You cited that he has less followers than Melania trump. Just stop.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
You cited that he has less followers than Melania trump. Just stop.
I suspect Garcetti may wind up in the mix in terms of new faces. He's young and if he plays his cards right, may be able to blend both progressive and establishment into a hybrid candidacy.
The point is that there's no real way to make them split for you. They split in favour of Trump, Romney, Kerry, Obama, Bush, Clinton 1, Bush 1, Reagan and Carter. These people have very little in common with each other, a good campaign should focus on the base and get a good enough turnout to nullify whatever swing independents have.
Of course there is - you sell your policies as broadly as possible to gain as large a chunk of independents as possible, and in the process deprive your opponent from doing the same. That's ultimately how elections are won - solid base along with as many independents as possible. The 35-40 of independents up for grabs have to therefore be taken seriously.
44% of them voted for a man who tailored his campaign to white supremacists and the far right. The contents and presentation of a campaign makes little difference to these people.
He gained most of his momentum based on his social media following from 2014 onwards, did he not?
That's where I heard about him, from people posting videos of his speeches on facebook and twitter almost every week.
I'd wager that most people heard about Bernie through channels like facebook and twitter.
Now all of a sudden, that doesn't mean anything?
Yeah he's not a bad shout, it would be risky if they went all the way progressive - like you said the party needs to convince independents, and moderate trump-voters who may have been alienated by some of his policies.
you live in London, we weren't likely to get people putting bernie fliers through our letterboxes
He gained most of his momentum based on his social media following from 2014 onwards, did he not?
That's where I heard about him, from people posting videos of his speeches on facebook and twitter almost every week.
I'd wager that most people heard about Bernie through channels like facebook and twitter.
Now all of a sudden, that doesn't mean anything?
Yeah he's not a bad shout, it would be risky if they went all the way progressive - like you said the party needs to convince independents, and moderate trump-voters who may have been alienated by some of his policies.
I literally do not care about social media numbers
And just think how the election results would've changed had Hillary managed a mere 5% of that 44 in the rust belt states.
No but it gained exposure worldwide, and that exposure helped him considerably, and that can't be denied.
You don't care, that's fine - you don't have to, but it's still an important medium to address your base for any politician.
The final polls before the election said were Trump 44-47 HRC, the actual numbers were 46-48. Most who voted for Trump also were honest with the pollsters.
Meanwhile, the last Bernie v Trump polls averaged 50-39 in Bernie's favour. Polls aren't perfect - but they weren't that far off.
There's another indicator of the winning candidate: popularity. Starting from 1980, higher favourables is a strong predictor of the winner. The only time it failed was in 2000 - both Gore and Bush were underwater, and Bush *just* "beat" Gore...the only other time both candidates had negative popularity was...2016, with the same outcome. Meanwhile, Bernie was easily clear of the entire field and especially HRC and Trump on that score.
In conclusion
The Bernie v Trump poll has to be taken with a pinch of salt since they never actually ran against one another, so voters never really had a chance to make a realistic assessment between the two. Also, Bernie was never subjected to the wrath of Trump's propaganda machine, which would've eroded a significant chunk of his support by election day to where the real numbers could've been more in line with Hillary's towards the end.
We're in the land of hypotheticals here, Bernie and Trump have never ran against each other so those polls are slightly disingenuous. Trump is a lot of things, but if he focuses on Bernie and calls out that he couldn't even beat HRC (regardless of the super delegates) that will stick.
He has a staunch fanbase, I've never denied this - but there's simply not enough of them to have garnered the 40m+ votes needed to secure victory in an election.
Even now, you would think that he should be the clear candidate for 2020 but again he's struggling to connect with the majority, outside of the BernieBro's.
That's why I'm convinced Sanders would have won, that may be too strong of a language and it may not be a landslide to the equivalent of of Obama-McCain but he would have won by enough. I don't think Trump would have won as much with Bernie as he did against Hillary with white working class men and that probably would have been enough in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
It might have been discussed before but is there any more mainstream candidate out there Bernie could run with to capture both audiences? I don't see how a Biden/Sanders thing could work considering their ages and the perception that might come with that.
i know all the people in my rust belt community will think "hmm the factory jobs are gone and my child has an opioid addiction and health insurance costs $800 per month for partial coverage but trump said that bernie couldn't beat hillary four years ago so forget voting for policies that would improve my life"
Eboue and I have shown using a variety of evidence that he is the most popular politican in the country, and 3 years in the public eye have done nothing to significantly harm those numbers.
Polling generally got stuff right within margins of error and showed him heading to a landslide.
Honestly, I don't see any basis for your claim about limited support.
This was the latest one I've seen (March 2018 I think):
1. The HRC numbers from the same time were consistently lower than Bernie's by about 5 points. The last set of polls for him was June 5 2016, he was +11, she was +1.5. So, Trump had much less of a mountain to climb when facing her.
2. Several of the attacks he used against her ("Crooked", "bad health", "husband is a rapist", "swamp") wouldn't have worked on him. So far, the 2 year-long low-level warfare on his twitter page about a 3rd house and a corrupt wife have moved his numbers about 2%. Yes, he would have been hit and bled a few points for being a socialist ("crazy Bernie").
3. Popularity. She was already underwater (-10/20, Trump was -20/30) from the start of 2016, he was holding steady in the plus tens/twenties. That's the sign of a candidate who would be harder to attack.
Again, I don't think he would have actually won by that 11-point margin. Most Republicans would have as usual come out for their man. But I don't think there's any way Trump could have made up a 11 point gap, when he barely scraped past a 5-point gap versus a more vulnerable candidate. And the crucial ones - Wisconsin, Penn, Michigan - I don't see Bernie losing those.
he is the most popular politician in the country. hes not struggling to connect except with extremely online people an ocean away
That is true, but I do think those polling numbers help to eradicate the myth that Bernie couldn't have won against Trump, or that he'd have been a candidate who was too far-left to win. Most indicators suggest he certainly had a decent chance, and was a stronger candidate than Clinton.
I agree Trump's propaganda campaign would've likely dented him, but at the same time it's perfectly possible that Trump's 'drain the swamp' mantra and his appeal as a politician of genuine change would've been neutered in a campaign against someone seen as an outsider like Bernie. So while it's naive to assume Bernie would've walked into the Presidency against Trump, I'd equally argue it would've been no guarantee that Trump would've eroded his support base.
I see Kamala Harris is really pushing towards 2020.
Good point. It is impossible for corporate Democrats to defend themselves against those charges in any believable way because everyone knows there is some truth in it.
I don't rate her at all. Maybe a VP pick but never a POTUS.
I can't stand that term. It's erasing women on the left.
Alright, let's look at the closest Trump states in the 2016 election.
Michigan - 11K votes, Let's give her this one just for the sake of it.
Pennsylvania - 68K votes 48.8%-47.6% split, with most 3rd party votes going libertarian or constitution party. No victory for her here I'm afraid, she won the voting indies who lean left.
Wisconsin - 27K votes from a just under 3 million voters. Could go either way assuming same base support and 5% more. Let's be generous and say she takes Wisconsin too.
That puts us at 270 electoral votes to 268. Definitely more interesting election night coverage. The Pennsylvania vote might have close enough for some recount drama but it wouldn't have been a winning strategy.
I still have this guy as the dark horse candidate to come in and win the nomination: https://moulton.house.gov/
Harvard
Marine with 5 tours of Iraq
Young and white with a squeaky clean record
Eboue and I have shown using a variety of evidence that he is the most popular politican in the country, and 3 years in the public eye have done nothing to significantly harm those numbers.
Polling generally got stuff right within margins of error and showed him heading to a landslide.
Honestly, I don't see any basis for your claim about limited support.
This was the latest one I've seen (March 2018 I think):
1. The HRC numbers from the same time were consistently lower than Bernie's by about 5 points. The last set of polls for him was June 5 2016, he was +11, she was +1.5. So, Trump had much less of a mountain to climb when facing her.
2. Several of the attacks he used against her ("Crooked", "bad health", "husband is a rapist", "swamp") wouldn't have worked on him. So far, the 2 year-long low-level warfare on his twitter page about a 3rd house and a corrupt wife have moved his numbers about 2%. Yes, he would have been hit and bled a few points for being a socialist ("crazy Bernie").
3. Popularity. She was already underwater (-10/20, Trump was -20/30) from the start of 2016, he was holding steady in the plus tens/twenties. That's the sign of a candidate who would be harder to attack.
Again, I don't think he would have actually won by that 11-point margin. Most Republicans would have as usual come out for their man. But I don't think there's any way Trump could have made up a 11 point gap, when he barely scraped past a 5-point gap versus a more vulnerable candidate. And the crucial ones - Wisconsin, Penn, Michigan - I don't see Bernie losing those.
I'm not comparing Hillary's numbers against Trump since we already know what they were. I'm saying Sanders' euphorically high popularity may not have stood up against Trump's unrelenting attacks had they actually faced off against one another. The numbers would've been significantly eroded imo.
Florida was close as well. She would've won had she peeled off a higher percentage of independents in those parts. A candidate like Trump should never even had been in the picture in many of these places.
BernieBros and Bernie Bras.
imagine saying berniebros seriously on the same page as data showing bernie +16 with women (only +4 with men) and +60 among blacks
Bros can include women, in the same way ‘guys’ does.
I like dwayne’s BernieBra’s though.
Clearly it wasn’t that serious, bro.
We shall see, if he runs again.
You’re suggesting that he’s going to run away with it, even above Trump’s numbers.
The hard left will completely implode if Biden wins the nomination.
Last edited:
I most certainly am.
Though I just wear bras, not burn them.
I'm on board.
Sanders Sista’s has a ring to it too.
Do you believe Sanders would not have performed better than Clinton?
What makes you think this?
I don't think so because Biden is part of the Obama cohort not the Clinton cohort and has tonnes less baggage. If Biden were come out and say pick Liz Warren as VP and then support universal healthcare and focuses on the issue of healthcare, I believe many more far left would vote for Biden/Warren than Clinton/Kaine. Remember 53% of Trump voters were specifically voting Against Clinton, not For Trump. There is no Democrat candidate alive that could fire up the Republicans to turn out to vote like Rodham Clinton.
Do you disagree?
Worse still, Trump will probably beat him and his ego will reach new heights unseen.
Maybe for the Democrats to win They need to put forward a far right candidate like Steve Bannon as an independent and split the Republican vote. Trump has a very loyal fan base. But they are only loyal to his hard line bigoted view and like all far right = they will be prepared to even go harder at a worst candidate.
That could definitely work as long as Biden makes the appropriate pivot to the left by taking on a couple of Bernie's policies.
- Status