Should we fear Bernie?

[TragicMonkey]

No, they were thinking: "he sucks now, and will always suck- but I cannot bring myself to vote for HRC either- even though I can tacitly live with her presidency".

We are getting ready to take away their ability to tacitly accept a Democratic victory if we shove a candidate in their faces that is even more unacceptable to them than Trump.

So? Why should they be catered to? A candidate that appeals to such wishy-washy idiots would likely turn off everybody else.

 

[Distracted1]

So? Why should they be catered to? A candidate that appeals to such wishy-washy idiots would likely turn off everybody else.

See my ETA in the previous post.

They are not "Wishy Washy Idiots", they showed up to vote for down ballot issues only.

They should be catered to because they are the only group of people who might vote any differently this time around. And they reside in the only States that might go any differently this time around.

NO-one*who voted Trump last time around looks to be changing their mind.
And NO-one who voted Clinton last time around will be either.

45-47 States will likely go exactly the same way they went in 2016.
Unless we cater to the few voters who can change the outcome of the few States whose outcome can be changed, we are sunk.

Exciting Liberals in California and Massachusetts does exactly nothing for us.

 

[lobosrul5]

No, they were thinking: "he sucks now, and will always suck- but I cannot bring myself to vote for HRC either- even though I can tacitly live with her presidency".

We are getting ready to take away their ability to tacitly accept a Democratic victory if we shove a candidate in their faces that is even more unacceptable to them than Trump.

ETA: Keep in mind, these are people who showed up to vote on downballot Issues. They are not politically immature, they know where they stand on "Socialism vs. Free Market", and have already considered the "Sanders is not a socialist because" arguments.
They have principles that kept them from going for Trump in 2016, but they definitely would have gone for any of the other Republican hopefuls. The line that kept them from going Trump last time is thin, and it will not hold again if we give them Sanders this time around.

You don't seem to have any data to support such a hypothesis. You don't even know who the 88,000 people who neglected to vote for a president voted for in down-ticket races. Meanwhile we have polling data showing that in some states Sanders is doing better than everyone. In other states he's doing worse than some but not all of the moderate candidates.

 

[lobosrul5]

See my ETA in the previous post.

They are not "Wishy Washy Idiots", they showed up to vote for down ballot issues only.

They should be catered to because they are the only group of people who might vote any differently this time around. And they reside in the only States that might go any differently this time around.

NO-one*who voted Trump last time around looks to be changing their mind.
And NO-one who voted Clinton last time around will be either.

45-47 States will likely go exactly the same way they went in 2016.
Unless we cater to the few voters who can change the outcome of the few States whose outcome can be changed, we are sunk.

Exciting Liberals in California and Massachusetts does exactly nothing for us.

Thats not true. Lots of people in the "rust belt" voted for Trump to get back their manufacturing job, or improve their pay. That has by and large failed to materialize. Lots of them are thinking about changing their mind. Its PA/MI/WI where Bernie can flip the election. His weakness is Florida. He's just about killed any chance he has there unfortunately.

 

[Horatius]

ETA: Keep in mind, these are people who showed up to vote on downballot Issues. They are not politically immature, they know where they stand on "Socialism vs. Free Market", and have already considered the "Sanders is not a socialist because" arguments.
They have principles that kept them from going for Trump in 2016, but they definitely would have gone for any of the other Republican hopefuls. The line that kept them from going Trump last time is thin, and it will not hold again if we give them Sanders this time around.

And I think anyone who pays enough attention to politics that they still came out to vote for down-ticket races is probably smart enough to figure out that a President Sanders who is stuck with a Mitch McConnell Senate is not going to be able to enact even 10% of his "Socialist Agenda", and even that little bit will be undone by the next Republican presidency. Mindless panicking over the Commie Bernie is a trait of political idiots, not the people you're describing.

 

[3point14]

I think they are conservative-leaning voters who could not bring themselves to cast a vote for Trump.

And I think they're people who care so much about environmental policy that they all but threw their votes away last time to make a point.

If a mainstream politician has a plan that is more than the current US (and UK) policy of 'hoping it all works out somehow', they'll likely vote for that.

I think my random, unfounded speculation is more likely than your random, unfounded speculation.

 

[Distracted1]

Thats not true. Lots of people in the "rust belt" voted for Trump to get back their manufacturing job, or improve their pay. That has by and large failed to materialize. Lots of them are thinking about changing their mind. Its PA/MI/WI where Bernie can flip the election. His weakness is Florida. He's just about killed any chance he has there unfortunately.

I assume you are talking about the voters who voted for Trump who didn't do so just because he was the Republican candidate. Or the ones who voted for him because of "cultural" motivations?

That leaves those that voted for him because they thought his policies were the best?
I don't think there were many of those at all.

And the type of voter who considers policy, is exactly the type that will show up for a Presidential election and not vote forPresident.

I grew up in Detroit, and I have lived the last twenty years in Philadelphia.
I have always had jobs that involved daily interaction with a wide cross/section of people- often inside their own homes.
I have spent considerable time in both urban and rural areas of these States.

So, nope, you are right- I have no exact data conducted by an independent polling organization that identifies voters any more finely than the ones I previously posted.
You are, of course, free to dismiss my opinion without consideration. The professions of someone intimately involved with a population can be just as wrong, I suppose, as those of a media hound on the other side of the planet.

I will still assert it though.

 

[lobosrul5]

I assume you are talking about the voters who voted for Trump who didn't do so just because he was the Republican candidate. Or the ones who voted for him because of "cultural" motivations?

That leaves those that voted for him because they thought his policies were the best?
I don't think there were many of those at all.

And the type of voter who considers policy, is exactly the type that will show up for a Presidential election and not vote forPresident.

I grew up in Detroit, and I have lived the last twenty years in Philadelphia.
I have always had jobs that involved daily interaction with a wide cross/section of people- often inside their own homes.
I have spent considerable time in both urban and rural areas of these States.

So, nope, you are right- I have no exact data conducted by an independent polling organization that identifies voters any more finely than the ones I previously posted.
You are, of course, free to dismiss my opinion without consideration. The professions of someone intimately involved with a population can be just as wrong, I suppose, as those of a media hound on the other side of the planet.

I will still assert it though.

The underlined: not sure if you mean me by that, or not, but I've lived my entire life in the USA. I actually know 2 working class people who voted for Trump and have changed their mind. Thats New Mexico, not the "rust belt" though (although Albuquerque is probably less dissimilar to Detroit than you might think). And I've seen a few interviews on TV of people from a rust belt area saying just that. They rolled the dice with Trump and have changed their mind. Its the same sort of thing that is making Sanders popular: a LOT of people in this country are dissatisfied with their lot in life, and will vote for whomever they think will improve it the most. That's generally not going to be a status-quo candidate. Will that outnumber the people that will always vote against a "socialist" candidate, in the RIGHT STATES (national polls mean diddly with our system)? That I don't know. I suspect we're in for another insanely close election.

 

[Distracted1]

And I think anyone who pays enough attention to politics that they still came out to vote for down-ticket races is probably smart enough to figure out that a President Sanders who is stuck with a Mitch McConnell Senate is not going to be able to enact even 10% of his "Socialist Agenda", and even that little bit will be undone by the next Republican presidency. Mindless panicking over the Commie Bernie is a trait of political idiots, not the people you're describing.

Perhaps. I certainly hope so. With Sanders that is a "best case scenario"- that those who refrained from casting a vote for President that could actually accomplish anything once again refrain.

That still leaves us short. (we lost those States last time).

Give those voters someone less repulsive to them than Sanders ( like a Biden, or a Buttigieg, or a Klobuchar, or maybe even a Warren ) and we pick up enough of them to take the State.

 

[Distracted1]

The underlined: not sure if you mean me by that, or not, but I've lived my entire life in the USA. I actually know 2 working class people who voted for Trump and have changed their mind. Thats New Mexico, not the "rust belt" though (although Albuquerque is probably less dissimilar to Detroit than you might think). And I've seen a few interviews on TV of people from a rust belt area saying just that. They rolled the dice with Trump and have changed their mind. Its the same sort of thing that is making Sanders popular: a LOT of people in this country are dissatisfied with their lot in life, and will vote for whomever they think will improve it the most. That's generally not going to be a status-quo candidate. Will that outnumber the people that will always vote against a "socialist" candidate, in the RIGHT STATES (national polls mean diddly with our system)? That I don't know. I suspect we're in for another insanely close election.

I have little argument with that.
And wholeheartedly agree with your last three sentences.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I know a Floridian who is fine with all of Trump's politics and peccadillos...but will vote against him this time solely because of the massive traffic clusterfudges he causes with all his trips to his stupid "Southern White House" golf resort. Wreck a global economy? Nothing. Cause a traffic jam in Florida heat? That's crossing a line.

 

[lobosrul5]

Perhaps. I certainly hope so. With Sanders that is a "best case scenario"- that those who refrained from casting a vote for President that could actually accomplish anything once again refrain.

That still leaves us short. (we lost those States last time).

Give those voters someone less repulsive to them than Sanders ( like a Biden, or a Buttigieg, or a Klobuchar, or maybe even a Warren ) and we pick up enough of them to take the State.

But those States were lost with a status-quo moderate Democrat on the ticket. The other thing is polling showing a wide range between which moderate candidate is running. Buttigieg is basically a hopeless case for example. I say that as someone who would prefer him over anyone else. He's just not electable. Trump is +2 over Buttigieg in WI, while he's behind 2 to Biden and Sanders. In the same poll, asking the question to the same people. Homophobia?

 

[Distracted1]

But those States were lost with a status-quo moderate Democrat on the ticket. The other thing is polling showing a wide range between which moderate candidate is running. Buttigieg is basically a hopeless case for example. I say that as someone who would prefer him over anyone else. He's just not electable. Trump is +2 over Buttigieg in WI, while he's behind 2 to Biden and Sanders. In the same poll, asking the question to the same people. Homophobia?

Clinton did not lose the "Blue Wall" because she was a moderate, she lost because she was Hillary Clinton.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I know a Floridian who is fine with all of Trump's politics and peccadillos...but will vote against him this time solely because of the massive traffic clusterfudges he causes with all his trips to his stupid "Southern White House" golf resort. Wreck a global economy? Nothing. Cause a traffic jam in Florida heat? That's crossing a line.

To be fair, I doubt any President in history has travelled that often: something like 100 rallies, trips to his places every weekend, and the same on smaller scale for his kids and some of his cabinet.
New Yorkers absolutely hate the mess Trump Tower creates, same goes for the Hotel in Washington.

 

[Elagabalus]

Clinton did not lose the "Blue Wall" because she was a moderate, she lost because she was Hillary Clinton.

Which is why they didn't vote for her and preferred, instead, to leave that space blank as a protest vote against HRC because at the time almost everyone believed Hillary would win anyway. This time not so much, I think.

 

[Belz...]

Which is why they didn't vote for her and preferred, instead, to leave that space blank as a protest vote against HRC because at the time almost everyone believed Hillary would win anyway. This time not so much, I think.

Of course not. She's not running this time around.

 

[Distracted1]

Which is why they didn't vote for her and preferred, instead, to leave that space blank as a protest vote against HRC because at the time almost everyone believed Hillary would win anyway. This time not so much, I think.

And on the downballot races those would-be Democratic voters elected nine Republicans and 5 Democrats ?

 

[Tero]

Comparing the candidates and their work in politics, Sanders and Biden would achieve not much. Maybe a nudge toward Medicare for all. Klobuchar about the same, but she would be a more effective in many other matters.

So, there is almost nothing to fear with Sanders as president. He will not be impeached, he will nominate a few judges and may even pass a law or two.

Foreign policy wise, hard to say. There are unstable areas and the presidents will make some token effort. Unless there is a NATO level crisis, there will be little change. Iran will limp along.

 

[theprestige]

So, there is almost nothing to fear with Sanders as president. He will not be impeached, he will nominate a few judges and may even pass a law or two.

A President Sanders, like every president before him, would pass exactly zero laws.

I'd be a lot more sanguine about letting progressives pick the President, if they showed any understanding of how the presidency works.

 

[Hercules56]

Why? You voted for Trump and that's the way Trump handles things.

No, I voted for Hillary in the election and the primary.

I just want to know what Bernie is going to do if Congress tells him he can have Medicare-for-All, but nothing else cause we just can't afford it.