2020 Democratic Presidential nominee

774 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

NorthReport wrote:

‘White male privilege’: Top N.H. women fume over Buttigieg’s Iowa speech

Mayor Pete’s early declaration of victory put him in hot water with some Democrats in the first-in-the-nation primary state.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06/buttigieg-iowa-new-hampshire-women-111746

Oh, FFS.

josh

Whatever the "SDEs" may be, Sanders won Iowa by 6000 votes.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

 

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

‘White male privilege’: Top N.H. women fume over Buttigieg’s Iowa speech

Mayor Pete’s early declaration of victory put him in hot water with some Democrats in the first-in-the-nation primary state.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06/buttigieg-iowa-new-hampshire-women-111746

Oh, FFS.

I suppose there could be a subset of primary-voters who would object to a POC or female POTUS, but would be totally cool with a gay person. Can't imagine it's a very large one, though.

 

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree that Bloomberg has no chance. Trump has enough of the rich billonaire vote sewn up. If Bloomberg won the Democratic party through an act of political suicide by that party (not impossible) he would lose to Trump. the Democrats have to get a large proportion of the anti-Trump side of the US to the polls. Bloomberg cannot do it.

My impression, though, is that Democrats by-and-large are now motivated by Trump-hatred more than by loyalty to any particular candidate. Don't imagine there are a lot of people saying "Well, I think the fascist Orange Cheeto is a Kremlin-stooge who licks Putin's unwiped asshole for a nickel and gives change and plans to convert this country into the Handmaid's Tale, but I'm waiting to see who the Dems put up before I make my final choice."

No, I think it's pretty much just "I hate Trump, and want him gone, end of story." So I think the Democrats will probably have a LOT less of a problem with stay-at-homes this time around. The question is: will any increased turnout among traditional Democrats be offset by stay-at-home Sanders fans, most of whom don't subscribe to the demonological catechism outlined in my first paragraph?  

voice of the damned

I'm also kind of wondering why Bloomberg's status as a zillionaire didn't seem to hurt him as a candidate for mayor of NYC, but it's suddenly going to become a liability on the national level?

In three election between 2001 and 2009, Bloomberg won an outright majority in all three, including in 2009, when anti-oligarch sentiment would have been at its height. And he always seemed to do best in Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. The first I can see being full of wealthy fuckheads, but I've always had the impression that Queens and Staten Island are more working-class, or at least, not patrician strongholds. (Open to correction on this.)

iyraste1313

The straw that broke the camel’s back might have been the Iowa Democrats’ sheepish walk-back of a set of phony results for Black Hawk County on Wednesday night, which had mysteriously handed a large chunk of Sanders votes to billionaire Tom Steyer and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. When the county supervisor published the actual results, the party dutifully updated their totals to reflect reality after promising a “minor correction.”

But this nonchalant correction of yet another supposedly innocent mistake – all of which, some noticed, had penalized Sanders – wasn’t enough for voters who had lost patience with the process. “How many other counties are having their results falsely reported by the IDP?” one group tweeted, giving voice to the suspicions shared by many....

...again I repeat, the DNC corporate entity will never allow Sanders to be candidate

josh

voice of the damned wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree that Bloomberg has no chance. Trump has enough of the rich billonaire vote sewn up. If Bloomberg won the Democratic party through an act of political suicide by that party (not impossible) he would lose to Trump. the Democrats have to get a large proportion of the anti-Trump side of the US to the polls. Bloomberg cannot do it.

My impression, though, is that Democrats by-and-large are now motivated by Trump-hatred more than by loyalty to any particular candidate. Don't imagine there are a lot of people saying "Well, I think the fascist Orange Cheeto is a Kremlin-stooge who licks Putin's unwiped asshole for a nickel and gives change and plans to convert this country into the Handmaid's Tale, but I'm waiting to see who the Dems put up before I make my final choice."

No, I think it's pretty much just "I hate Trump, and want him gone, end of story." So I think the Democrats will probably have a LOT less of a problem with stay-at-homes this time around. The question is: will any increased turnout among traditional Democrats be offset by stay-at-home Sanders fans, most of whom don't subscribe to the demonological catechism outlined in my first paragraph?  

Democrats' attitude towards Trump can be compared to Churchill's quote about allying with the devil against Hitler: 

voice of the damned

Democrats' attitude towards Trump can be compared to Churchill's quote about allying with the devil against Hitler: 

Yep. And the alliance analogized in that quote turned out to be pretty bad news for Hitler.

https://tinyurl.com/uhqwgvm

 

NDPP

Krystal Ball: Pete, DNC Collusion is Class Warfare (and vid)

https://t.co/zwGqpf31so?amp=1

"Krystal explains why a recanvas in Iowa erases the voice of the working class."

Sean in Ottawa

iyraste1313 wrote:

The straw that broke the camel’s back might have been the Iowa Democrats’ sheepish walk-back of a set of phony results for Black Hawk County on Wednesday night, which had mysteriously handed a large chunk of Sanders votes to billionaire Tom Steyer and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. When the county supervisor published the actual results, the party dutifully updated their totals to reflect reality after promising a “minor correction.”

But this nonchalant correction of yet another supposedly innocent mistake – all of which, some noticed, had penalized Sanders – wasn’t enough for voters who had lost patience with the process. “How many other counties are having their results falsely reported by the IDP?” one group tweeted, giving voice to the suspicions shared by many....

...again I repeat, the DNC corporate entity will never allow Sanders to be candidate

Did you know that the process including reporting the results by phone and that the right wing in the US got the number put it on 4chan and the call was bombarded with harassing messages to tie up the lines. Further it is also possible that someone manage to fake a call or a few and give actual results. Before you go blaming anyone for this why not let an investigation have a chance at figuring out what actually happened?

Sean in Ottawa

iyraste1313 wrote:

The straw that broke the camel’s back might have been the Iowa Democrats’ sheepish walk-back of a set of phony results for Black Hawk County on Wednesday night, which had mysteriously handed a large chunk of Sanders votes to billionaire Tom Steyer and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. When the county supervisor published the actual results, the party dutifully updated their totals to reflect reality after promising a “minor correction.”

But this nonchalant correction of yet another supposedly innocent mistake – all of which, some noticed, had penalized Sanders – wasn’t enough for voters who had lost patience with the process. “How many other counties are having their results falsely reported by the IDP?” one group tweeted, giving voice to the suspicions shared by many....

...again I repeat, the DNC corporate entity will never allow Sanders to be candidate

Did you know that the process including reporting the results by phone and that the right wing in the US got the number put it on 4chan and the call was bombarded with harassing messages to tie up the lines. Further it is also possible that someone manage to fake a call or a few and give actual results. Before you go blaming anyone for this why not let an investigation have a chance at figuring out what actually happened?

Sean in Ottawa

BTW -- I will repeat here becuase it bears repeating. Polls not close to a polling date are not guages of support but rather enthusiasm.

Trump is the nominee for the Republicans and his opposition is just a footnote. For this reason he already has the support he could get in November. Not so for any Democrat.

At the moment there are polls ongoing for Democrat nominee but not head to head competitions with Trump. At the moment people who support a different candidate are unlikely to answer a head to head with Trump becuase it may help the other candidate or may simply waste time from their point of view. Expect only the supporters of that particular candidate to respond and even then they are more likely interested in the races among Democrats. All this changes as we get closer to election day and there is only one Democrate possible on the Presidential ballot. Very likely the distance between the Republicans and Democrats will open up. This will be as Democrats become more interested in the selected nominee than when that person was a candidate and when Independents come in. Independents -- true independents -- are probably not particularly interested in spedning time talking to a pollster. 

Real numbers will start to be seen in Septemberfollowing labour day.

I think the greatest weakness for Trump is that he really turns on his supporters and they are happy to be counted but he has no room to grow with the core that he does not turn on. Therefore right now I suspect there are about 25% Republican and 25% Democrat firmly encamped and close to even in the polls. There is another 40% who will never vote. There is another 10% that is less partisan and more independent. I think Trump has little support there and it will go overwhelmingly to the Democrat Candidate. This means that what looks close now may in fact be a 7-8% lead which would be enough for a Democrat to win.

NDPP

Street: The Game is Rigged (from the left)

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/

"Let's be completely clear here. The Democratic Party in Iowa has done more to undermine faith in our elections than Russia ever could. Period. This whole democracy looks like a Potemkin Village farce where the GOP and Democratic Party insiders seem to almost laugh at the rubes who take this whole thing as serious..."

Kunstler: Slapstick Suicide (from the right)

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/slapstick-suicide/

"...Considering they are now the official party of chaos, all of this colorful comic disorder may have a purpose behind it: to demonstrate that the United States is now too incompetent to hold an election, and therefore whatever happens on November 3 will have to be disputed...At best, the party may split up into two or more rump parties, a la 1860 contest, and that will be the end of them."

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1224547478353195008

NorthReport

Everything is a conspiracy, eh!  Give us a break!

-----------------------

 

Election Update: There’s A New Face In Our Forecast. (It’s Bloomberg.)

 

EU-0207-4×3

ILLUSTRATION BY FIVETHIRTYEIGHT / FABIO BUONOCORE

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-theres-a-new-face-in-our-forecast-its-bloomberg/

NDPP

'CNN Just Did A Segment About Pete Being Called A Rat' (and vid)

"I'm considering watching the debate tonight but am genuinely concerned I'm not going to be able to tear myself away from watching this scoop from CNN's Senior Investigative Correspondent on a loop, one of the most entertaining things on cable in ages..."

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1225944271779434498

NDPP

Iowa Debacle Fueled By Anti-Bernie Billionaires, Russiagate Hucksters, Failed DNC Elites

https://youtu.be/SVEEoxdzfXw

"Iowa's voting debacle has renewed fears that the DNC is again working against Bernie Sanders..."

Must Watch!

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

Iowa Debacle Fueled By Anti-Bernie Billionaires, Russiagate Hucksters, Failed DNC Elites

https://youtu.be/SVEEoxdzfXw

"Iowa's voting debacle has renewed fears that the DNC is again working against Bernie Sanders..."

Must Watch!

"renewed fears" translates into "cause to worry but no evidence."

Important to post any evidence but let's try to  focus on the evidence rather than any suggestions that there is more to the fear than fear.

The fact that the DNC is not in Sander's corner is clear as we have seen from many including Obama suggesting. What we are looking for is any shred of evidence that this prejudice has worked its way into action.

I think there is very much cause to fear this but I hope people here will not promote things that fall short of actual evidence

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The fact that the DNC is not in Sander's corner is clear as we have seen from many including Obama suggesting. What we are looking for is any shred of evidence that this prejudice has worked its way into action.

Just the optics of that are bad, regardless of what has actually happened. Many of Sanders' people are still angry about 2016, and rather than do anything constructive to address those concerns, the DNC has actively gone out if its way to prove them right. At the very least, they are inept with their PR.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The fact that the DNC is not in Sander's corner is clear as we have seen from many including Obama suggesting. What we are looking for is any shred of evidence that this prejudice has worked its way into action.

Just the optics of that are bad, regardless of what has actually happened. Many of Sanders' people are still angry about 2016, and rather than do anything constructive to address those concerns, the DNC has actively gone out if its way to prove them right. At the very least, they are inept with their PR.

I agree optics bad but the news to look for is if this is now happening with significant concrete action.

NDPP

The Myth of Incompetence: DNC Scandals Are A Feature Not A Bug

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/06/the-myth-of-incompetence-dnc-scand...

"...The Democratic presidential primary scandal is being managed by the same committee which orchestrated the last presidential primary scandal, and the campaign being victimized by this scandal, that of Bernie Sanders, is the same in both cases. This would be the same DNC whose chairperson, Tom Perez, recently stacked its nominating committee with dozens of odious alt-centrist establishment insiders who are ideologically opposed to Sanders in every meaningful way. If this party wishes to screw over progressive voters, you'd expect that they'd at least try to hide it a little bit so they don't alienate their progressive base before November. The flaw in this expectation is its premise that Democratic Party elites care if their party wins in November. They do not."

 

Sh*t-Can Perez and the DNC

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/10/sht-can-perez-and-the-dnc/

"Hooray for Bernie Sanders! He waited until he had the numbers and now he's calling it. He won Iowa!"

NDPP

'All The Candidates Are Zionist. I don't care to parse the nuances of their Zionism. Seeking - or, worse, celebrating - a kinder colonizer is a waste of time.'

https://twitter.com/StanleyCohenLaw/status/1226986802809982976

Yes. All. Never forget this.

kropotkin1951

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The fact that the DNC is not in Sander's corner is clear as we have seen from many including Obama suggesting. What we are looking for is any shred of evidence that this prejudice has worked its way into action.

Just the optics of that are bad, regardless of what has actually happened. Many of Sanders' people are still angry about 2016, and rather than do anything constructive to address those concerns, the DNC has actively gone out if its way to prove them right. At the very least, they are inept with their PR.

I agree optics bad but the news to look for is if this is now happening with significant concrete action.

I trust the DNC as much as I trust Trump. I don't need to see a smoking gun for either of them to know they are gaming the system shamelessly. Fool me once ...

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/2KafVxWAxjc

"Biden: Hunter got$80k/mo cuz 'he's very bright!"

NorthReport
NorthReport

Amy Klobuchar makes late surge as New Hampshire votes

Two polls showed Minnesota senator coming in third, ahead of supposed top-tier candidates Biden and Warren

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/11/amy-klobuchar-new-hampshire-surge-voters

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The fact that the DNC is not in Sander's corner is clear as we have seen from many including Obama suggesting. What we are looking for is any shred of evidence that this prejudice has worked its way into action.

Just the optics of that are bad, regardless of what has actually happened. Many of Sanders' people are still angry about 2016, and rather than do anything constructive to address those concerns, the DNC has actively gone out if its way to prove them right. At the very least, they are inept with their PR.

I agree optics bad but the news to look for is if this is now happening with significant concrete action.

I trust the DNC as much as I trust Trump. I don't need to see a smoking gun for either of them to know they are gaming the system shamelessly. Fool me once ...

I share the suspicion but I want to see evidence.

NorthReport

Although Sanders won, he barely won NH

Klobuchar looks like she has had another good nite

Debater

It was also another good night for Pete Buttigieg.

For an openly gay man to do this well in 2 states in the Presidential nomination is a historic breakthrough.

NorthReport

What’s Behind Amy Klobuchar’s Surge — And Can It Go National?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-behind-amy-klobuchars-surge-and-can-it-go-national/

NorthReport

Sanders Is The Front-Runner After New Hampshire, And A Contested Convention Has Become More Likely

But the model needs post-New Hampshire polling to make sense of a chaotic race.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-is-the-front-runner-after-new-hampshire-and-a-contested-convention-has-become-more-likely/

Aristotleded24

As much as we may be rooting for Sanders, these results are concerning. In 2 of the primaries held so far, approximately 3 in 4 voters wanted someone other than him. A big reason that he is leading in the polls right now is because his opposition is so fragmented. If his opposition coalesces even modarately, he is done. He needs to be able to lift his level of support from where it currently is.

NorthReport

'This is horrendous': Biden's 5th-place finish in New Hampshire leaves supporters concerned for the candidate's future

https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-5th-place-finish-new-hampshire-raises-questions-over-electability-2020-2

NorthReport

Politics Podcast: Sanders Won The New Hampshire Vote. So How Did ‘Klobucharge’ Win The Narrative?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-sanders-won-the-new-hampshire-vote-so-how-did-klobucharge-win-the-narrative/

NorthReport

Troy Price did the right thing by resigning.

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
Politics Podcast: Sanders Won The New Hampshire Vote. So How Did ‘Klobucharge’ Win The Narrative?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-sanders-won-the-new-hampshire-vote-so-how-did-klobucharge-win-the-narrative/

Because after the stunning collapse of Joe Biden and the shuffling of support, the MSM needs to grasp at whatever narrative it can to downplay the Sanders candidacy.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The fact that the DNC is not in Sander's corner is clear as we have seen from many including Obama suggesting. What we are looking for is any shred of evidence that this prejudice has worked its way into action.

Just the optics of that are bad, regardless of what has actually happened. Many of Sanders' people are still angry about 2016, and rather than do anything constructive to address those concerns, the DNC has actively gone out if its way to prove them right. At the very least, they are inept with their PR.

I agree optics bad but the news to look for is if this is now happening with significant concrete action.

I trust the DNC as much as I trust Trump. I don't need to see a smoking gun for either of them to know they are gaming the system shamelessly. Fool me once ...

I share the suspicion but I want to see evidence.

The fact that former Vice DNC Chair Tulsi Gabbard said as much when she quit the DNC to endorse Sanders in 2016. The fact that the Democratic Party initially only wanted to have 3 debates and all at times that nobody would want to watch. That seems very strange behaviour for a party that could benefit from media attention going into an election cycle. The fact that debate questions were leaked to Clinton in advance (and Bernie still did a better job answering such questions than she did. How bad do you have to be to have a worse answer to a question you know in advance than someone else who didn't?). The fact that so many leaked internal DNC e-mails essentially said they were biased in favour of Clinton over Sanders.

Setting aside actual evidence, in politics, optics is everything. Even assuming no malfesance on the part of the DNC, they still aren't managing perceptions well.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Politics Podcast: Sanders Won The New Hampshire Vote. So How Did ‘Klobucharge’ Win The Narrative?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-sanders-won-the-new-hampshire-vote-so-how-did-klobucharge-win-the-narrative/

Because after the stunning collapse of Joe Biden and the shuffling of support, the MSM needs to grasp at whatever narrative it can to downplay the Sanders candidacy.

In fairness there is an issue of whether the Democratic party will be more progressive or more of the same old. Many of the more progressive have dropped out and their vote did not concentrate to Sanders (Harris, Booker, Castro, Gillibrand). I know this is a more right of centre source but do you think their chart from left to right is basically correct?

https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-political-spectrum-ranking-2019-5

Let's sort the votes roughly with that in mind taking only the more significant and adding up each side:

Considered Progressive (using the above chart - please let me know if you have a better one): 38.2%

Sanders 25.7

Warren 9.2

Gabbard 3.3

Considered Less Progressive and more traditional Democrats: 59%

Pete Buttigieg 24.4

Klobuchar 19.8

Biden 8.4

Steyer 3.6

Yang 2.8

So considering this, is it possible that the Democratic party may simply not be progressive enough to do anything but go with the same old?

I have to admit I am suprised that Sanders is not higher with Warren having faded so much and other candidates having dropped out. There are questions based on these numbers.

But let us consider a couple other issues -- this is a more conservative state than typical New England states. So that offers hope the progressives can get more in more left states? Sanders got 60% in 2016 against Clinton who got 37%. Sure he would grow in a crowded field but the votes are parked with less progressive candidates.

Based on a left right picture the left is doing more poorly in NH than 2016. But maybe this is not a left right vote. Democrats are not dealing with a presumptive President like they thought they were in 2016. They are dealing with a need to beat a Republican incumbant. This might lead them to consider many other issues than being progressive meaning that as the filed winnows they may return to Sanders. They may also like some of the other candidates for reasons other than their left right stances and Sanders might be second choice to many who are now supporting a less progressive candidate. 

A poll from December raises some concerns. Sanders strongest second place finishes was with Biden and Warren supporters and lowest among Buttigieg supporters. Interestingly though, Buttigieg supporters second choices tended to be Warren and Biden who are already fading. Second choices for Bloomberg are very low but that might have changed since then. If Buttigieg is the other finisher then Sanders needs to worry less about his second place finishers than those of Klobuchar.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-second-choice-candidates-show-a-race-that-is-still-fluid/

Still, I think there are good reasons to question how strong Sanders is right now despite the fact that he may be the leader in a crowded field especially if his growth is limited from the second place finisher.

These are early results and perhaps things will get better but I do not think there is any reason to say things are very encouraging just yet based on these results.

NorthReport

Electability is the key as in who can beat Trump and as much as lots of people support Sanders many dont think he can defeat Trump

NorthReport

Major black donors unconvinced by 2020 candidates

The Democratic Party's black donor class believes the candidates aren't doing enough to court the black community.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/black-donors-democrats-114795

NorthReport

Nevada culinary union lays into Sanders supporters after health care backlash

The powerful group said the candidate’s backers attacked it for criticizing Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-nevada-culinary-union-114687

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:
Electability is the key as in who can beat Trump and as much as lots of people support Sanders many dont think he can defeat Trump

This is true -- but not exclusive to Sanders. There are many who feel the centrist candidates cannot get the vote out; a socialist cannot get enough support;  older candidates cannot get enough support; a white candidate cannot get enough support etc.

I think that estimates of the candidates' appeal are a bigger factor than their policies. It may well be that a majority of the Democrats want a shift to the left but enough think that won't result in being elected that they may opt for a centrist candidate. And this may be a miscalcualtion in that the more left candidate might be the more electable one. This is the problem when voters, instead of voting for what they want vote for what they think they should want or what they think others will want. We have the same problem in Canada where frequently large numbers do not vote for their first choice out of a perception that their second choice is more electable and soemtimes they are wrong.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I blame Obama for this. If he had let Hillary run for two terms then we would have had Obama for 2016 and 2020 instead of this current situation. Obama would have had the charisma and everything that is needed to defeat a Republican and we would never have had Trump because Trump would not have run had it not been for Obama being the president and Trump being a racist. Trump would have been too old and senile to have run at a later date.

NorthReport

Sanders Would Bring the Center-Left’s Collapse to U.S.

Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination wouldn’t be a freakish occurrence outside the experience of other advanced democracies.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/sanders-would-bring-the-center-lefts-collapse-to-us-114749

NorthReport

Joe Biden’s Campaign About Nothing

His campaign isn’t just going nowhere—it never had a destination in the first place.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/joe-biden-2020-campaign-analysis-new-hampshire-114434

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Sanders Would Bring the Center-Left’s Collapse to U.S.

Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination wouldn’t be a freakish occurrence outside the experience of other advanced democracies.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/sanders-would-bring-the-center-lefts-collapse-to-us-114749

Why are you posting an article written by Rich Lowry on babble? You think we all really need the full wingnut view of things?

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Sanders Would Bring the Center-Left’s Collapse to U.S.

Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination wouldn’t be a freakish occurrence outside the experience of other advanced democracies.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/sanders-would-bring-the-center-lefts-collapse-to-us-114749

By Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review.

Cody87

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As much as we may be rooting for Sanders, these results are concerning. In 2 of the primaries held so far, approximately 3 in 4 voters wanted someone other than him. A big reason that he is leading in the polls right now is because his opposition is so fragmented. If his opposition coalesces even modarately, he is done. He needs to be able to lift his level of support from where it currently is.

Trump's opposition never coalesced in the Republican primary, so there's precedent for Bernie to maintain a lead and run away with the nom once the field narrows. Then again, the DNC is working much harder to stop Bernie than the RNC worked to stop Trump. I think the fix is in for #MayorCheat

NorthReport

Unfortunately, if one opens their eyes and looks around, Lowry is correct. The left is too self-destructive, the Corbyn supporters being a good example. What an unmitigated disaster he was/is.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

I blame Obama for this. If he had let Hillary run for two terms then we would have had Obama for 2016 and 2020 instead of this current situation. Obama would have had the charisma and everything that is needed to defeat a Republican and we would never have had Trump because Trump would not have run had it not been for Obama being the president and Trump being a racist. Trump would have been too old and senile to have run at a later date.

I think there are too many what-ifs there. Would Clinton have won? If she could not beat unknown Obama why expect her to win. What point is it up to the stronger canddiate to let the weaker won win? How could Obama not presume that a canddiate better than Clinton could not show up 8 years later?

Pages

Topic locked