2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
r1a9imM_d.jpg
 
Why is the media, the Democratic party establishment and all the rich people like Warren Buffet, Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs CEO etc trying to bring down Bernie Sanders?

There will be some of this, or course. There will also be some people who think that Sanders getting the nomination, increases the likelihood of four more years of Trump. The Republicans I know certainly view Bernie as their preferred candidate.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/21/congress-sanders-republicans-trump-116523
 
Scarborough and his crew were bricking it this morning - as if Sanders has never been "vetted" in the past. Anyone who grew up in the US with a mild interest in politics has known about him for decades and its not as if he wasn't comprehensively covered in 2015/16.
I bet he was. Saw a clip with Al Sharpton saying the same thing . He said vetting him now would stop him being targeted by Republican ads in the general if he was nominated.
 
None of that means that Democrats who continue going against their own voting base on policy won't be in danger because of that. Just like how Republicans who dared to criticise Trump about anything are losing elections all over the place because, entirely unsurprisingly, the core Rep voters love Trump.
1) Not necessarily true. He couldn't do anything to Collins (voted for witnesses and against the repeal of Obamacare), Murkowski (against repeal of Obamacare and against Kavanaugh) for example. Romney voted to remove him and now Trump in Utah has the biggest difference in disapproval rate from the time he became president in any state. Finally, Jeff Flake retired cause of fear of primaried, and what happened next? The Democrats flipped the seat.

2) Trump is way more popular than Sanders. At this time of election, Trump was polling 33-35%, while Sanders is getting 25%.
 
1) Not necessarily true. He couldn't do anything to Collins (voted for witnesses and against the repeal of Obamacare), Murkowski (against repeal of Obamacare and against Kavanaugh) for example. Romney voted to remove him and now Trump in Utah has the biggest difference in disapproval rate from the time he became president in any state. Finally, Jeff Flake retired cause of fear of primaried, and what happened next? The Democrats flipped the seat.

2) Trump is way more popular than Sanders. At this time of election, Trump was polling 33-35%, while Sanders is getting 25%.
are you even being serious with this point?
 
Just circulate the feck out of the Obama video saying exactly the same.

It’s not the older Cubans who internalize that propaganda that’s a worry in Florida, it’s the retirees and ex-Midwesterners in exurban areas who were decisive for Trump in 16 and Rick Scott in 18. Contrary to common wisdom, Clinton did run by traditional metrics an excellent organisation there and drove turn out as much as possible, but that new pool of voters were a big problem. I don’t think there’s enough votes in Broward and Miami-Dade to overcome that if inroads can’t be made into that community. There are also the ex-felons who are now eligible to vote but we simply don’t know enough to gauge their voting behaviour.

 
are you even being serious with this point?
Yes. At this stage of Republican primaries (in 2016) Trump was polling 8-10 points higher than Sanders is polling now. So, he was more popular with the Republicans then, than Sanders is with Democrats now. So, unless Sanders will reach the same popularity as Trump, he won't be able to threaten Democrat incumbents who vote against him.

It doesn't matter which candidate we like, facts are facts.
 
I’d be surprised if Sanders wins FL in a gen election. Far too many groups who tend to swing conservative to moderate in the state at the moment.
 
I’d be surprised if Sanders wins FL in a gen election. Far too many groups who tend to swing conservative to moderate in the state at the moment.

For the general election, it won't matter, Trump is gonna win Florida in any case, so Dems need to go all-in for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in order to have a path to victory.
 
2) Trump is way more popular than Sanders. At this time of election, Trump was polling 33-35%, while Sanders is getting 25%.
RCP poll average is 29.3% for Sanders right now; it was 33.6% for Trump on the same day four years ago. Not exactly a landslide of a difference - and of course that's not taking into account the fact that it's utterly pointless to compare the two situations four years apart, with very different competitors and issues.
 
For the general election, it won't matter, Trump is gonna win Florida in any case, so Dems need to go all-in for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in order to have a path to victory.

The newer generation of younger Cubans tend to be more open to progressives. The trouble with FL is it’s basically a southern state, so to win it , you have to have massive Dem turnout in Dade, Broward, and PB. These are all establishment Dem strongholds, so for someone like Sanders to do well he would have to have an unusually strong showing there.
 
The newer generation of younger Cubans tend to be more open to progressives. The trouble with FL is it’s basically a southern state, so to win it , you have to have massive Dem turnout in Dade, Broward, and PB. These are all establishment Dem strongholds, so for someone like Sanders to do well he would have to have an unusually strong showing there.
I know, but still. They won both the gubernatorial and senate race 1 year ago, and Trump won it comfortably in 2016. It has been going red since 2008.
 
No Democrat is winning it (this cycle). The path to victory for Dems is to win all states Hillary won, and then Pennsylvania and Michigan.

I agree. Actually your last statement is only partially correct, the Dems would have to pick up one more state to win the election on top of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Potential pick up states include AZ, FL, WI, NC, maybe IA if Sanders gets the nomination.
 
RCP poll average is 29.3% for Sanders right now; it was 33.6% for Trump on the same day four years ago. Not exactly a landslide of a difference - and of course that's not taking into account the fact that it's utterly pointless to compare the two situations four years apart, with very different competitors and issues.
Thanks for correction, it seems that it has gone up the last week (especially after NV caucus). It is still not as strong as Trump numbers this time 4 years ago though.
 
I know, but still. They won both the gubernatorial and senate race 1 year ago, and Trump won it comfortably in 2016. It has been going red since 2008.
By about a 100k votes - 1.2%. That's not what I'd call comfortable. I mean, compared to 2000 it certainly is but surely that can't be the benchmark.
 
Sanders can win WI, PA,MI and flip NC with a wave election.
AZ is probable too.

He wont need TX and FL.

The harsh reality is that AZ is probably out of reach to Sanders, being from the state myself. Progressives continue to get hammered in elections out there as the folks who are swinging towards voting blue are the suburban types who favor moderates. Any sniff of concern of paying more taxes for Medicare for All and people will lose their ****.

I think WI, PA, and MI are all possible for Sanders and that would be sufficient (on top of all the states Hillary won) to win the White House.
 
I agree. Actually your last statement is only partially correct, the Dems would have to pick up one more state to win the election on top of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Potential pick up states include AZ, FL, WI, NC, maybe IA if Sanders gets the nomination.
Pennsylvania and Michigan have 36 votes, right? Remove 36 from Trump's 304 and he reaches only 268, which gives the victory to Dems.

* I might be wrong
 
Pennsylvania and Michigan have 36 votes, right? Remove 36 from Trump's 304 and he reaches only 268, which gives the victory to Dems.

* I might be wrong

He’s not going to flip an entire state though is he?
 
Pennsylvania and Michigan have 36 votes, right? Remove 36 from Trump's 304 and he reaches only 268, which gives the victory to Dems.

* I might be wrong

You are right but I am also right as that wouldn't give the Dems enough votes to win either (think it would be 269 to 268). If this scenario happens the tiebreaker vote goes to Congress:

"If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the Presidential election leaves the Electoral College process and moves to Congress.

The House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote and it is up to the individual States to determine how to vote. (Since the District of Columbia is not a State, it has no State delegation in the House and cannot vote). A candidate must receive at least 26 votes (a majority of the States) to be elected.

The Senate elects the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President. (Since the District of Columbia is has no Senators and is not represented in the vote). A candidate must receive at least 51 votes (a majority of Senators) to be elected.

If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."
 
Should clarify from my prior post that even with the Dems taking back the House in 2018, it would be insufficient to win a tiebreaker vote for president as each state only gets 1 vote (50 votes total, decided by who is in the majority of the house delegation from the state). In this system the repubs still win unfortunately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.