I like Bernie Sanders. He appeals to my socialist core beliefs.

[MineralMan]

I do not, however, think he can win in a General Election. I did not think so in 2016, and I do not think so now. It's not a flaw in his positions so much as it is a flaw in how the Democratic voters of this country think. He might make a great President, but I do not believe Democratic voters, as a group, will turn out for him in the numbers we need to win next November.

So, I don't think he will win enough primaries to win the nomination. That's what happened in 2016. He did not win in the primaries. Primary voters include a broad spectrum of Democrats. Enough of those are suspicious of Democratic Socialism and think it is a losing proposition in the General Election. They felt that way in the last election, too.

I believe that Bernie Sanders will actually do worse in next year's primaries and will not win the nomination in 2020. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

So, I'm focusing on other candidates, Joe Biden in particular. I think Biden can win in the General Election and will win in the primaries. I just hope that those who support Sanders will recognize that, if he loses in the primaries, it is more important that the Democratic nominee wins in November than to retain a stubborn loyalty to a candidate who did not win the nomination and not vote at all. I hope that lesson has been driven home by Donald Trump's excesses and incompetence.

VOTE HIM OUT!

[LongtimeAZDem]

1. I mostly agree with your post; I would add that I believe that Biden can actually govern if elected,

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2019, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)

which is something I do not believe Sanders can do.

[MineralMan]

2. Any Democratic President elected in 2020 will have a Congress

that is also elected in that year. Democratic turnout is going to affect the makeup of that Congress significantly. So, the better the turnout in a Presidential election, the better the chance is that the next President will have a Congress that will support progressive ideas.

Presidents don't make laws. Presidents don't create budgets. Presidents don't dictate to Congress. I believe Biden can generate a larger Democratic turnout than Bernie Sanders can. So, that will work in favor of a more Democratic Congress. We really, really need a majority in the Senate, and that's going to depend on flipping some seats in Purple states. That's not going to be easy. Turnout will make the difference.

[LongtimeAZDem]

9. True, but the President has to work with Congress, which I belive Biden can, while Sanders'

"my way or no way" approach would simply stall things.

[TexasTowelie]

34. That extends to the rest of the ballot.

We need a strong candidate at the top so that we win state legislative races. This is the most important presidential race in 20 years since the census is occurring next year and legislators will be redrawing districts at every level. We need to stop the gerrymandering or the Democratic party will be doomed for a decade.

[MineralMan]

47. Yes, that, too.

2020 is a census year, so that is even more important. We screwed up in 2010, and lost several state legislatures. People were stupid to stay home in a mid-term election. That is the time when we can have even more influence on state legislatures. 2020 is a double whammy in that regard. If we turn out, we can amplify the effects of our votes a great deal.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I agree.

I supported Bernie during the 2016 primaries. I didn't think he'd get the nomination but I hoped he'd drag the party a bit further toward the progressive wing, which he might have done. Once Hillary was nominated, though, I supported her (I always intended to support the Dem nominee, whoever it turned out to be - and I'll do the same this time), and never even considered throwing in with the wackos at JPR.

Bernie still has a core of support, but I think he's facing several problems: First, that there are other strong candidates who are competing with him on the same issues. It's no longer a binary, progressive vs. centrist competition. And those are pretty squishy labels anyhow, subject to much interpretation. Second, Bernie comes across as an angry, crabby old man. We already have one of those, and I don't think a lot of people are going to want to see an election pitting a couple of angry old men against each other. Most of the other candidates offer positive visions that contrast Trump's dark, negative, hateful approach with one of hope for the future, which requires more than the same old rant against the millionaires and billionaires. Finally, his "socialism" language is likely to be a turnoff for a whole lot of people who don't get his point and will buy the GOP's McCarthy-era approach to it.

There's also the fact that he's hired some sketchy characters, including Jill Stein retreads and bomb-thrower David Sirota, to run his campaign. That was pretty much the last straw for me. I haven't made a decision yet, but it will be based on who is most likely to beat Trump. That could very well be Biden. I'm more and more convinced Bernie can't do it.

[MineralMan]

4. Yes. There are several candidates that are more like Bernie than Bernie really is.

I think they'll do better than suspected, and that one of them will end up as the VP nominee. And here's the kicker: I suspect that Biden, if he can accomplish some important goals in his initial term, will step away after one term, in favor of his Vice President. Age, I think, will be the main factor in that.

I like Kamala Harris as VP. I think she'd probably be the ideal choice as a Biden running mate, for many reason. I also think she is Presidential material and would have four years to demonstrate that from the second seat.

That's my current thinking, anyhow. It's still a long way to the Summer of 2020.

[LongtimeAZDem]

19. I agree, even though I disliked how Harris threw Biden under the bus with huggedmegate,

but I admit she has a Presidential quality.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Is there any modeling we can do to see how a centrist does against trump?

[MineralMan]

6. I don't know, frankly.

I do think he would stand a good chance, though, of drawing away Trump votes from the center. Trump's base, about 30-something percent, is lost completely. However, there are many people who are appalled at Trump's behavior who could easily be shifted to a stable-seeming candidate like Biden. Many of those, however, I suspect would reject a Sanders ticket.

I also think that Biden's coattails will be easier for a lot of people to grab onto than Sanders' That's going to make a big difference in the Congressional elections, particularly in purple Senate races.

But, I'm just an amateur sort of pundit-like writer.

[empedocles]

11. Remember trump pulled weaker numbers than Romney did prez elections.

Also, trump has alienated still more numbers.

[George II]

21. Here's how I see it:

In 2016 we ran what some might call a "center left" candidate against a right wing candidate. Although she got ~ 3 million more votes than him, she lost.

So if a candidate to the left of theirs lost, how could a candidate even further to the left possibly win? I can't see how anyone can objectively think we could win with such a candidate. With a further left candidate we run the risk of losing a whole lot of "centrist" voters. I haven't seen any logical explanation as to how a further left candidate would win.

And you're right, Biden's coat tails would be huge and pull down even more Congressional seats and hopefully enough Senate seats to give us the majority again.

[MineralMan]

24. I think you're seeing it pretty clearly.

Hillary lost because three states that should have voted blue did not. MI, WI, and PA. We can get those states back. Just a little more turnout and no Jill Stein will do the trick. Joe Biden can deliver those states, along with a couple of others that went to Trump, I'm sure.

It's all going to be about turnout, really, and shifting the part of the center that went for Trump over to the Democratic candidate.

All of that's eminently doable with a likable, recognizable, trusted, stable Democrat running.

[MineralMan]

7. One addition: I think it is way too early to start polling

individual Democratic candidates against Trump. Right now, though, Biden appears to be doing better in those polling match-ups than anyone else, overall.

It's a poor model, though, at this point. Biden hasn't even declared his candidacy, so that could be a factor. I assume he will do so before too long, though. It will be interesting to see the effect of that in early polling.

I have only a single goal for the 2020 election - Elect a Democrat to the White House. The rest will follow along that path, I believe, and we'll regain the Senate majority, even if only by a slim margin.

[Hortensis]

13. Sanders will reportedly be campaigning with some more centrist

messages this time, with an idea of picking up populist fallaway trumpsters and some of the working class white men who decamped for Trump in 2016, so presumably he has some idea of how that might work for him.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. Who reportedly'd that?

[Maggiemayhem]

43. All I know is my state

Bernie won all 55 counties in WV. Then Trump came in and took all the votes. Ugg! I believe they looking for something different. Nearly all of my friends voted for Bernie but then voted for Hilary in the general.i don’t know anyone personallywho switched parties. Go figure. BTW check out Steve Smith for Governor and Justice is under federal investigation.

[MineralMan]

48. I know three people who voted for Jill Stein after voting for Bernie

in the primary. And I don't have a huge list of friends. So, it happened. Hillary came close to losing in Minnesota because of that and because some Democrats just stayed home. We can't do that and not expect to see Republicans win in elections. We have to turn out and vote to prevent that, if for no other reason. Look at what happened!

[empedocles]

8. NBC/WSJ 2019 poll, still only 18% view socialism favorably. That is a political reality.

I don't have a favorite in the campaign horseraces yet, but a strong sense of the type of unlikely to be a winner, - seems awfully clear.

Worse, is the socialist positive 18% of the public, tend to be concentrated in too few states.

Imo, pragmatism is important.

[MineralMan]

14. Elections in the United States are always pragmatic, I think.

Poltically, the center (however you define it) is the largest bloc of voters. It always has been. Ignoring that fact is rank stupidity, in my opinion.

Given the Trump drama, I have a sense that voters are going to want to grab onto a stable, likable, experience character for President. It will give them a sense of security and stability. Looking at the current list of candidates, Biden fits that profile better than anyone else. That's why I think you'll see him rise to the top of the polling, not long after he announces offically, and stay there throughout the primary season.

Who will be in second place as the primaries approach? I wouldn't be at all surprised not to see Bernie Sanders there. Probably one of the younger male candidates will move up into second place. I can't predict which, though. There's also a chance that a woman, perhaps Kamala Harris, will rise into that spot.

I think Bernie Sanders will be in third place by the time the Iowa caucuses and NH primary are held. Then, all bets are off as we move to the Super Tuesday blockbuster primaries. Once those are over, I think the lineup will be pretty much set for the rest of the primary season. Sanders could even drop to fourth place after March 3.

That's how I see it at the present moment.

[empedocles]

20. From the Dem side Biden/Harris seems favorable.

For strong contrast against trump/pence; the capable, likeable, less alienating ticket might be Joe/Amy.

[MineralMan]

22. I really, really like Amy Klobuchar.

If she can manage to kick her polling up after the primaries, she might be in the running for VP. She'll do very well here in Minnesota, and probably in Iowa. She'd be a great VP and has the chops to be President, no doubt.

She remains, though, little known outside of a few places. Kamala Harris is making a bigger national splash, and presents herself very, very well in public appearances. Amy is wonderful, has a great sense of humor, but is not quite as charismatic as Harris.

We'll see how things go.

[empedocles]

66. Amy skilled and likable, Harris will get more Dem Progressive base support

[empedocles]

76. Amy more appealing to the middle 40%.

[BlueFlorida]

10. He is "ok" as a senator

as POTUS he would be a disaster.

If he can't release his tax returns efficiently, if he can be oblivious to sexual abuse in his campaign, if he can't control his organization from booing John Lewis, if he can't stop his staffers from voting for Stein (and then rehires them), he would get an F in leadership.

Bernie is only in this for Bernie, trying to peddle his warmed up 1960's ideology and hoping it sticks in the 21st century when dozens of countries have abandoned it for free-market economies and prospered.

Divisiveness and anger work in the absence of a thorough vetting in 2016. It won't happen this time around. He won't be treated with kid gloves either.

The more I see Bernie, the less I like him and there are millions in this boat with me.

[empedocles]

12. Your opinion is close to that of my sister in Vt, who held fundraisers for Bernie

in her home. Went solidly for Hillary in 2016.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, he may not do as well as his supporters expect.

Just upthread, I posted my opinions on that.

[BlueFlorida]

17. Not "may not" ... he won't

He has lost about 60% of his supporters already.

As a runner-up in 2016, he should be polling at at least the levels of 2016 - in the 40% range. He is barely polling in the 20's now.

[Madtown]

29. wheres the link to those numbers?

[BlueFlorida]

40. lol

If thou art a Bernie supporter thou shalt demand thy links.
Thou shalt not believe anything if thou hast not links for thee.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[LongtimeAZDem]

49. "Bernie Sanders has already lost more than half of his 2016 supporters"

https://theweek.com/speedreads/828447/bernie-sanders-already-lost-more-than-half-2016-supporters

[qazplm135]

59. IMO Bernie is more crusader than leader

He has strong beliefs, and some of them I agree with. He is certainly steadfast to those beliefs, and he has held those beliefs for a long, long time.

This makes him attractive to other folks with similar strong beliefs, or folks for whom consistency and straight-forwardness are important qualities. To me, this explains his base.

That base is not enough. To get more, he would need to be a leader. A leader brings in folks who think differently. A leader builds a coalition. A leader compromises when necessary, not grudgingly so, not as a last resort (although not necessarily as a first resort either).

I don't think "Bernie is only in this for Bernie." I accept and believe that he truly believes in the policies he campaigns for. I accept and believe that he thinks if enacted those policies would help the country. I just don't think enough people agree or that he has the leadership ability to bring in those folks, like me, who don't fully buy what he is selling.

[BlueFlorida]

62. The word that is often used in such situations

is fanatic

[qazplm135]

65. eh

crusader in this context is a bit less pejorative.

[BlueFlorida]

70. One cannot be one without the other nt

[qazplm135]

75. sure you can

absolutely you can.

[Skidmore]

16. We need stability and an end to chaos.

I've never seen Sanders as more than just more chaos. His implicit encouragement of divisiveness in 2016, even on the Convention floor, did nothing to help put Trump away. His parroting of Trumpian methods, albeit from the left, has been unnerving (e.g., no transparency on taxes, comments on immigration, dismissiveness-past and present-of women). I don't care for his coziness with the weapons industry or the NRA.

I prefer to have a candidate less inclined to lob grenades and willing to work to get things accomplished.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes. Bernie does not emit a tone of stability. He wants to shake things up.

Trouble is, things are already shaken up and that isn't working out very well. Sanders would find that his plans won't sit well with Congress, right from the start. That I can guarantee. We need to do a lot of work to reverse the harm Trump has done, and do it quickly. That's going to take Congress and a President it can work with smoothly.

Good point.

[Skidmore]

28. In addition, we need to rebuild relationships

with our allies. I don't think Sanders has the stature or the diplomatic skills to do this.

[Cha]

18. BS is too Divisive.

[True Blue American]

57. My way or the Highway

Will not work. The young are pulling more left, as are those who are worried about healthcare. They mostly want the AcA fixed.

And no, I do not have links, just read a lot and study how many feel.

[Cha]

72. Yeah, and I have no

patience for someone like that.

I don't need links for that.. I know exactly what you mean, True Blue.

[Kanoko]

25. Any of the Democratic candidates can win the General Election, but Biden is not a shoo-in.

1983 - Biden had been mentioned among possible contenders in the 1984 presidential election. However, Biden did not enter the race that season. Nonetheless, he won one vote at the 1984 Democratic National Convention.

1988 - Biden ran for President of the United States in the 1988 United States presidential primary. He was considered one of the potentially strongest candidates in the field.
His $1.7 million raised in the first quarter of 1987 was more than any other candidate.

When the campaign began, former Senator Gary Hart, who had made a strong nomination run four years earlier, was considered the clear front-runner. The Democratic field's chances were greatly improved once Hart withdrew from the race in 1987.
However, Biden did not see a rise in his poll numbers immediately after the Hart withdrawal.
Nevertheless, Biden had confidence that he could prevail; on the eve of his announcement, he said: "I'm going to win this thing. I really am. I just know it, I can feel it in my fingertips." His continued ability to raise campaign funds gave him credibility as a candidate.
By August 1987, Biden's campaign had begun to lag behind those of Dukakis and Gephardt, although he had still raised more funds than all candidates but Dukakis.
Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987.

2008 Primary - After finishing in fifth place in the Iowa Caucus on January 3, 2008, garnering only one percent of the total vote, Biden ended his presidential bid.

He's a former VP now and he has worked inside the Obama administration which will help him secure the Democratic nomination. However, Al Gore was a former VP, and Hillary worked inside the Obama administration, and neither one won 50% of the vote in the General Election.

[stillcool]

27. Hillary and Gore..

both got more votes than their opponent. The Supreme Court selected Bush, and Russia selected Donald....both aided by suppressing the vote in every way possible.

[Kanoko]

30. But if a candidate wins at least 50% of the vote

he (or she) wins!

[TwilightZone]

31. That's not how it works.

Presidential elections are decided by electoral college. It's possible, though somewhat unlikely, that a candidate could get 50% of the vote and still lose the electoral college. Clinton wasn't that far off with 48%.

[Kanoko]

74. It's quite possible to get more than 50% of the vote and lose?

When was the last time that happened?

Barack Obama received more than 50% of the vote and both times he won.

Jimmy Carter won 50.1% of the popular vote and won the election.

Before that Lyndon Johnson won 61% of the popular vote and won.

The above are the only three Democratic candidates who won more than 50% of the popular vote in the last 54 years. All three won their elections.

When was the last time someone won more than 50% of the popular vote and lost?

Quite possible? It would be rare, indeed.

[stillcool]

33. where?

the electoral college votes are the ones that count.

[PatrickforO]

61. Not necessarily. Clinton got 2.9 million more votes than Trump, but

due to the electoral college mix, Trump won with 270+ electoral votes.

Now, the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC) is happening in every state. My own state just passed it and signed it into law. Basically, each state can tell its electors how to vote. Some choose the national popular vote, some use ratios and still others (most) do winner-take-all. So, in Wisconsin, for instance, which has 10 electoral votes, Clinton got 1,382,536 votes because Cozy Bear, the Russian hackers focused on a couple of swing districts there and changed a few thousand votes. In Wisconsin, Trump got 1,405,284. That's 22,748 votes. A razor-thin margin, but due to the electoral college, Trump got ALL 10 of Wisconsin's electoral votes.

This is how he won with the help of Russia.

So, back to the NPVC - since states can tell their electors how to vote, the NPVC requires electors in states that have passed it to voted the way the national popular vote turned out, winner-take-all. So, if enough states pass the NPVC, then we have successfully circumvented the antiquated electoral college system.

Note that if you research the electoral college, you'll find it was put into place in 1789 by the framers of the Constitution. Basically, the argument was about slaves and how they should count in terms of representation in the bicameral legislature. The founders never really trusted the people, just the rich landowners and merchants. So, the idea was that they would 'allow' us to vote for the president, but the results of that vote, in case we got it 'wrong,' would be safeguarded by a bunch of knowledgeable electors.

Now, how many electors each state could get was a point of contention as well. The Southerners said their slaves should count 1:1 in terms of determining how many US representatives they should be allotted, but the Northerners countered with the fact that slaves weren't allowed to vote, so should not be counted at all. Finally, there was a compromise with each slave counted as 3/5 of a person. Seriously.

If the electoral college had remained a group of knowledgeable electors, then they would have voted in Clinton because Trump was so clearly a charlatan. But they didn't and we've ended up with the Trump presidency, which is a disaster that will take decades to reverse.

So, no 50% here. And check out the filibuster rule also in the Senate. Basically, a 60/40 vote (supermajority) is needed for cloture, which means 'close down debate and force a vote.' So, the Senate doesn't really operate on a simple majority, either, though the House of Representatives does.

Hope this helps.

[liberalnarb]

32. Is this copied-and-pasted from another source?

I have a really hard time believing someone with "Socialist core beliefs" would back Biden in a primary.

[LongtimeAZDem]

35. Then you clearly haven't read much of what Mineral Man has posted over the years

Many of us older Democrats have socialist values, but experience has shown us that they don't play well nationally.

I was a fan of Sanders for many years until the last election, when he demonstrated to me that it was about him, and not about actually producing positive results.

[liberalnarb]

37. I can't fathom how you came to that conclusion. nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

44. I believe you

[MineralMan]

45. No, it is not. It is my opinion.

If I copy and paste, I include a link. Always.

I am a pragmatic man. I want a Democrat in the White House. I want Trump gone. The United States will not elect a socialist as President. I have resigned myself to that.

I rarely copy and paste political opinions. I have my own, so I post those.

[Codeine]

67. Many of us realize that our core beliefs

don’t always mesh with the greater political reality outside our doors. I want single payer healthcare, Universal Basic Income, massively reduced military spending, subsidies for education, and a respect for the working class to be the building blocks of our society, but I’m not foolish enough to believe those views can carry a presidential election. So I take a pragmatic approach. I live in the real world.

On edit:

Also, I just straight-up dislike Sanders. I’ll vote for him if he becomes the nominee, but I just do not care for the man at all.

[ecstatic]

89. +1000. nt

[melman]

77. +1

[ZeroSomeBrains]

36. I disagree with the assessment of Bernie's electoral chances

Both in the primary and general election. The focus should be on policies instead of electability when Secretary of State Clinton had such high approval ratings as Biden has this early as well. I tend to think most of the candidates on the Democratic side would win.

The country has been loving socialist policies like Medicare and Social Security for decades and they still sometimes say they hate "socialism" vaguely. If you never have a person make a case for what a more egalitarian society should be in the long run then the Overton Window is shifted to the point where moderate social democratic positions are more difficult and conservatism is ceded ground. Also no matter who wins if the new President doesn't have Congress or the US Senate change hands then you don't get a seat on the Supreme Court let alone any radical or moderate change. We need a second wave election either way. You might as well try and get the best change possible.

[liberalnarb]

39. Absoulutely right.

Not to mention the amazing insurgency he presided over in the last primary. I find it baffling when people argue that because he didn't take the nomination that is evidence he couldn't win the general. If you examine where he was in the public consciousness when he began his 2016 campaign and where he is now, its incredible.

[MineralMan]

50. If you win the primaries, you get the nomination.

If you lose the primaries, you don't. Sanders did not run against Trump. Hillary Clinton did. Frankly, I think you're way overestimating his popularity heading into the 2020 primaries. His name recognition is higher, certainly, but that doesn't necessarily translate into votes. I think that, following the March 3, primaries, Bernie Sanders will end up in third or fourth place among the candidates. I don't think that position will improve, either, in the following primaries.

Don't mistake your enthusiasm for national enthusiasm among Democrats. They are not the same thing.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

83. I really think that he has a real chance to be President

The country has been needing a real leftist economic agenda for decades since Reagan. I hope that we have the courage to confront these issues and create the type of world we are proud of.

[MineralMan]

54. Many things should be that are not.

I suggest you vote for your favorite in the primaries. I suggest that everyone do that. That's what they're for. If your favorite doesn't get the nomination, then vote for the nominee and be sure to bring your friends to the polling place, too.

If I'm wrong, you can tell me so early in November.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

60. We truly are a big tent party

There is a lot of room for disagreement and we are a long time away from the first votes being cast. We have to win in 2020. There's no question about that.

[angrychair]

41. I agree with respect to Bernie

That said, I don't feel a centrist is what this country needs right now either.
Centrist has always meant giving Republicans almost everything they want for us to get a little sliver of what Dems want.

Tired of that dynamic. Republicans have clearly shown their complete allegiance to trump and him being a dictator.

No. More.

We need someone that isn't going to kiss Republican asses to gift us with 10% of what we want while bullying us and beating us up as socialists and that hate America.


I really like Senator Harris but ultimately I am for ANYBODY rhst IS NOT a centrist or EVER implies they will work with Republicans. (For the record, I'll vote for whomever the nominee is, even if it is a centrist, because that is still better than trump)

Fuck Republicans.

[Nanjeanne]

42. I understand completely the need to have a Dem in the White House. But I feel like we are in newly

charted territory. The polling data, the ideas of what worked and what didn't work - especially going back into the 90s -- the electorate is in a very different place. Hillary Clinton should have won the election and on paper she surely did. Yes, I know she won the popular vote - but until we get rid of the archaic electoral system - that's the system we live with - and, unfortunately, she lost. Yes we had Russian interference - but again, that's a factor now with Twitter, Facebook and endless stream of Fox News.

I personally don't think a centrist will win against Trump - but I could be wrong. Those who think someone like Biden could win may be right - or could very well be wrong.

The only thing I do know is what kind of country I want to live in and who's principles and policies most fit with that. I only get one vote and I will vote in the primary for the candidate that best represents my views. I live in a state that holds it's primary in April - so I have no idea who will be left standing and will have to make my decision then. Until that time, I'm with Sanders and Warren as my 2nd choice. Those candidates are the ones I'm personally donating to and Sanders is the candidate I'm volunteering for at this point.

I think there were a good number of people who had no party affiliation to the Democrats, who were not typically voters, who supported Sanders and then sat out the election when he lost -- but, as we have learned, more Democrat Sanders supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters voted for Obama -- and I believe they will continue to recognize the importance of putting a Democrat in the White House. Can we say the same about non-Sanders supporters? If he wins the primary - I'd like to believe they would as well.

[Uncle Joe]

46. When Bernie won his very first primary that was one more than Biden won in two attempts

at running for President.

So yes back the Biden horse by all means, it's bound to be better this time.

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

Thanks for the thread MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

52. It's a new election and Biden was VP for 8 years.

And then there is Trump. Trump is going to be the issue in 2020. Nothing else, really. The 2020 election will be about Donald J. Trump.

It's a prime opportunity for a Democrat who has broad appeal to get elected. Broad appeal.

Biden isn't a horse. I don't bet on the horses.

[Uncle Joe]

55. Joe hasn't even started running so "broad appeal" has not been put to the test. n/t

[NurseJackie]

51. Oh brother!

it is a flaw in how the Democratic voters of this country think.

Oh brother!

So, the loyal Democrats who do not think the same way that Bernie thinks are "flawed"? Seriously?? GMAFB! That's offensive.

It's not a flaw in his positions

Yes it is. He has many flaws in his positions. Why is it that AA and POC voters aren't turning out for him. Are they "flawed" too?

[MineralMan]

53. You have misread my post.

And my intentions.

[NurseJackie]

56. I doubt it. That was a straightforward sentence. Clear, concise. In no way complex.

53. You have misread my post.
And my intentions.

I doubt it. Here's what was written:

It's not a flaw in his positions so much as it is a flaw in how the Democratic voters of this country think.

I doubt that I "misread" anything. That was a straightforward sentence. Clear, concise. In no way complex. The meaning was very clear. Or is the suggestion being made that I'm too stupid to understand plain English?

Regardless of the level of confidence anyone has in his political future, and regardless of the opinions (good or bad) that anyone may have of him... it's wrong for anyone to try and cleverly assert that it's the "flaw" of Democratic voters rather than a flaw in the candidate.

That's what was written, those are NOT my words. It's as clear as day, right there, for anyone to see. There's simply no other rational interpretation that differs from the plain and obvious one.

Frankly, I'm sick to death of the assorted variations of messages that declare "Bernie's too good for us"... and the "we don't deserve Bernie" posts... and the "if we don't choose Bernie, then we deserve our fates" posts. Ugh.

[MineralMan]

58. It's a game of "Find the Antecedent."

What "It's" refers to. I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood what I said.

[betsuni]

78. I don't understand either.

Could you please explain how it's not a flaw with his positions but a flaw in how Democratic voters think?

[NurseJackie]

87. I doubt you'll receive a reply. But, if you look closely, you'll see the answer...

Could you please explain how it's not a flaw with his positions but a flaw in how Democratic voters think?

I doubt you'll receive a reply. But, if you look closely, you'll see the answer has already been provided... "it's a game".

[NurseJackie]

88. Uh-huh. I'm sure it's a game, all right.

I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood what I said.

Yet no effort was made to "clarify" what was already obvious. Yeah, uh-huh. I'm sure it's a game, all right.

[BlueFlorida]

64. +1000 nt

[BlueFlorida]

63. He really doesn't have any "positions"

It is all slogans and platitudes allowing people to vent their anger/jealousy/frustrations at corporations and rich people with a bunch of incentive thrown in.

Many believe that a Robin Hood exists in the Sherwood Forest and want that. Fortunately, Americans in general and Democrats in particular don't fall for it.

[Gothmog]

68. sanders is not electable

Link to tweet

[loyalsister]

69. I like a lot of what he has had to say

But never warmed up to his demeanor and bluster. I never thought he would make a good president. So far, I'm seeing most of our 2020 Democratic candidates as having stronger potential to govern successfully.

I hope some of the dialogue Sanders opened continues in earnest and policies are crafted to address economic and opportunity disparities.

[KayF]

71. come on.

you can't talk about your socialist core beliefs and write this:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11912767

80. Because it has worked so well in other countries, like...

like...

Wait, what? Where has it worked?

America's future is unknown. Nobody can predict it. It will depend on many different variables and how those change.

But socialism? That system does not work. It has been tried, and it has failed. If Socialism is America's Future, then we are well and truly doomed.

[MineralMan]

73. It hasn't worked. Not actual socialism.

That does not mean that it is not a philosophy I support. It's just that it cannot succeed in a populous, large nation. You can't show me a successful socialist country.

You do not know me, and links to individual posts do not explain me.

[Hortensis]

80. I think that's what is meant. :)

Sanders speaks to my inner extremist, who happily (though unfortunately for him) doesn't exist. I want universal healthcare and a couple dozen other important, well defined goals that a significant majority of Americans want and need. Progress democracy style.

[guillaumeb]

79. Well reasoned, and recommended.

The word socialism has negative connotations. Part of that is the association of the word socialism with the USSR.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. I respect your opinion on this MM, I just respectfully disagree...

Biden and his moderate political leanings will not energize the base to come out and vote in the general anywhere near the level of excitement that will be generated by Bernie and his progressive agenda when he wins the nomination.


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

[customerserviceguy]

82. The acceptance of the Sanders voters of Biden as the nominee

will depend somewhat on how fair they think the nominating process was to get to that result.

That could be tricky if the superdelegates put Biden over the top on the second ballot.

[LongtimeAZDem]

85. In other words, they won't do it.

[Gothmog]

86. No one took sanders seriously last time and so the press did not vet sanders

No one took sanders seriously and so he was not vetted. Vetting is important I amso glad that sanders is being vetted this cycle https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

There is a ton of strong opposition research out there that will come out this cycle