you posting articles attacking Republicans and using it against a Democrat?

Millions upon millions of Americans are uninsured. That's unacceptable for the richest nation in the history of richest nations. If we as a nation can add billions of dollars to military industrial complex with out debate and allocate millions of dollars to settle sexual harassment suit for congress people in secret, with out debate; we can afford single payer healthcare for every American. Just like the rest of the civilized world does for their citizens.

[George II]

232. Where do you get this "most popular politician in the country" stuff?

[ZX86]

237. Common knowledge.

You know if you spent half as much time promoting candidates and policies that you actually support rather than denying the reality of some other candidates popularity you'd have a better chance of getting your preferred policies enacted. That strategy failed spectacularly in the last election and brought us Trump. If you really don't like Bernie please offer me legitimate reasons to support your preferred candidate and his/her policies.

[sheshe2]

247. Common to whom?

[ZX86]

254. People who read news articles.

You have to understand nobody cares whether you personally believe in Bernie's popularity or not anymore than whether you believe in gravity or not. It's not relevant to what's happening in the reality based community. If you want to believe nobody likes Bernie and his policies are unpopular. Fine. Whatever get you through the night.

However if you really want policies different than Bernie's you'd better start fielding candidates that can make a clear distinction between his and theirs. Broad and vague appeals to "shared values", "forward together", and "a better deal" slogans is inspiring no one to vote for Democratic candidates.

[lapucelle]

238. The Harris Poll, commissioned and paid for by THe Hill

conducts a monthly internet poll that offers prizes. The purpose of the poll is to "inspire" "news" stories.

The questionaire lists 12 people, (some who are active politicians, others who are not) and asks respondents to answer a "favorability" question. The Hill then conflates favorability with popularity in order to publish a click-bait headline about the most popular politician on the planet earth!

According to the most recent poll, the winning ticket in 2020 would be "Sanders-Pence", the two most popular current or former politicians/political figures out of the restricted list of 12 people that survey takers are allowed to consider.

The Hill/Harris enterprise never includes former President Obama in their list of people to rate and no write-ins are allowed. They're smart enough to know that the former POTUS would take the number one spot. That certainly would do the Hill's click bait revenue much good!

According to the most recent of the monthly polls, Steve Bannon is the 12th most popular political figure in the country, right after Jeff Sessions, and Rex Tillerson. Poor President Obama does not even garner a mention, as his inevitable win would damage The Hill's story line, so write in choices are not allowed and Obama's name is never included. And poor Senator Sanders is not only the first most popular, he is also the ninth least popular which does raise some questions as to the rigor of the experimental design.

No wonder HL Mencken cautioned that "there are lies, damned lies and statistics".

[Demsrule86]

309. I don't believe Sen. Sanders is the most popular politician...I see no evidence of this.

[StevieM]

220. Bernie may be the next president, we'll have to wait and see, but it is crazy to think that

race and gender don't matter to people. They are huge issues in our society.

You can make an argument that age is not a factor.

[ZX86]

229. The last POTUS was a Black man.

If the last Democratic presidential campaign would have included Sanders or Warren on the ticket we'd have a female President today.

[Demsrule86]

274. No he won't. He doesn't have enough support..and will only act as a spoiler if he runs regardless

of any good intentions.

[VOX]

294. Ive heard enough about the millionayuhs and billionayuhs and the one puhcent on Wall Shtreet

They’re all still there, waiting for their fat-ass tax cut. It’d be great if they were just thrown to the wolves, but that’s a pipe dream.

Meanwhile, the KGB-playbook right-wing is still using him to divide the left. They have yet to train their take-down-the-candidate fusillade on Bernie. If he were an actual candidate, they’d grind him into sawdust. It would be brutal and relentless.

I voted for Bernie in last year’s primary, and I have a lot of respect for the man. But politics are now more vicious than they were in 2016. Any candidate going against the machine has to have broad appeal and must be nimble in the face of coordinated attacks coming from multiple directions.

[jmowreader]

172. How about Jay Inslee (gov of WA) and Eric Schneiderman?

If you'd like a woman on the ticket, try Kate Brown (gov of OR) and one of the Castro Brothers from Texas. They're both awesome and either would be a good VP.

I like Steve Beshear (former gov of KY and VERY strong Obamacare supporter) but he'll be 76 on Election Day 2020.

We run Bernie and we'll lose. Trump's Dirty Tricks Campaign will play nonstop footage of Soviet May Day parades.

[StevieM]

221. I love Jay Inslee and I think he should run. But it looks like he might sit it out.

The new potential candidate who I am liking more and more is Tom Steyer.

I like Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada for VP.

[jmowreader]

223. He looks good, but in our party a candidate has to have lived a completely pure life

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

He has worked for Goldman Sachs and invested in coal. He looks like a really good person, but to many "progressives" those are instant deal-breakers.

[aikoaiko]

174. I for one would welcome a Sanders presidency, but I hope a new generation steps forward.

2020 is a long ways a away and we need to concentrate on 2018 for now.

[mvd]

178. I feel the same way

I would love for Sanders to be President and fight for his progressive policies of single payer, $15 minimum wage, diplomacy first in foreign policy, free public college education, and much more. But it would be nice for a young Bernie supporter or young supporters to step up and run.

[DarthDem]

179. Doubt It

Biden/Harris for me, thanks

[hibbing]

181. To the writer: Please send me what you are smoking

[Quayblue]

240. lol!

[BoneyardDem]

184. This article feels like someone trying to bring back avocado appliances

...the rest of the world has moved on. It really is a minority that want to take that step backward

[Me.]

203. Good One

[Sunlei]

185. hope for Ds 50 people say they will run to make Rs spread thin & spend billions "donor money"

good for the local economies when Republicans spend a bunch.

[Kentonio]

186. Works for me. Go Bernie!

[Demsrule86]

188. Neither Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic primary...given the divisive effect of

a Sanders run...I sincerely hope he doesn't do it.

[still_one]

201. If he did, that would mean the party he was so quick to disassociate himself with after the

primaries, he would have to associates ate himself with it again, and one might think he was only doing this to just further his own political ambitions, and not because he really wants to be a Democrat

[Demsrule86]

275. I am hoping he will be told he will not run as a Democrats...we may lose if he runs at all,

but the damage to the party as whole would be less if he ran as an independent. You can not have Democrats attacked on the right and the left and win.

[sheshe2]

192. No thanks.

[Generic Other]

199. If he is the one nominated I will vote for him

Just like I did for Hillary.

Any one of ours is worth 10,000 of theirs. But I am of the opinion a young fresh face should pick up the baton and run with it next time. I appreciate people like Warren, Kennedy, Murray, Schiff, Lieu, etc.

Let's find the incorruptibles and run them against the deplorables.

[doc03]

202. Don't we have anyone older

[StevieM]

219. Biden is a year younger. I expect Biden and Sanders both to run.

My preferred candidates are Jay Inslee, who will be 69 in 2020, and Tom Steyer who will be 63.

I don't think anyone should be disqualified due to their age. Let the voters decide.

[loyalsister]

204. Maybe figuratively speaking

Bernie and Trump both harnessed some of the same anti-establishment anger. No matter how correct Dems were on issues in 2016, they were still viewed as carrying some responsibility for the economic insecurity and inequality that many voters have experienced. The celebrated Clinton boom and Obama recoveries may look good on paper, but they feel like lies and a dismissal of how bad things really have been for people. Trump and Bernie were both critical but offered different solutions. No matter how similar some were to Hillary, she could not give voice to the anger by taking aim at previous Democratic administrations.

The neoliberal goals of the best educated and fully employed populace have failed because embracing competition of capitalism will always support a system of unequal resource distribution. The gap keeps getting wider and the solutions are untenable. Rather than a war on poverty and pushing impossible goals, Dems could have distinguished the parties by at least given some attention to making poverty and unemployment more tolerable.

Say, a government funded severance income for people whose jobs have been lost to corporate friendly policies that both parties have had a hand in creating. Also a WPA like program? There should be no shame in wanting to have a comfortable job without eyeing a professional ladder to climb. There should also be no shame in not having a college education. That means stop with the focus on candidates who tout their education in ways that do come across as elitist.

I would like to see Dems say, as Bernie did, that the game is rigged. The lie has been that there exists an American dream that can beat the system through education, entrepreneurship, jobs that provide advancement opportunities, etc. People who took out student loans are seeing that as a scam now. Inheiritance and other advantages have crushed start up and job advancement opportunities. The exception being two guys who took over the tech industry.

In order to capture the anger that both Trump and Bernie were able to tap, a 2020 Bernie vs Trump might look like....

A Democrat who admits that the American dream is a joke and we need to stop making false promises. I would like to see a candidate who is willing to say "our predecessors got a lot of stuff wrong, Trump made it worse, and we're ready to fix it...." with some populist policies that target goals of economic security and personal safety for us all to be who we are with no apologies.

Meanwhile Trump will probably stick with "burn it down, build a wall, and hate your brothers and sisters, without putting policies in place that would actually be helpful to people in their everyday lives."

[ZX86]

248. Excellant analysis.

I would add STOP, STOP, STOP, letting the Republicans frame every issue and preemptive compromise during every negotiation. Democrats have allowed Republicans to demonize value neutral words like, "government", "spending", "taxes", and "regulations" and begin every debate from the middle of the conservative position.

[pnwmom]

210. Does all caps make it truer, or just louder? n/t

[MineralMan]

213. Uh, he'll have to win the primary first, and

Trump will have to survive a full term of his time in office. Both things are questionable.

Sanders lost the primary race in 2016. I can't think of a reason why he'd do better in 2020, since there will no doubt be other strong candidates running as well.

[Demsrule86]

276. That is my thinking as well.

He didn't even come close and I expect judging from my own kids that his support even among the young has lessened.

[Kentonio]

281. Allow me to help you there.

He lost last time because he was starting from a position of being virtually unknown, with very little campaign infrastructure and with most of the party unconvinced he was a serious candidate. Despite that he came very close.

If he continues to poll very well then he'd go into the next primary as a front runner with huge name recognition and a much more substantial campaign machinery in place. This would likely give him a much better chance of winning.

[MineralMan]

286. See, I know that. However, I don't think so.

I think the voters are going to want someone fresh and news, not people who have already lost before. That's why I don't see Bernie, Hillary or Joe Biden as having much of a chance.

As far as I know, none of those three have said they'll run. Biden is probably the closest, but I don't think he could win in the primaries, either.

Look for new faces that are familiar but who aren't already branded as losers.

Thanks, though, for trying to help. Even though I'm an old man, I get around OK, and can cross this street on my own just fine.

[JHan]

217. yeah sure.. lol

[herding cats]

243. This is not going to be reality.

If Bernie decides to "become" a Democrat again to run in 2020, he'll once again lose in the primary. His supporters will feel slighted. The winning candidate's supporters will be angry at Bernie's supporters for their tactics and we'll see a remake of 2016 in the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, Mark Cuban, or some other equally idiotic Republican choice, will beat Trump in a primary and use our angst against us to win the presidency.

Then, each of the two top tier Democratic losing candidates avid supporters will, once again, waste precious time and resources pointing fingers after the fact.

All while our Democracy is reduced to ashes.

I'm not interested in anymore reruns. There's just too many new and interesting candidates out there. For example, Pete Buttigieg, and he's just one name of many.

[doodsaq]

244. Because Democrats have no viable candidates in their 40s?

Pathetic.

[Yavin4]

245. I have an idea. Why don't we focus all of our energy on 2018 instead of 2020?

If the Dems don't re-take congress in 2018, there won't be a 2020 to worry about.

[doc03]

253. So he is gonna be a Democrat again

[Demsrule86]

273. He agreed to remain a Democrat but didn't so I honestly don't think he can run as a Democrat...

It seems to me the call for him to become a Democrat by top Democrats a few weeks ago was intended to send a message to Sen. Sanders.

[Billy Jingo]

255. Bugger

<OPE>

[mshasta]

259. New blood in their 40s

Girl or boy


Girl better

[xmas74]

261. I'd prefer an actual Democrat running

Not someone who uses the party for a public soapbox and then stomps on it. We have a number of bright, up and coming Democrats who should be under serious consideration of making a primary run.

Besides, we need to get focused on 2018. Why are we worrying about 2020 when 2018 needs our attention? I know in my state Claire McCaskill is going into a tough race. The GOP has dumped millions into it without a frontrunner from their party. She'd love a bit of help right now. And Renee Hoganson is planning on pulling off an upset against Vicky Hartzler. She'd love some attention.

[MontanaMama]

262. Just the suggestion

that Bernie might run again brings on such upheaval and uproar all by itself!! It proves that he couldn't unite Dems enough for him to win a primary let alone a general election and for that reason alone I hope he doesn't run. If we lose 2020, we lose far more than the election.

[JNelson6563]

264. Lolz...no.

No more boomers. Period.

[Orrex]

266. What a terrific way to guarantee another 4 years of Republican White House!

[all american girl]

267. Can we stop with the white man savior crap

I don't want bernie, I want someone who can connect with women POC, LGBT community, etc. That's not bernie. He has said that our concerns are "identity politics" as if that's bad. He was never vetted properly, and if he runs again, he will.

Here's an issue that he could show us he means to stand with Dems, not himself, and that would be CHIP. He is a sitting senator and I have yet to see him do anything about CHIP. This is healthcare for children...healthcare, his supposed thing. Why isn't he using his platform to shout about this. Nope, he just talks crap about Dems. I just see him caring about himself and not really for the people he claims to want to make changes for. This may be harsh for some, but I need him to prove to me that he stands for what he says, not just for himself, and that's what I see.

[NurseJackie]

271. Amen and hallelujah!

[all american girl]

279. I'm blushing right now

[Me.]

284. Bravo

[GaryCnf]

289. By all means

And by that do you mean someone who can do better than only beating John Kerry's percentage of the women's vote in 2004 by 1% and falling short of Obama's 2012 women's vote by 2%, or someone who didn't get 60,000 less votes in Wayne County (Detroit) Michigan than we got in 2012 . . . someone like that?

[all american girl]

290. I have no idea what you are talking about

I'm talking about the future where we don't need a white dude to "save" us. We have so many great people who talk to and for us. I don't need bernie, who says that my issues are a distraction, and only his interest matter, again, why isn't he doing something about CHIP...like I stated, he needs to prove to me that he deserves my vote, because I don't trust him to remember the rest of us who aren't white dudes.

[GaryCnf]

295. And I'm talking about a future

where assumptions are not made about what the candidate with the wide appeal you described, and we indeed need, looks like because making that assumption in the past has cost our party and this nation greatly.

[radical noodle]

296. The thing that cost us the most

would be those who listened to the RW talking points and Russian bots in 2016.

[GaryCnf]

297. That doesn't explain

A greater level of underperformance among specific demographic groups. Or are you claiming that the 60,000 Obama voters in Detroit who didn't turn out were particularly vulnerable to Russians and right wingers? I really hope not.

[radical noodle]

298. There were a great deal of people who were vulnerable to that

Including some here. We all saw it. I don't know who posted all of that stuff, but posting lies all over the place happened here at DU, on Facebook, and even then spewed back at us in the media. Whoever posted those lies are not ever to be trusted because they will do the same thing again and again.

I have no idea about certain areas since I don't live there, but yes I think it was a factor everywhere... lies will spread a whole lot faster than the truth.

BTW... we had better pay attention to it because it will happen again. This is a concerted effort to stir up trouble that will raise its ugly head every time there's an election.

[GaryCnf]

299. As opposed to,

say, paying attention to our most loyal constituencies instead of trying to co-opt values issues to try to peel off middle of the road voters?

[radical noodle]

300. For instance (?) n/t

[xmas74]

285. Interesting to see people are still fighting thus

Instead of focusing on 2018.

[stlsaxman]

310. interesting, yes. depressing. sad.

These thread make me repeatedly share my "Knock Knock" Joke-


"Knock-knock..."
"Who's there?"
"Twenty-friggin'-Eighteen!!!!"

Join your local DNC, attend meetings, know the issues both locally and nationally, register people to vote, actively support candidates from Schoolboard to Alderman to State Representatives, run to become a delegate... DO something.

thanks for letting me vent...

[xmas74]

312. No problem.

I'm in Missouri and we have a few important races next year.

[xmas74]

287. What about Warren? Kennedy?

If he ran you'd have youth,energy, excitement and the backing of what is a royal family in this country.

I think he could take them both out if he wanted. I also think he'd do fantastic at getting the youth vote.

[JCMach1]

288. Coronation? Let the people decide

[TreeStarsForever]

304. They only polled like 12 Democratic insiders

This is just a way for the media to have sensational headlines.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

311. Eh....no

I mean, I'll vote for whoever runs on the Democratic ticket but still.