2020 Democratic Presidential nominee

613 posts / 0 new
Last post
contrarianna

Two recent pro Sanders stories, social and economic:

Feminist Scholar Barbara Smith on Identity Politics & Why She Supports Bernie Sanders for President   February 12, 2020

We speak with the legendary African-American feminist scholar Barbara Smith. She is a founder of the Combahee River Collective and of Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press. Barbara Smith recently wrote a column in The Guardian newspaper titled “I helped coin the term 'identity politics'. I’m endorsing Bernie Sanders.” Her latest book is “Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Around: Forty Years of Movement Building with Barbara Smith.”
....
BARBARA SMITH: Well, I would not presume to give Senator Sanders advice. I really would not. I’m really happy to be a part of the campaign. I think that he is effective, and the campaign has been effective, in attracting more diverse constituencies. I feel like — and I just said this to someone a few days ago — I feel like if Senator Sanders can get in front of the electorate, if he can connect with them and share his message and his ideas with them, I think they’re going to be really taking a lot of notice. There are a lot of myths going on — well, always — in the society about race and racism and who is who and what is what. And there’s certainly a — there’s a lot of chatter and a lot of talk about who can appeal to black voters in particular. And my feeling is, let’s just watch us. You know, watch us watch him. I think that they’re doing a really good job of connecting with our incredibly beautiful, diverse United States, all the kinds of people who live here. And I just think that the more that that happens, the more effective and the more he’ll be known. And we’ll just see what happens....

Video and partial transcript:

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/2/12/barbara_smith_identity_politics_b...

===================

CBC
Business·Analysis
Bernie Sanders may be just what U.S. capitalism needs, says top economist: Don Pittis

History is filled with examples of healthy social democracies born out of extreme inequality
Don Pittis ·Feb 13,
....
Sanders 'not radical'

There are plenty of credible U.S. economists who agree with the need for capitalist reform. But for dry, intellectual analysis of why capitalism needs the kind of metamorphosis that only someone like Sanders can provide, it is hard to find a better source than Piketty.

"I think, first, that [Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth] Warren and Sanders are not radicals," said Piketty in response to one interviewer's question. "They are moderate social democrats by European standards."

Looked at in historical terms, said the French economist, even by the standards of the U.S. — a country that in another era was the world leader in progressive taxation — raising taxes on the rich from their current low levels is hardly radical. History is filled with examples of ideological shifts away from inequality far short of revolutions that made countries' economies stronger.

He offers the example of Sweden, which we now think of as a healthy social democracy. But as recently as the early 1900s the country was controlled by a wealthy elite, where only the richest 20 per cent had voting rights and where richer people got a greater number of votes. And he said the new Swedish ideology propelled the change with minimal economic disruption.

Piketty sees a parallel in the United States, where the poor and lower-middle class don't vote because they know the government will inevitably only represent the better off. Perhaps a new Sanders-led ideology could change that.
'Broad participation' needed

Like many other economists, Piketty insists that, as happened in Sweden, sharing wealth more broadly will make the U.S. economy stronger, not weaker, and richer overall. He says the evidence from the past 30 years shows that the low-tax ideology that made the rich richer as a way of boosting the economy is "not convincing."

"I think the level of inequality we have today is not only unfair but it is also not efficient for the working of the economy," he said. "We need broad participation by a very large group."....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/democrats-sanders-capitalism-1.5460890

Sean in Ottawa

contrarianna wrote:

"They are moderate social democrats by European standards."

This is the elephant in the room.

First of all -- modern social democrats by European standards is radical in the US.

This is due to a number of factors and an important one is the commercialization of information and knowledge. The US is a country of widespread ignorance. They consume entertainment instead of news and are sold information (ads) instead of seeking it. The US is largely ignorant of everything other than their chosen professions becuase they have an efficient system of providing them enough information to provide their capitalistically defined economic role: they learn enough to do their jobs and that is it. Apart from that they are bombarded with information not designed to inform but to get them to buy something or think something that leads to someone else's profit. In the US critical thinking skills and general knowledge are at levels below a level that can provide herd immunity to bullshit. Think of it exactly like a rate of vaccination that is too low.

The US does not have fair elections but if they did this would not result in an informed decision on anything. The people who are capable of understanding the difference between a fact and a con-job are such a minority that they do not count either politically or economically. People at the top of their professions lack basic general knowledge and have no means to process infomration they see. Those with the money like it that way.

In this context, a majority of US people are more disengaged from any substance in politics and only debate soundbites that pass for substance amid a volume of lies that cannot be exposed.

The reality of US politics is it is more than anywhere else it is a political sales game with more money and fewer people seeking and getting reliable information than the low levels that exist elsewhere. In many places the majority are ignorant but at least know at least one person they can trust to inform them. Not so in the US. Opinion leaders are just as stupid as the masses.

The sad reality is that a rational apporach to US politics would be one that does not compare it to Europe except as the destination of the path the Europeans are unfortunately on, but are nowhere near as far down.

This does not mean that a strategy cannot exist to elect someone who is not a right wing BS-artist but that strategy is not going to be found by comparing the politics of the US with a region that includes generally more engaged, more aware and more socially progressive people. It will be found in a strategy that recognizes what the US has become and seeks to find a way through that. This is much more difficult as it means figuring out how to appeal to a mass of people hooked on infotainment and propaganda and generally more right wing, paranoid, incapable of using logic, and frankly ignorant than much of the world. Canadians often lie somewhere between Europe and the US. Fact is due to the increasingly rabid commercialization of information, Europe is sinking fast. It cannot help the US becuase it is in the process of descending to that level despite being at the moment better off.

Here is my proposal: have state broadcasters, where there is still hope, show leadership by starting to showing sources for the facts they claim so that media can show why it can be different from any old propagandist making up crap on behalf of  someone else from their basement. Replace comment sections with sources and reliable facts people can verify.   Otherwise the politics of lies is something that cannot be competed against. With this rational people can point to this difference and start to educate people on the difference between unsubstantiated bullshit and something with a grounding in facts they can see. Right now the media looks just like the bullshit -- neither provide sources and both mix opinion, fact, and propaganda lies -- just perhaps in only slightly different proportions.

 

Aristotleded24

The entry of Bloomberg into the Democratic race shows the emptiness, folly, and moral bankruptcy of the Trump Derangement Syndrome phenomenon. Bloomberg presided over stop-and-frisk. He was a Republican until very recently. And people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they would elect Bloomberg in order to stop him?

If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, the Democrats will have no moral authority to shame or attack Trump voters for being racist.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The entry of Bloomberg into the Democratic race shows the emptiness, folly, and moral bankruptcy of the Trump Derangement Syndrome phenomenon. Bloomberg presided over stop-and-frisk. He was a Republican until very recently. And people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they would elect Bloomberg in order to stop him?

If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, the Democrats will have no moral authority to shame or attack Trump voters for being racist.

That is offensive. Trump is a danger and it is not deranged to think so. that is a pile of GOP propaganda.

If the Dems cannot put up a good candidate it has nothing to do with derangment or a lack of loyalty to Trump or whaterver. It is only a problem with the Democratic party OR a problem with the electoral system in the US that requires far too much emphasis on money. Why are we soaking up and repeating GOP talking points and slogans like this TDS? Any decent thinking  person whould be worried about Trump and the GOP on a multitude of fronts.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The entry of Bloomberg into the Democratic race shows the emptiness, folly, and moral bankruptcy of the Trump Derangement Syndrome phenomenon. Bloomberg presided over stop-and-frisk. He was a Republican until very recently. And people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they would elect Bloomberg in order to stop him?

If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, the Democrats will have no moral authority to shame or attack Trump voters for being racist.

That is offensive. Trump is a danger and it is not deranged to think so. that is a pile of GOP propaganda.

If the Dems cannot put up a good candidate it has nothing to do with derangment or a lack of loyalty to Trump or whaterver. It is only a problem with the Democratic party OR a problem with the electoral system in the US that requires far too much emphasis on money. Why are we soaking up and repeating GOP talking points and slogans like this TDS? Any decent thinking  person whould be worried about Trump and the GOP on a multitude of fronts.

We're all worried about Trump. The problem is that some people are letting that worry take control and they aren't clearly thinking through what they are advocating, and cheering on anyone simply for disliking Trump. There are many valid reasons to dislike Trump. There are also many abhorrent characters who dislike Trump for other reasons. For example, George W Bush and Iraq war cheerleader David Frum doesn't like Trump. Does that mean Frum should all of a sudden be treated like a hero? Many of Trump's fiercest critics are part of the GOP establishment.

The best way to build a clear case against Trump is to let him speak. But then that gets to the issue of why he gets elected? Part of the problem is that many people in the US  have more than 1 job, are sleep deprived, have children and aging parents to look after, and all sorts of commitments they have to attend to. They generally tune out of politics because they don't see any benefits to them or their communities. If the only reason to vote for a politician is to remove Trump from office, well then, people think politicians are genearlly bad, so what does it matter whether or not Trump stays?

The analogy I use in this case is if I'm out walking, someone throws me against the wall to mug me, and gives me a choice between being punched in the mouth or kicked in the stomach? Which of those 2 choices should I take? When you ask many Americans who they want to vote for (even with Trump in the mix), that is exactly the choice they feel they are being offered.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

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.

From what I've read and heard, a lot of the supporters of other candidates have Sanders as their second choice. This is particularly true among Biden supporters.

Thing is that most of the delegates that the other candidates secure will likely vote for anybody but Sanders. So Sanders could wind up in a similar position to Svend Robinson in 1995, with a plurality of support on the first ballot, but not a majority, and little room to grow on subsequent ballots.

NorthReport

Deep cracks emerge in Biden’s firewall

One South Carolina lawmaker says she switched allegiances after warning several Biden staffers that their grassroots approach was outdated.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/15/joe-biden-south-carolina-firewall-114862

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
voice of the damned

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The entry of Bloomberg into the Democratic race shows the emptiness, folly, and moral bankruptcy of the Trump Derangement Syndrome phenomenon. Bloomberg presided over stop-and-frisk. He was a Republican until very recently. And people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they would elect Bloomberg in order to stop him?

If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, the Democrats will have no moral authority to shame or attack Trump voters for being racist.

If Bloomberg is likely to appoint people like Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the courts, rather than people like Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, that alone would be enough reason for me to vote for him. Regardless of what his position on stop-and-frisk was when he was mayor.  

NorthReport

Getting out the vote is what wins elections.

Trump drives massive turnout in primaries despite token opposition

His campaign is fine-tuning its get-out-the-vote machine months ahead of the general election — a daunting challenge for Democrats.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/16/trump-campaign-voter-turnout-115338

NorthReport

‘A complete disaster’: Fears grow over potential Nevada caucus malfunction

Volunteers complain of poor training for a vote-reporting system that was adopted on the fly.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/16/nevada-avoid-iowa-caucus-mess-115437

Aristotleded24

voice of the damned wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The entry of Bloomberg into the Democratic race shows the emptiness, folly, and moral bankruptcy of the Trump Derangement Syndrome phenomenon. Bloomberg presided over stop-and-frisk. He was a Republican until very recently. And people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they would elect Bloomberg in order to stop him?

If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, the Democrats will have no moral authority to shame or attack Trump voters for being racist.

If Bloomberg is likely to appoint people like Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the courts, rather than people like Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, that alone would be enough reason for me to vote for him. Regardless of what his position on stop-and-frisk was when he was mayor.

What makes you think that a right-wing Republican mayor who supported George W Bush and Rudy Guiliani would entertain such a notion? But hey, let's just ignore that the policy he presided over as Mayor was racist and violated civil liberties. As long as we vote for a Democrat over a Republican, that's all that matters.

Since we're in for hypothetical questions, if Donald Trump had switched sides and run as a Democrat this time, should we support him over whoever the Republican choice would be?

Aristotleded24

voice of the damned wrote:
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.)

Bloomberg ran and won as a Republican, and the Republican Party base is a bit less concerned about thingsl ike structural racism and civil rights violations than the Democratic Party base.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Since we're in for hypothetical questions, if Donald Trump had switched sides and run as a Democrat this time, should we support him over whoever the Republican choice would be?

If Trump switched back to being a Democrat, which he was a long, long, long time ago time ago way, way, way back in 2009, he would have to change many of his positions back 180 degrees to gain favour with Democratic voters. So he would have to go back to being pro-choice instead of anti-choice. He would have to promise to appoint left of centre Supreme Court judges instead of very far-right wing Supreme Court judges. He would have to support expanding Medicare and Medicaid instead of reducing their funding and scope. He would have to support greater gun control instead of weaker gun control. He would have to say global climate change is real instead of a socialist hoax. He would have to suppprt bolstering American social programs like student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps instead of de-funding them. He would have to admit that Obama is American instead of a Kenyan. He would have to admit that the Central Park 5 were innocent instead of saying they should be found guilty even though they have been exonerated. He would have to support Israel over the Palestians 9 to 1 instead of 99999999 to 1. He would also have to support raising taxes on richer Americans, but that would likely be impossible for the most narcissistic, self-serving president in U.S. history. Maybe he would even solicit support from foreign countries to go after the Republican's leading contender for the White House instead of the Democrat's leading candidate for the White House???

Of course this hypothetical scenario is impossible because Democratic supporters would not support a person as unhinged, lawless, and hateful as Trump. Trump knows this and that is why he switched to being a Republican to become president and took on the Republicans hateful racist political positions. Temperamentally, Trump and the Republicans are made for each other even if Trump's political positions have aligned with the Republican base just for expedient purposes.

NDPP

Elites Turn To Bloomberg and Remove their Masks

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/panicked-over-sanders-elites-turn-to-b...

"Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York and Democrtic presidential candidate is having a moment. After polling at only a few single digits last year, he is now emerging as a top-tier cndidate, pushing past former Vice President Joe Biden to claim a spot far closer to the top of the polls. One could atribute this rise to the insane amount of cash he has spent on his campaign - more than $200 million so far. Now, liberal pundits are contemplating things like , 'It is time to earnestly consider the possibility that Bloomberg will be the Democratic nominee for president.' Bloomberg is currently the ninth richest person on the entire planet. How exactly can a racist, classist billionaire be favored by Democrats? As Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders continues to build momentum, the liberal establishment is in full panic mode..."

 

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/tfQ7Zo6m9yg

"Facebook censoring reporting on Buttigieg cheating."

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

How Bernie Sanders became the Democratic primary's early front-runner

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-2020-election/index.html

NorthReport
voice of the damned

[MOVED THIS FROM THE TRUMP EMPATHY THREAD. THINK I POSTED IT BY MISTAKE THERE.]

Hm. Interesting. Just found out, the co-chair of Bloomberg's campaign is Bobby Rush, a former member of the Black Panthers, who wore a hoodie in the House to honour Trayvon Martin, and, if I'm understanding wiki corrrectly, was one of only 17 members of congress to vote against a bill opposing BDS.

Not that I'm expecting criticism of Israel to be a main feature of Bloomberg's campaign, or even any sort of a feature, period. Though by default, I think I'd expect any Democraitc candidate's mideast policy to be better than Trump's. 

And I've just seen a rumour reported that Bloomberg will soon be getting the endorsement of Al Sharpton. Who I have always thought was a bit of a crank.

https://tinyurl.com/6rgxgx9

 

 

NorthReport

Bernie breaks out of the pack

In Nevada, rival campaigns privately concede the race is for second or third place.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/17/bernie-sanders-nevada-breaks-pack-115450

NorthReport

The 2020 U.S. Election: 'Keep It In The Ground' Is Now A Distinct Possibility

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4324738-2020-u-s-election-keep-in-ground-is-now-distinct-possibility

NorthReport

Pelosi warns Democrats 'must be unified' to ensure Trump isn't reelected

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/17/politics/pelosi-2020-democrats-race-interview/index.html

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
Pelosi warns Democrats 'must be unified' to ensure Trump isn't reelected

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/17/politics/pelosi-2020-democrats-race-interview/index.html

And curious enough, many of them are openly freaking out about the prospect of having to unify behind Bernie Sanders.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

[MOVED THIS FROM THE TRUMP EMPATHY THREAD. THINK I POSTED IT BY MISTAKE THERE.]

Hm. Interesting. Just found out, the co-chair of Bloomberg's campaign is Bobby Rush, a former member of the Black Panthers, who wore a hoodie in the House to honour Trayvon Martin, and, if I'm understanding wiki corrrectly, was one of only 17 members of congress to vote against a bill opposing BDS.

Not that I'm expecting criticism of Israel to be a main feature of Bloomberg's campaign, or even any sort of a feature, period. Though by default, I think I'd expect any Democraitc candidate's mideast policy to be better than Trump's. 

And I've just seen a rumour reported that Bloomberg will soon be getting the endorsement of Al Sharpton. Who I have always thought was a bit of a crank.

https://tinyurl.com/6rgxgx9

 

 

I think there is definitely an opening for a Jewish President to push back on Israel without being very effectively accused of antisemitism. at issue is that many policies related to Israel have nothing to do with being pro Jewish but are related to the political desires of right wing Christians. A Jewish President might be one way of calling that out.

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

BTW- when looking at the polls against Trump most of them do not mean a thing. The only ones that do are in the States that could change. Here are the closest States.

Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnisota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Penn, Virginia, Wisconsin. Maine splits so is not worth a lot of thought here

The Democrats won: Colorado, Minnisota, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire --  they have to hold them.

Then they have to flip either 

1 Michigan (16) Penn (20) North Carolina (15) or

2 Florida (29) plus either Michigan (16) or Penn (20) or

3 Florida (29) North Carolina (15) plus 1 of the following: Arizona (11), Georgia (16), or Wisconsin (10). These last three are longer shots leaning slightly Republican.

So it really comes down to:

Florida (29) Michigan (16)  Penn (20) North Carolina (15) 

These 4 states are the ones to watch most in the polls (and the other 9, above, to a lesser degree). 

Penn and Michigan may be leaning Democrat and Florida  and NC are tied or advantage Republican. This Presidential election is looking extremely tight.

When you look at these state races you can see a slight advantage for Trump. I am not actually convinced any in the Democratic field can win where they need to, although they all would likely get more votes.

 

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

[MOVED THIS FROM THE TRUMP EMPATHY THREAD. THINK I POSTED IT BY MISTAKE THERE.]

Hm. Interesting. Just found out, the co-chair of Bloomberg's campaign is Bobby Rush, a former member of the Black Panthers, who wore a hoodie in the House to honour Trayvon Martin, and, if I'm understanding wiki corrrectly, was one of only 17 members of congress to vote against a bill opposing BDS.

Not that I'm expecting criticism of Israel to be a main feature of Bloomberg's campaign, or even any sort of a feature, period. Though by default, I think I'd expect any Democraitc candidate's mideast policy to be better than Trump's. 

And I've just seen a rumour reported that Bloomberg will soon be getting the endorsement of Al Sharpton. Who I have always thought was a bit of a crank.

https://tinyurl.com/6rgxgx9

 

 

 I think there is definitely an opening for a Jewish President to push back on Israel without being very effectively accused of antisemitism. at issue is that many policies related to Israel have nothing to do with being pro Jewish but are related to the political desires of right wing Christians. A Jewish President might be one way of calling that out.

I agree with that analysis about a Jewish president, generally. But I don't think Bloomberg would be the guy to take the opportunity. 

Granted, I don't know much about his foreign-policy views. A few of his columnists take a more nuanced view of world affairs than is typical in mainstream media, but that probably reflects more on them than on their CEO.  

In the event of someone pointing out that his campaign-chair cast a pro-BDS vote, Bloomberg would probably reply that Rush was simply defending the right to protest without government meddling, rather than make it a defense of BDS on its own merits.

 

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW- when looking at the polls against Trump most of them do not mean a thing. The only ones that do are in the States that could change. Here are the closest States.

Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnisota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Penn, Virginia, Wisconsin. Maine splits so is not worth a lot of thought here

The Democrats won: Colorado, Minnisota, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire --  they have to hold them.

Then they have to flip either 

1 Michigan (16) Penn (20) North Carolina (15) or

2 Florida (29) plus either Michigan (16) or Penn (20) or

3 Florida (29) North Carolina (15) plus 1 of the following: Arizona (11), Georgia (16), or Wisconsin (10). These last three are longer shots leaning slightly Republican.

So it really comes down to:

Florida (29) Michigan (16)  Penn (20) North Carolina (15) 

These 4 states are the ones to watch most in the polls (and the other 9, above, to a lesser degree). 

Penn and Michigan may be leaning Democrat and Florida  and NC are tied or advantage Republican. This Presidential election is looking extremely tight.

When you look at these state races you can see a slight advantage for Trump. I am not actually convinced any in the Democratic field can win where they need to, although they all would likely get more votes.

 

 

Wisconsin is more likely than North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and, arguably, Florida.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Trump is done. He still can't reach the support of at least 50%

Almost all the democratic candidates beat him handily.

Weak links would be Biden and not visting every state (especially the important ones)

Apart from a HUGE fuck up, Dems win the House and the Senate and Trump is back as a private citizen in which he should have always been in the first place.

My bold predictions are Graham and McConnell lose their seats. That would be sweet and so far it doesn't look impossible.

josh

Graham is not losing his seat.  Trump doesn't have to win 50% to win the electoral college.  And it will be difficult for the Democrats to win the senate.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW- when looking at the polls against Trump most of them do not mean a thing. The only ones that do are in the States that could change. Here are the closest States.

Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnisota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Penn, Virginia, Wisconsin. Maine splits so is not worth a lot of thought here

The Democrats won: Colorado, Minnisota, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire --  they have to hold them.

Then they have to flip either 

1 Michigan (16) Penn (20) North Carolina (15) or

2 Florida (29) plus either Michigan (16) or Penn (20) or

3 Florida (29) North Carolina (15) plus 1 of the following: Arizona (11), Georgia (16), or Wisconsin (10). These last three are longer shots leaning slightly Republican.

So it really comes down to:

Florida (29) Michigan (16)  Penn (20) North Carolina (15) 

These 4 states are the ones to watch most in the polls (and the other 9, above, to a lesser degree). 

Penn and Michigan may be leaning Democrat and Florida  and NC are tied or advantage Republican. This Presidential election is looking extremely tight.

When you look at these state races you can see a slight advantage for Trump. I am not actually convinced any in the Democratic field can win where they need to, although they all would likely get more votes.

 

 

Wisconsin is more likely than North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and, arguably, Florida.

Actually changing demographics borne out by polls put North Carolina better than Wisconsin.

I agree the others are longer shots. Florida is dead even.

This is based on polls and results in the last election.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Trump is done. He still can't reach the support of at least 50%

Almost all the democratic candidates beat him handily.

Weak links would be Biden and not visting every state (especially the important ones)

Apart from a HUGE fuck up, Dems win the House and the Senate and Trump is back as a private citizen in which he should have always been in the first place.

My bold predictions are Graham and McConnell lose their seats. That would be sweet and so far it doesn't look impossible.

This is the problem of a focus on national polls. Drill down into the states and you see that the places the Dems need to win they are hanging on by fingernails. Running up massive majorities in the states they won in 2016 will not take the Presidency. Forget popular vote -- the US does not run on that.

So Alan, take the time and name the states that will vote Democrat for President and the electoral votes and show the polls to support that. I thought it would be easy -- but I was not sure. This is why I did it and found that it was actually coming down to a couple states that were extrememly close with the Dems needing to win states where they are now behind in the polls.

We do not know what the dynamics will be -- if more independents flood into the polling and voting against Trump changing present results or if the Democrats go with a candidate that makes they get more votes in California and New York but fails to bring them the results in the swing states.

There is no evidence to support your contention that this is a certain Trump loss. That is unless you mean meaningless popular vote.

There is a lot of evidence to show that there could be the widest discrepency between electoral  college and popular vote ever in the US. I think based on some of these numbers that Trump could get 41-43%, the Democrat could get 51-53, an independent get the balance and Trump win the college. The US is nearing a state of being nearly ungovernable due to this polarization together with the lopsided electoral vote. 

At the same time I think the House will remain Democratic and the Senate is a toss-up.

The election is not a sure bet -- it is a dog's breakfast.

Sure possible that the Dems could win but nothing more than that.

Sean in Ottawa

Here is my prediction for the most common political saying next year: fool me once fool on you -- fool me twice....

The Dems are watching national popular vote polls and they do not even see this one coming. It is 2016 all over again.

ETA By this I mean the closeness not the result. I think the Dems might win but it will not be the walk in the park they expect.

This is also a note of concern if Sanders does not ahve what it takes and is the nominee. Yes I like Sanders but I am not sure ANY of the candidates are all that strong in a year they should be.

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Does Sanders Have A Ceiling? Maybe. Can He Win Anyway? Yes.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-might-have-a-ceiling-but-there-are-still-several-ways-he-could-win/

The problem with this article is that the focus is first on the Democratic nomination and second on popular vote against Trump to a far lesser degree. There is no analysis of how Sanders will do in the states required to beat Trump. The win mentionned here is the nomination not the Presidency.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Trump is done. He still can't reach the support of at least 50%

Almost all the democratic candidates beat him handily.

Weak links would be Biden and not visting every state (especially the important ones)

Apart from a HUGE fuck up, Dems win the House and the Senate and Trump is back as a private citizen in which he should have always been in the first place.

My bold predictions are Graham and McConnell lose their seats. That would be sweet and so far it doesn't look impossible.

This is the problem of a focus on national polls. Drill down into the states and you see that the places the Dems need to win they are hanging on by fingernails. Running up massive majorities in the states they won in 2016 will not take the Presidency. Forget popular vote -- the US does not run on that.

So Alan, take the time and name the states that will vote Democrat for President and the electoral votes and show the polls to support that. I thought it would be easy -- but I was not sure. This is why I did it and found that it was actually coming down to a couple states that were extrememly close with the Dems needing to win states where they are now behind in the polls.

We do not know what the dynamics will be -- if more independents flood into the polling and voting against Trump changing present results or if the Democrats go with a candidate that makes they get more votes in California and New York but fails to bring them the results in the swing states.

There is no evidence to support your contention that this is a certain Trump loss. That is unless you mean meaningless popular vote.

There is a lot of evidence to show that there could be the widest discrepency between electoral  college and popular vote ever in the US. I think based on some of these numbers that Trump could get 41-43%, the Democrat could get 51-53, an independent get the balance and Trump win the college. The US is nearing a state of being nearly ungovernable due to this polarization together with the lopsided electoral vote. 

At the same time I think the House will remain Democratic and the Senate is a toss-up.

The election is not a sure bet -- it is a dog's breakfast.

Sure possible that the Dems could win but nothing more than that.

The voting results will be almost the same. Except the Democrats will win Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They lost these seats by a handful of points in 2016 WITH an extremely unpopular Democrat.

Sanders,Warren,, hell Globuchar and Bloomberg too are in positions of victory. As with 2016, the country's most popular politician (with Americans not corporate rulers) is Bernie Sanders. Trump would never beat him. Trump couldn't hold his jock strap.It would be wise for the DNC to give the people what they want. It would be a cake walk if they did so.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I agree with alan that if Sanders wins the Dem nomination, he will crush Trump. It will be the fake populist against the real one, and people actually can tell the difference, particularly in those crucial swing states.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Trump is done. He still can't reach the support of at least 50%

Almost all the democratic candidates beat him handily.

Weak links would be Biden and not visting every state (especially the important ones)

Apart from a HUGE fuck up, Dems win the House and the Senate and Trump is back as a private citizen in which he should have always been in the first place.

My bold predictions are Graham and McConnell lose their seats. That would be sweet and so far it doesn't look impossible.

This is the problem of a focus on national polls. Drill down into the states and you see that the places the Dems need to win they are hanging on by fingernails. Running up massive majorities in the states they won in 2016 will not take the Presidency. Forget popular vote -- the US does not run on that.

So Alan, take the time and name the states that will vote Democrat for President and the electoral votes and show the polls to support that. I thought it would be easy -- but I was not sure. This is why I did it and found that it was actually coming down to a couple states that were extrememly close with the Dems needing to win states where they are now behind in the polls.

We do not know what the dynamics will be -- if more independents flood into the polling and voting against Trump changing present results or if the Democrats go with a candidate that makes they get more votes in California and New York but fails to bring them the results in the swing states.

There is no evidence to support your contention that this is a certain Trump loss. That is unless you mean meaningless popular vote.

There is a lot of evidence to show that there could be the widest discrepency between electoral  college and popular vote ever in the US. I think based on some of these numbers that Trump could get 41-43%, the Democrat could get 51-53, an independent get the balance and Trump win the college. The US is nearing a state of being nearly ungovernable due to this polarization together with the lopsided electoral vote. 

At the same time I think the House will remain Democratic and the Senate is a toss-up.

The election is not a sure bet -- it is a dog's breakfast.

Sure possible that the Dems could win but nothing more than that.

The voting results will be almost the same. Except the Democrats will win Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They lost these seats by a handful of points in 2016 WITH an extremely unpopular Democrat.

Sanders,Warren,, hell Globuchar and Bloomberg too are in positions of victory. As with 2016, the country's most popular politician (with Americans not corporate rulers) is Bernie Sanders. Trump would never beat him. Trump couldn't hold his jock strap.It would be wise for the DNC to give the people what they want. It would be a cake walk if they did so.

Interesting you seem so confident. You are basing this on what exactly? The polls show that the tilt away from Trump is centred in states that already delivered their electoral votes to a Democrat in 2016. Trump won those states by more than a handful of votes.

Trump won Ohio by 8.6%  So that was not close.

Let's look at the remaining close states:

Wisconsin 1%  for 10 electoral votes, Michigan by 0.3 for 16 electoral votes, Pennsylvania 1.2% for 20

These represent 46 votes. Flipping those three with the rest of the country the same gives 258 to Trump to 273 to the Democrat. What you could call a close election turning on Pennsylvania.

Now let's look at the latest Penn polls: 2-7% in favour of the Democrat. Sounds good right? 

Morning Call: Sanders +5, Warren +5, Biden +9. Great right? Before the last election the same pollster had Clinton up by+6.

Quinnpac: The spread is between 3-11 in favour of the Democrats. In 2016 they had Clinton up by 6 also.

NY Times: they have Trump up by 2 against Warren, by 1 against Sanders and Biden up by 1 against Trump. They had Clinton up by 7 in 2016.

Do you still think this is certain?

Just based on these polls it is too close to call.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I agree with alan that if Sanders wins the Dem nomination, he will crush Trump. It will be the fake populist against the real one, and people actually can tell the difference, particularly in those crucial swing states.

I love the confidence -- this is based on what actual data though? It looks like the states a Democrat has to win are extremely close. I have no doubt Sanders will run up the numbers in the best States Clinton won. Who cares? 

Fact is the US is divided geographically. When you look at the Democrat states Trump is polling very low. But when you look at the swing states he has not fallen anywhere near enough - if at all. Trump interestingly seems to have dropped a little in his best states and a lot in his worst but the ones he needs not so much. Maybe this is a result of artful targeting of propaganda?

Now consider that these States will go to the mat for Trump (the state controls the electoral process it is not independent) and really how can you be so confident?

Now it is possible after the Democrat convention that Democrats may poll better but there is no imediate evidence to suggest they will run away with it.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Michael Moriarity wrote:

I agree with alan that if Sanders wins the Dem nomination, he will crush Trump. It will be the fake populist against the real one, and people actually can tell the difference, particularly in those crucial swing states.

I love the confidence -- this is based on what actual data though? It looks like the states a Democrat has to win are extremely close. I have no doubt Sanders will run up the numbers in the best States Clinton won. Who cares?

Let's take a look at why Donald Trump was able to win:

Fundraising-Sanders has been consistently leading in fundraising in individual donations and has been smashing records for months

Crowd size-Sanders has been gaining large crowds of enthusiastic supporters anywhere he goes

Anti-establishment-Trump's campaign in 2016 was entirely anti-establishment, first taking on the Republican establishment, then the establishment embodied in Hillary Clinton. Sanders can also credibly lay claim to that, and has successfully painted himself as an anti-establishment candidate. So much so that after Clinton was nominated, Trump explicitly invited them to join him on the issue of trade.

Room for growth-Sanders started his campaign in 2016 at 3% in the polls and turned that nomination into a competition. Recently in this campaign, he had fallen into third, second, and now has clearly gone to the top. He isn't running away with it yet, but he is a phenomenal campaigner. He only gets better as he campaigns, and the more he campaigns, the more people like him.

It's not a sure thing, as Kyle Kulinski points out. But a popular candidate drawing big crowds, with a fundraising machine, and who comes closest to beating Trump in Texas and whose support generally grows as he campaigns? I'll absolutely take my chances with him over anyone else.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

My friend in Washington State who is an active Democratic Party member (ran in municipal elections) says all her friends and colleagues as well as daughter and grand daughter, are supporting Sanders. My friend herself has concerns about his health so will support Warren but she still is behind Sanders proposed platform 100%.

Sean in Ottawa

My impression is he is the best they have but it is not clear he (or any Democrat) can win. Looking at the electoral college you can see why. It is badly weighted leaving the Democrats must win areas. Trump is going to spend heavily as well and cheat like hell.

I am not saying Trump cannot be beaten but I am arguing with those hear who seem to think it is a done deal.

Aristotleded24

One other thing Sanders has going for him is he wins quite a large chunk of the Republican vote in Vermont. When Sanders vacates that seat, you are probably going to see the Republican vote rise significantly in the election to replace him. He does very well not only with Republicans, but also with Independents, who were key to Trump's victory last time around. If that is evenly spread out across the country, then Sanders will take back the key states Trump won last time.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

One other thing Sanders has going for him is he wins quite a large chunk of the Republican vote in Vermont. When Sanders vacates that seat, you are probably going to see the Republican vote rise significantly in the election to replace him. He does very well not only with Republicans, but also with Independents, who were key to Trump's victory last time around. If that is evenly spread out across the country, then Sanders will take back the key states Trump won last time.

I think we have a polarized country where the republicans will run a campaign of red scare. I am not sure how well it will work.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I think Bernie's Fox News town hall last April showed pretty clearly his ability to appeal to a lot of people who voted for Trump last time.

voice of the damned

laine lowe wrote:

My friend in Washington State who is an active Democratic Party member (ran in municipal elections) says all her friends and colleagues as well as daughter and grand daughter, are supporting Sanders. My friend herself has concerns about his health so will support Warren but she still is behind Sanders proposed platform 100%.

It's that "active Democratic Party member" part that worries me. Right now, Sanders is getting a PLURALITY of votes from the kind of people who vote in Democratic primaries. And those primaries are being conducted on Queensberry Rules, as usual, because the other candidates don't want to do too much damage to a potential nominee.

That's not gonna be the case in the general election, where parties throw every bit of dirt they can find at their rival candidates. Do a duckduckgo on "Bernie Sanders The Freeman Wilhelm Reich" to see just how nasty it's going to get for him. Will he able to handle it?

Pages