no, I'll give you that. Bernie is the left's version of Trump. the Democratic Party finds itself close to the same situation the Republicans found themselves in, in 2016. The Republican Party as we knew it self-destructed. Bernie represents a similar threat to the Democratic Party as we knew it. Bernie is making exactly the same basic promise Trump made in 2016: to throw a wrench into the works.
You support a candidate that defrauded veterans, defrauded college students, has been a serial adulterer, pays prostitutes for sex and mocks disabled people. If you are going to be ashamed of anything, it should be supporting someone that is such a poor excuse for a person. Yes it is. It is also extremely dangerous to support a President that believes that he is above prosecution or investigation while he is President. A President that believes that he can over ride the Constitution. Trump has a good chance of winning in November but it is far from a certainty.
Which is what I believe, most Americans want. Most Americans do not like the direction our country is headed for their families, they don't like Washington, they don't like all the corruption, they don't believe the politicians representing them one bit. Healthcare isn't working for them, they are struggling to pay the bills. Trump was a fake populist, he won off of his populism, and he didn't act on any of his populist talking points, he didn't drain the swamp, he didn't give everyone healthcare, he didn't get out of the middle east, wages didn't rise, jobs didn't come back.... and Americas yearn for all of these things did NOT disappear. Which is why I personally think Bernie would bust Trump's ass. Trump wasn't a one-time thing, he wasn't a spontaneous cancer, Americans are struggling and they want real change, they want to see an improvement of their quality of life.
He's policy driven even if you think his policy is pie in the sky unrealistic desires. The last thing Trump is, is policy driven.
If Sanders gets the majority of democratic voters to support him, he will be the nominee and there really will not be much of a fight over it. The problem is that thus far he has only been able to get 35% of Democrats to support him. The field has to thin, and it has....... now it is up to Sanders and Biden to see who captures those voters. Both candidates that have dropped out are philosophically more aligned with Biden, so it isn't a shock they support Biden. If the vast majority of the voters that supported the two other candidates flock to Sanders, then he will push 50% and get the nomination..... same for Biden. Now there is pressure on Warren to drop out and deliver her voters to Sanders so that he can firm up his support. I do not know if she will do that though. The other wild card in all of this is Bloomberg and his billions of dollars and established infastructure. Sanders said he will not use it...... Biden hasn't said that..... so when does he throw his money and support behind Biden (who he dislikes), or does Bloomberg and Sanders surprise everyone and work out a deal........ How bad does Sanders and Bloomberg want to win? We know Biden will do anything to win.
Perhaps...... but are they really fighting the present of their own party? It isn't like Sanders is carrying half or more of the electorate..... he appears to have 1/3 of the democrats support at this point.
A 3rd of their present party is a significant chunk, Dems need all they can get to face Trump. If Biden wins fair and square, perhaps chooses Warren as his VP or something, promises a one or two of Bernie's plans, then we will happily vote him over Trump... but if Bernie gets the plurality and looses I fear it will cripple the Dem party for a decade.
Your concern is very reasonable. I took am concerned that this will be like McGovern and lead to serious issues. I think that is part of why we have seen two candidates step down.... because it is better for beating Trump and better for the party. This way someone can get to 50% and put this whole thing to bed prior to the convention. Also, remember the Republican Party looked like it was in shambles 4 years ago. They looked terrible based on all the demographic numbers and also their candidates in 2016 and they rebounded quickly.... so the same could happen to the Democrats. FWIW I do believe that the progressives will take control of the party, I just do not think it will be in 2020. The influence of progressives have gone from nil to very close to the main stream. in four years there will be more young voters on the roll and more older voters will have died. It is going to happen.
Bernie is not a Dem.. The same as Trump is not a Repub... Trump wants Bernie to win, that way even the repubs that don't like him will vote for him to make sure Bernie the socialist will never be President.... FYI.... Bernie scares me more than Trump..... T_Man
I'm supporting Warren but after Super Tuesday, unless there is a huge vote for her she needs to drop out.
Bloomberg loves Biden - his whole reason for initially not entering the race was to not get in Biden's way. He only entered the race when it looked like Biden was flopping, because he really doesn't like Sanders. Bloomberg will drop out once it's clear he's only interfering with Biden winning the nomination (my guess is after the March 10th votes, though possibly later this week if he flops tomorrow). Reports are that he's staying in tomorrow because he thinks the net effect is that it takes delegates away from Bernie. Only way he stays in longer is if Biden flops tomorrow or his ego just grows too big. But so far, his ads and commitments suggest he's putting the party over himself for the most part.
This gets to the heart of Bernie's problem. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-t-the-establishment-it-s-his-lack-of-support Bernie's problem isn't 'the establishment.' It's his lack of support I know it must suck tasting victory, with a fragmented field giving him and his hardcore base of support an advantage over the rest of the field. But just like in 2016, Bernie Sanders isn’t built for a consolidated field, and the problem isn’t “the establishment.” The problem is that he refuses to do anything to grow his support. While Sanders has led the field in national polling, he hasn’t been able to crack 30% in the polling composite. When you can’t get a third of the support, you have no business being put in charge. But here’s the thing: He didn’t need to be stuck at less than a third of the party’s support. He could’ve set the stage to hoover up the support from other candidates the way that Joe Biden appears to be doing. So why isn’t that (seemingly) not happening? Because when you make a career out of demonizing Democrats and signaling to your supporters to demonize any detractors, well, that’s called “burning bridges.” And burning bridges is a shitty way to rally support. That means insulting and calling any Democrats who don‘t support you “neoliberals” and “corporatists” and whatever other insipid insult isn’t helpful. And yes, while all candidates had overly zealous supporters, only one campaign’s supporters were systematically awful, and only one’s were apparently encouraged to be so by the campaign’s top brass. Today, former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid endorsed Joe Biden. This is how Sanders’ campaign manager reacted: Disappointing. I'll forever have respect and love for Senator Reid. But I'm old enough to remember when he thought Biden's ideas were worthy of being put in a fireplace. No other campaign felt the need to take a shot of this sort, but what this did is signal that Reid was fair game for attacks. And it’s not just top Democrats under attack. Last week, Sanders’ press secretary went after feminist writer Jill Filipovic, for some bizarre reason: There certainly is a sense of bunker “us versus them” mentality, and it does nothing to help build a winning coalition. It builds resentment and anger and enemies, alienating potential ideological allies who simply have decided, for whatever reasons (whether valid or invalid, it’s irrelevant), to support one of the two dozen candidates that were in the race. From the beginning, this was a campaign that wasn’t interested in building an actual majority, eschewing the hard work and compromises that that might entail. It was literally their strategy from day one, as this April 17, 2019, reporting by The Atlantic shows: He’s counting on winning Iowa and New Hampshire, where he was already surprisingly strong in 2016, and hoping that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris will split the black electorate in South Carolina and give him a path to slip through there, too. And then, Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention. They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen. [Emphasis mine.] So if, from day one, they didn’t think they needed more than 30%, why would they actually run a campaign and build a culture designed to win more than his 30% ceiling? As that article notes, even way back in early 2019, Sanders was picking fights and creating enemies out of potential allies. ... Sanders and his campaign saw that their ceiling was 30%, and they built an entire strategy around winning with 30%. That means that instead of seeing the other 70% of voters as allies, they saw them as THE ENEMY. Even when there was ideological alignment. Nothing exemplifies this more than when Sanders’ supporters flooded Warren’s social media feeds with the hashtag #warrenisasnake and a snake emoji: ... It’s endemic to Sanders’ career: It’s easy to be pure and uncompromising when you, well, never try to accomplish anything tangible that requires compromise. That’s a fine approach to take if you play the role of ideological gadfly, the “conscience of the party” sort of thing. We need people like that, helping ground us ideologically in a world that keeps wanting to pull the country rightward. But winning a presidential election is literally about building coalitions, and Sanders never bothered to try. That’s not the establishment’s fault. ...
Is that akin to calling Bernie a communist by cable media when is trying to institute healthcare that countries like Japan, Korea, Canada, Scandinavia, Germany, and others have? Or is that different?
They rebounded by unapologetically pandering to their base. Maybe that doesn't work for the Democrat party. I guess we'll find out.
So far, Bernie hasn't "gain" new voters like I have thought he would. If that stands, a Bernie nomination is a disaster. Like Trump, you can't win with just your base, so you better gain / turnout new voters to offset the loss of the moderate. (Or you do everything you can to cheat your way there)
During the GOP primaries was there any indication that Trump appealed to a time outside the right wing base?
