Trump vs. Bernie

[highlander]

Disagree on that front. He has a real following just like Trump had a real following. I think he probably has the best shot of anybody because of that. I don't think the radicalness is a problem because Trump would paint anybody who ran against him as a radical. I don't see how it's something that makes him weaker more than anyone else. Trump has apparently never polled above 50%, according to something I read today, which is rather unusual. That makes him pretty vulnerable, especially against an energized opposition. Interest in voting is growing more quickly in large cities than rural areas. New Hampshire turnout for Democrats was higher than 2008, although I suppose something could be said for the relatively large turnout for the Republican primary. Elections seem to be won more by getting your side to show up; I think the issue of Bernie alienating people is vastly overstated due to this. Trump was supposed to lose in a landslide because of how alienating he would be (according to the idea of the importance of sticking to the middle), but he squeaked by because of large rural turnout. Hell, I expected you to be more anti-Bernie than you are. This poll has Sanders as the only candidate beating Trump . I believe from my poll-watching this Emerson poll has been more favorable to Trump than many of the other polls. I think defeating Trumpism requires audacity, and Bernie's the candidate that has that the most. If Trump represents something unprecedented for our country, then it will take something unprecedented to defeat him. I don't think we can defeat Trump by false expectations of hoping to return to normalcy; normalcy and "America is already great" was Hillary's campaign, and that didn't work out too well for her. Also, the extent to which the MAGA folks underestimate Bernie looks rather familiar; it reminds me of the attitude Democrats had towards Trump in 2016. If Bernie doesn't face a contested convention, I imagine he goes on to defeat Trump. I've always seen Presidential candidates that try to win a general by trying to ape the other party lose, at least since I've been able to vote and it was my responsibility to pay attention to these things. We have John Kerry "reporting for duty", McCain being a maverick, Romney's history of laying a template for Obamacare, Clinton's reliance on a mass defection of Republicans,... etc. I'm willing to try something entirely different and see where it gets us. Obama's message of "change" worked out. I thin this will work, too.

And that poll is hogwash. Too early to tell

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Trump would crucify Bernie on a debate. Bernie will come across as a well meaning zealot an academic without an ounce of practicality and he will lose. I would still vote for him but he will lose. Mostly if elected I believe he will be ineffective in getting support for his policies. He isnt a dictator like trump who is likely to ram things through. I really like Bernie.i just dont think he would be a good president.

I dunno, I thought he handled Bloomberg pretty well.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

YouGov says he's more popular than Donald Trump. He's also much less unpopular.

 

[highlander]

I dunno, I thought he handled Bloomberg pretty well.

I thought is it was an unfortunate attack levied by Warren and Sanders.as well as the other candidate . They are obviously threatened. I had hoped someone - buttigieg or biden would come to his rescue but no.. To much self interest there. It makes me.respect them less. It was Bloombergs first chance on the stage and he was outright attacked and viciously immediately. On the whole he was quiet at first but came across well as time progressed and one of the most sensible people up there.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I thought is it was an unfortunate attack levied by Warren and Sanders.as well as the other candidate . They are obviously threatened. I had hoped someone - buttigieg or biden would come to his rescue but no.. To much self interest there. It makes me.respect them less. It was Bloombergs first chance on the stage and he was outright attacked and viciously immediately. On the whole he was quiet at first but came across well as time progressed and one of the most sensible people up there.

I think Bloomberg would be a disaster in a general election; I think he'd perform worse than John Kerry

Bloomberg said he could beat Trump because he's a "New Yorker". That doesn't sound very practical at all.

This article said Bloomberg was one of the losers of the debate, and Bernie was one of the winners.

Asked if he’s polarizing, he argued that it shouldn’t be polarizing to speak “to the needs and the pain of a long-neglected working class.” Asked if his self-label of “socialist” could hurt him in the general election, he argued that “we have socialism for the very rich, rugged individualism for the poor.” Agree or disagree, using attacks to simply reiterate fairly popular talking points is a proven debate strategy.

Do you think that's a losing message? I don't. It's what lots of people think but few politicians have said until now.

 

[highlander]

I think Bloomberg would be a disaster in a general election; I think he'd perform worse than John Kerry.

Why? Who is a John Kerry and how do their policies or styles align ?

Bloomberg is centrist, competent, action oriented and admits some humility. I seem to align on him with most big issues and what he says makes sense. It is something we could use more of.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Why? Who is a John Kerry and how do their policies or styles align ?

Bloomberg is centrist, competent, action oriented and admits some humility. I seem to align on him with most big issues and what he says makes sense. It is something we could use more of.

John Kerry is the guy that lost the popular vote to Dubya, during my first presidential election. He was coronated as the electable choice vs. someone like Howard Dean (who later went on to help the Democrats win Congress) who was considered too radical for the sole reason that he thought the war in Iraq was dumb.

He introduced himself as "reporting for duty" at the Democratic convention because it was thought that his military experience made him unassailable by the Republicans. Instead, they just hammered the fact that he threw his medals from Vietnam over a fence constantly, and Dubya successfully painted him as the most "liberal" Senator in Congress.

People just saw him as spineless and untrustworthy instead of reasonable and pragmatic.

 

[highlander]

I think Bloomberg would be a disaster in a general election; I think he'd perform worse than John Kerry Bloomberg said he could beat Trump because he's a "New Yorker". That doesn't sound very practical at all. This article said Bloomberg was one of the losers of the debate, and Bernie was one of the winners. Do you think that's a losing message? I don't. It's what lots of people think but few politicians have said until now.

I disagree with that poll. Bernie and Warren were the most obnoxious for sure. She came across as very unlikable and Bernie and her both came across as zealots. Biden scored some points. Bloomberg was off to a rough start but recovered quite nicely. Buttigieg did well as always except for a thin answer of two. Even Klobochar performed well.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I disagree with that poll. Bernie and Warren were the most obnoxious for sure. She came across as very unlikable and Bernie and her both came across as zealots. Biden scored some points. Bloomberg was off to a rough start but recovered quite nicely. Buttigieg did well as always except for a thin answer of two. Even Klobochar performed well.

Look, I was willing to go along with the conventional definition of electability with Clinton. It failed yet gain, just as it did in 2004 for the Democrats and 2008 and 2012 for the Republicans. I feel fairly confident in now concluding that those metrics of electability are utter crap. How do you think Trump looked during the 2016 primary debates? I thought he looked like an asshole, but he got elected anyway. I suspect it's that for people who agree with them, they see it as standing up for what they agree with, and that motivates them in the general election. I certainly don't think Bernie looked like a zealot, but maybe that's because I agree with him and I'm overjoyed that someone is finally having the spine to say these things. I know for a fact that I'm not alone in that.

As for Warren, I used to be a defender of hers, but she really alienated me with the "Sanders is a sexist" stuff. I was glad that she tore down Bloomberg, though, who would probably result in the implosion of the Democratic party if he won the nomination.

 

[highlander]

Look, I was willing to go along with the conventional definition of electability with Clinton. It failed yet gain, just as it did in 2004 for the Democrats and 2008 and 2012 for the Republicans. I feel fairly confident in now concluding that those metrics of electability are utter crap. How do you think Trump looked during the 2016 primary debates? I thought he looked like an asshole, but he got elected anyway. I suspect it's that for people who agree with them, they see it as standing up for what they agree with, and that motivates them in the general election. I certainly don't think Bernie looked like a zealot, but maybe that's because I agree with him and I'm overjoyed that someone is finally having the spine to say these things. I know for a fact that I'm not alone in that.

As for Warren, I used to be a defender of hers, but she really alienated me with the "Sanders is a sexist" stuff. I was glad that she tore down Bloomberg, though, who would probably result in the implosion of the Democratic party if he won the nomination.

I agree with some of your sentiment. In my belief, the only way to get things done is to inspire and galvanize others. Three candidates have this ability

• Biden
• Buttigieg
• Bloomberg

Klobachar is an outside possibility. Sanders and Warren would do nothing but further polarize the nation. For all the shitting on Bloomberg on the recent debate - it demonstrates just how afraid they are of him

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I agree with some of your sentiment. In my belief, the only way to get things done is to inspire and galvanize others. Three candidates have this ability

• Biden
• Buttigieg
• Bloomberg

Klobachar is an outside possibility. Sanders and Warren would do nothing but further polarize the nation. For all the shitting on Bloomberg on the recent debate - it demonstrates just how afraid they are of him

Hmmm.... the only one I agree with you on is Buttgieg.

I also think the nation is already extremely polarized and I don't think, as much as some candidates want to talk about unity, there's not really much a Democratic president can do about that. Obama's attempts at unity and bipartisanship were unsuccessful. I see future attempts at this also failing. (I think the one thing that might actually help with unity is enacting policies that benefit everyone, but even that's kind of a crapshoot.) We're a divided country. Obama ran on "no red America, and no blue America", and the consequence of that was simply that we became even more divided.

I'm reading this book that says that we've always been more of a collection of a few smaller nations that disagree with each other on many things, and this has been reflected in our current politics as well as our history. For instance, before the revolution, Massachusetts and Virginia were on different sides of the English Civil War in the 17th century, with Virginia supporting the Royalists and Massachusetts supporting Parliament. This was due to the people that settled those colonies. Given how divergent we are in terms of views, unity seems extremely elusive. Granted, I'm still at the period before the American revolution and one should keep in mind that "red states and blue states" is really just something that came into being in 2000.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

None of those candidates really seem to inspire the energy and fervor Bernie does. Sorry, it’s going to take another populist to defeat populist Trump.

You can’t beat a populist with policy wonks or politeness. I’m not saying Bernie has to be vicious and mean like Trump (overall he’s been the opposite, calling out his supporters for any toxicity), but he has a certain fire the others just lack. Nor am I saying he needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator like Trump has.

Polls don’t quite quantify this...

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I thought is it was an unfortunate attack levied by Warren and Sanders.as well as the other candidate . They are obviously threatened. I had hoped someone - buttigieg or biden would come to his rescue but no.. To much self interest there. It makes me.respect them less. It was Bloombergs first chance on the stage and he was outright attacked and viciously immediately. On the whole he was quiet at first but came across well as time progressed and one of the most sensible people up there.

It’s not candidates’ jobs to rescue other candidates during debates

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I can see Bloomberg is the guy the never trump republicans have been waiting to fall in love with.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

None of those candidates really seem to inspire the energy and fervor Bernie does. Sorry, it’s going to take another populist to defeat populist Trump.

You can’t beat a populist with policy wonks or politeness. I’m not saying Bernie has to be vicious like Trump (overall he’s been the opposite), but he has a certain fire the others just don’t. Nor am I saying he needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator like Trump has.

Polls don’t quite quantify this

I can't see the "crazy socialist" angle working as well on Bernie as Republicans think it will. I think tonight, we've been given a taste of how Bernie would respond, and I think that will work. Especially because Republicans have been calling Democrats socialists for decades; I remember a Republican in 2003 telling me that modern liberalism was more akin to socialism. I can't see that having the sting they think it will.

Sanders has been very sharp and quick on his feet and shown that he is quick n responding to these kinds of attacks in the right way. He almost comes up with snappy comebacks. I think it would work beautifully on Trump, especially compared to Hillary's lame "Donald Trump is unhinged" schtick she took from Jeb! 's failed campaign.

I don't want to quite say that I think Bernie can fight on Donald Trump's level, because he's better than that, but I think he's best posed to deal with his dipshittery. He can come up with responses that are way better than I think the other candidates are capable of producing, which is just stuff like "my grandpa was a corn farmer" or "I've been to mexico more than anyone else on this stage" or "I grew up in Oklahoma." That's the kind of stuff that professional political consultants think is genius but will fall flat on its face against Donald Trump.

I can see Bloomberg is the guy the never trump republicans have been waiting to fall in love with.

Thing is, there's not enough of them for them to matter too much. I think 2016 proved that. Hillary seemed to bank her campaign on their being countless legions of them and there just weren't. They probably all live in states that were certain to go for her anyway, like New York, Illinois, or California. What does it matter, strategically speaking, if you pick up a few Republican votes in states you were going to win without their help?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I can't see the "crazy socialist" angle working as well on Bernie as Republicans think it will. I think tonight, we've been given a taste of how Bernie would respond, and I think that will work. Especially because Republicans have been calling Democrats socialists for decades; I remember a Republican in 2003 telling me that modern liberalism was more akin to socialism. I can't see that having the sting they think it will.

Sanders has been very sharp and quick on his feet and shown that he is quick n responding to these kinds of attacks in the right way. He almost comes up with snappy comebacks. I think it would work beautifully on Trump, especially compared to Hillary's lame "Donald Trump is unhinged" schtick she took from Jeb! 's failed campaign.

I don't want to quite say that I think Bernie can fight on Donald Trump's level, because he's better than that, but I think he's best posed to deal with his dipshittery. He can come up with responses that are way better than I think the other candidates are capable of producing, which is just stuff like "my grandpa was a corn farmer" or "I've been to mexico more than anyone else on this stage" or "I grew up in Oklahoma." That's the kind of stuff that professional political consultants think is genius but will fall flat on its face against Donald Trump.



Thing is, there's not enough of them for them to matter too much. I think 2016 proved that. Hillary seemed to bank her campaign on their being countless legions of them and there just weren't. They probably all live in states that were certain to go for her anyway, like New York, Illinois, or California. What does it matter, strategically speaking, if you pick up a few Republican votes in states you were going to win without their help?

On the flip, the “crazy fascist” label didn’t work on Trump nor has it worked all that well on any republican in the past. So I’m inclined to agree. Those are just base riling pejoratives and do little to sway centrists one way or the other

I think modern liberalism is far more akin to classical liberalism despite a lot of right wingers saying otherwise

 

[Maou]

The reason Bernie will lose the election, if it comes down to it. Is demographics. He is more popular with young, collage aged people. Cities will always be blue, and it doesn't matter how many people vote Bernie in those cities. So really, it comes down to looking at turnouts in swing states like Florida and Ohio.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The reason Bernie will lose the election, if it comes down to it. Is demographics. He is more popular with young, collage aged people. Cities will always be blue, and it doesn't matter how many people vote Bernie in those cities. So really, it comes down to looking at turnouts in swing states like Florida and Ohio.

He was quite popular in some more rural areas as well. He performed much better than Clinton in some of those districts in the 2016 primaries.

He's a real threat to Trump in the Midwest states that flipped red in 2016. All he really has to do is perform as well as Clinton did in the states she carried and flip some of the traditionally blue states that went red in 2016. With his populist appeal, he is the best positioned of any democratic candidate to pull this off. Look at his Michigan upset in the 2016 primaries. He was expected to tie or win by a slight margin but carried by 20 points. People there who felt abandoned by Clinton flocked to Trump. But they may feel Trump has since abandoned them.

I also think the age factor is overstated. His popularity with people over 40 is underestimated. I think it's growing.

He's also more popular with African American voters than he was in 2016. I don't see Pete or Bloomberg doing very well with that demographic in a GE


MSM might like us to believe he's only popular with young white college educated dudes. As much as you criticize the MSM, it's unfortunate you appear to have bought that narrative hook, line and sinker

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

A populist incumbent can only be beat by another populist candidate. Throwing a lot of money at fancy ads doesn't amount to much if it doesn't arouse populist fervor in people. Building name recognition alone won't win elections. Bernie has built name recognition since 2016 but he's also been consistently able to rouse voters in a way no candidate other than Trump has done since 2016

 

[Virtual ghost]

He was quite popular in some more rural areas as well. He performed much better than Clinton in some of those districts in the 2016 primaries.

He's a real threat to Trump in the Midwest states that flipped red in 2016. All he really has to do is perform as well as Clinton did in the states she carried and flip some of the traditionally blue states that went red in 2016.

Correct, he only needs to take Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which barely flipped in 2016 (and hold current blue states, which are all moslty typical blue anyway)
He doesn't need Florida or Ohio, but everything extra is nice bonus since it boosts the presidency.


Plus at this point it is fairly obvious that pretty much all blacks and hispanics that plan to vote will vote Blue in GE. Therefore college educated young people, blacks, hispanics, very good chunk of manufacturing workers, most of women, chronically sick ... that isn't weak demographics. There is panic exactly because this will probably work in GE.


In a way America is fascinating with it's "He can't win".
Since Trump, Obama and a few other famous presidents are exactly that "He can't possibly win this", and then on election night some people get heart attack.