The Very Real Possibility of President Elizabeth Warren

So now that it's been shown that Warren isn't actually for Medicare for All, it's clear that Bernie is the only true progressive champion in the race. We're seeing the working class begin to coalesce around Sanders, making the choice very clear. Those endorsements are huge. On the basics of identity politics, The Squad should have endorsed Warren, and they even faced some backlash for that. What's happening is that the working class, men and women, coloured or not, are coming together to demand policies that work for them. On the issue of policy, none of the other candidates come even close to Sanders. The fact that these women have endorsed Sanders sends a strong signal that he is the one who will fight for progressive values.

NorthReport wrote:

My question is realistically can Warren defeat Trump?

Warren Is Increasingly Popular With Democratic Activists In Early States

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/warren-is-increasingly-popular-with-democratic-activists-in-early-states/

Might not be the best or only question.

Democrats are making a mistake if they are now planning only for a campaign against Trump. The next six months could have them up against someone else and quite unprepared for that.

pookie wrote:

Dems should be prepared for everything but the idea that Rs will dump Trump seems fanciful at this point.  His approval with R voters is at 87%.  That would have to seriously crater for there to be even 5 R Senators willing to vote to remove him.  And they need 20.  If there were, Republicans would be plunged into a civil war.  2020 vote would crater.  

And who is to say Trump wouldn't just run as an Independent?

It is not at all fanciful but a real possibility.

The GOP and his supporters have stood by him but the grind of the hearings with information that is proven true that they do not want to hear is just begining. The Dems really have to prepare for what happens if they do this and put up someone who is a younger Tea Party candidate.

This is one reason why the Democrats tactically need to impeach him but do it quickly before the polls catch up (as the polls did with Nixon).

The worst scenario is not a Trump win as that at worst is another 4 years and more likely will only result in a later impeachement. The worst  result for the US and the world is for the Tea Party (which is controlling the present GOP) to survive Trump and move to a new leader without wearing completely what they are. Them standing by Trump is helpful in avoiding this. 

The worst scenario for the Democrats is if Trump is replaced with another perhaps cleaner Tea Party extremist and the GOP is undamaged.

It would be better for the Dems to lose the next election to Trump than this.

Don't think that many in the GOP do not already know this which is why it could happen if the Dems are not careful.

That said, the Dems would risk losing the election and this tactical reality at the same time if the hearings grind on enough that the Republicans replace Trump.

The reality, I think, is that even someone like the current VP could win if enough stuck to Trump and he left. Just think how extreme Pence is and how impossible a choice he would have been just a few years ago.

The real danger is in making this only about Trump. If that happens he will have remade the GOP into Tea Party only - not just for the short term but also the long term and the US will accept and elect it.

pookie wrote:

Sean, you haven't cited anything to support your contention that this is "a real possibility" so I don't find your analysis persuasive.  Where are the poll numbers?  Anon Republican sources?  Some have been content to criticize him on Syria.  But they are sticking to him like glue on his. 

You also do not explain how the party's base would react to Trump's removal with anything other than a war-cry against his betrayers. 

Today, more House D's voted against formalizing the impeachment inquiry than R's did for it.

And, just to inquire again, what makes you think Trump would exit the stage permanently even if he was removed?

 

 

Gee I am so glad that political opinion has to be proven beyond the fact that it has happened before.

Nixon's popularity that I cited was high until the last moment. Do I need to prove it? No. It is historical record and you can google it for yourself.

Presidents can be replaced at the last moment. Do I need to prove it? No. Google Robert Kennedy.

Are there some cracks already before the process has really gotten started with hearings that will depose people where that will be come public? Do I need to prove it? No. Google that for yourself.

The Republicans have embraced the Tea Party. Trump has become the mercenary for the Tea Party. Do I need to prove it? No. There is far too much already written about it. 

Trump is not the only problem with the Republicans being extreme. Do I need to prove  it? No. You can google it yourself.

The Democrats and many are personalizing this to be about Trump rather than the Tea Party. Do I need to prove it? No. Google that for yourself.

The Republicans are divided on a number of issues with Trump but tolerate him for now but if they turn on him he wears the problems and they come of scott free. Do I need to prove it? No. That is opinion and this is an opinion site. However it is backed up by everything else.

As for Trump's cult. It does not matter if they stick with him or not as they are not a majority. Do I need to prove it? No. There are dozens of polls showing that he needs some other support as well to win. You can google those.

Might Trump's supporters get violent? This is not a contradiction as I have said that is a real possibility many times here. Will Trump continue to try to troublemake? Not relevant. Of course he will until he is dead. That does not mean he wins elections.

I acknowledge there is a possibility Trump can win the next election -- you can see I did that. However, I think the greater risk is in succession to a new Tea Party member without paying the price of Trump among the non Trumpers. This is a real risk. The Independents risk voting for the next incarnation of the Tea Party if Trump does not wear this.

That would be a much longer term problem than even if Trump wins the next election.

I have said that I was against impeachment unless the strategy was to make the Tea Party wear their support for Trump. There is no indication either way if this approach exists. To make that happen the best thing is for the Democrats to impeach him in the House and the Republicans along party lines defend him but the House use the opportunity to bury Trump among those not in the Trump cult. Trump needs non-cult members to get elected. ( This last one is provable)

Everything not proven is called legitimate opinion backed up by a lot of facts and you have no need to agree. It is not any less legitimate than any other on this opinion board.

I look forward to holding your comments to the same standards you want to hold others.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

In my opinion, pookie is right on this. There is no sign of Trump's base (which also happens to be the Republican base) losing its loyalty to him. Unless and until it does, no Republican Senator will vote to remove him from office, let alone 20 of them.

I did not think I would have to go and get the first two pages of a google search to prove that this was a possibility.

I am explainging why this possibility should not be considered a good thing - if it happens. Not sure why I am then demanded that I prove a possibility must be already happening to prove that it is possible. Seems frankly - ridiculous.

I did not say it was likely anywhere. I only said it is possible and has happened before so Democrats should not be counting on Trump as nominee. Let's face it - he could even be one cheeseburger away from not being a nominee anyway.

Still:

Trump needs more than his base to win reelection. His base is fairly loyal but not without cracks.

The GOP and Trump are using each other but even the Tea Party is not exactly the same as his base. Senators include Trumpers and Tea Party people but also a lot of people who are worried about their jobs and seeing Trump as a declining asset when it comes to interests held by them. Trump's base is not invested or as connected to what is going on as Senators looking to re-election.

The idea of a possibility that has to be planned for -- which is what I presented this as is NOT THE SAME as something that is full on happening already that I have to prove exists. That is why this conversation is beyond silly.

There are cracks in his base and there is a lot of loyalty but little to speak of from the independents who allowed the Republican tickets to win. Trump's base is about a third he gets another ten percent in independents and others that he does not look like he is holding. Trump needs it to win -- but so to GOP senators who are moving closer to deciding if they want to gamble on Trump again.

They might. I do not have to prove a possibibility as I said above but this is well established. It is also true that they could go down the tubes backing him or he could win. This is likely not as bad as them dumping him and escaping what they ahve been abaout for 4 years. Don't think that they could not escape becuase voters lack memory or critical thinking.

My comment that I hope the GOP continue to back Trump into the eleciton surely is a sign that I am not claiming that they will not do so. Where does anyone get that???

But the possibility that his support could collapse under the withering testimony that the House may produce is not to be discounted to zero.

I ask you -- where is your evidence that ALL of the following is not true. 

When it comes to Trump impeachement in the Senate nothing is certain - I have no idea why people think that it is.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/if-this-fox-news-poll-is-right-trump-will-lose-in-2020.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685539207/poll-trump-approval-down-slips-with-base

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2129767/donald-trump-losing-voters-new-poll-shows-spelling

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/trump-base-2020/594325/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-campaign-kickoff-base-second-term-20190618-story.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/22/poll-trump-s-base-support-is-eroding

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/431873-is-president-trump-losing-his-base-long-term-polling-suggests

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-base-is-smaller-than-he-thinks/2019/10/06/0826a842-e6dd-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/how_gop_insiders_view_trumps_base-only_2020_strategy.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/24/trump-evangelical-christian-support-056121

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/11/senate-is-likelier-remove-trump-after-impeachment-than-you-think/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/05/donald-trump-impeachment-republicans-senate

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-impeachment-chances-poll-senate-republicans-not-high-on-president.html

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-republicans-senate-romney-cnn-1464305

https://www.thenation.com/article/impeachment-senate-republicans/

Elizabeth Warren Endorses Trump's Economic War on Venezuela

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1197357887993139200

"Elizabeth Warren (who supports Trump's war on Venezuela) said on the Dem Debate the US should GROW, not shrink its military to over 1% of the population. (3+million Americans)..."

Just another  Democratic warmonger.

Cody87 wrote:

Sean, you're citing corporate media sources to make claims about what Trump supporters think about Trump? You think that makes your position more credible? At this point, the corporate media act as contrarian indicators. "The walls are closing in!"

Pookie is correct. The only GOP senator that will vote to remove Trump is Romney. 

I will not even caveat this with a "unless new evidence comes out." Even if new evidence comes out, the Rs are beyond outraged about the whole situation. 

The Ds are fine to plan for running against Trump. Assuming Trump is still alive, he'll still be in office and he'll be the nominee.

I am not sure if you are even acknowledging the position I have taken never mind any of the rest.

I had only raised the possibility that things could change.

I disputed the suggestion that there are no signs of cracks in his base. 

I am not willing to be so anti-information as to dismiss ALL the sources of information and just speculate wildly confident that there are no sources to question it. The statement I was responding to was that there were no signs. Well, yes there are.

It does not mean the base will crumble or a senator will vote for impeachment from the GOP. I never said that. It does not mean these signs mean anything more than simply signs that there is a risk.

I have always said that Trump will be supported until he is no longer useful for the GOP and becomes a liability. That is a question of their judgment. So far there are signs of concern but no real defections. It could be that theya re so invested that a breaking point has to be reached. There are signs that a breaking point could happen -- that has not happened yet. As well Trump is supported by anti-government people who care about the economy (theirs) and the military power of the US. If Trump damages either enough some of these people may splinter or the thing could come crashing down. No I did not say this has already happened but there are signs that Trump is threatening those things.

I remain very worried that the supporters of Trump have no lines they are not willing to cross except these two. There are no rules for the President so long as he is a tool for those people. But the dam could burst.

I would appreciate if you could argue about what I have said and not what you are deciding I meant.

With respect, you are working in unprovable certanties and absolutes and saying I am the one who does not have credibility. The position I have taken is one of  possibility. I have said that your prediction is the most likely but not certain. I think the issue of certainty would be something you have to prove and not something I have to disprove.

Also, Trump will not last forever. I remain concerned about those who personalize in him all the problems of this administration: they risk letting the GOP/Tea Party off scott free. There is more at stake if a Tea Party person can replace Trump here without them bearing responsibility for all that has happened in the US.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sorry, Cody's right on this one. Trump has been open about being a reprehensible character, and people voted for him anyways. This Ukraine stuff doesn't tell us anything about Trump that we didn't already know. His approval with his voting base is steady. That's why, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney, almost none of the Republicans who are speaking out against Trump are current office holders. Why do you think Trump campaigned for Ron DeSantis in Florida last year? The only people who are following this impeachment business closely are DC Democrat insider elites. Everyone else, including rank-and-file Democratic voters, couldn't care less.

Bernie Sanders is right when he says that if the sole focus is on impeaching Trump then the Democrats will lose the election. He's right when he says you have to lay out a roadmap for where you want the country to go.

It's not nearly as exciting as the corporate media is making it out to be. Trump is not going anywhere. The Republican-controlled Senate will not remove him from office. Furthermore, when you look at the fact that Senators Warren and Sanders will have to take time out of the campaign in order to vote on the matter when it comes up, you wonder if the Democrats are doing this not to remove Trump from office but to hamper the campaigns of the 2 Senators who are perceived to be the most progressive, thereby tilting the advantage to a more Establishment-type figure.

So sad people on this site just like binary conversations. 

I see no room possible in the debate now between iron-clad certainty that Trump in invincible and will win again, that none of his supportrs will defect and certainty that he will be defeated.

I have merely pointed to enough cracks in the position of the GOP to entertain the possibility that this may not be a done deal.

I disagree that the world is as black and white as people here make out. I think it is useful to entertain possibilities and what could make them happen -- even if they are not the most likely.

I personally think Trump will survive and that no GOP members will support impeachment but I do not accept that this is certain. 

I can see that there is little room on this site for any position that does not take one extreme view or another. Maybe it is more entertaining to speak in extremes -- maybe it makes people feel better to say they can predict with certainty?

Whatever.

Not much of a political discussion running around saying you know with certainty what will happen.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So sad people on this site just like binary conversations. 

I see no room possible in the debate now between iron-clad certainty that Trump in invincible and will win again, that none of his supportrs will defect and certainty that he will be defeated.

What?

I didn't say Trump will win again. I said he won't be removed from office before the election, because the only GOP senator who will vote to convict him if he's impeached (which will most likely happen, imo) is Romney.

In your exchange with pookie (and Michael) from posts 105 to 111, you say there are reasons to think the GOP will turn on Trump and vote for removal. Pookie and others have disagreed. You decided to pull some Google links to support your case. For something like that, a credible source would be someone who is generally pro Trump, or at least pro conservative. Citing NPR, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Slate, etc, about what Trump supporters are thinking is just as worthless as citing Breitbart or the Daily Wire about what democratic primary voters are thinking.

Here is a Twitter poll from an influencer on Trump's side of the aisle. 98% predict he won't be removed, and 2% predict he will. If you read the replies, you'll see that the only debate being had on Trump's side of the aisle is if he will be impeached or not - and they believe it will be worse for the dems if they impeach him.

https://twitter.com/Styx666Official/status/1198609303848046592

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So sad people on this site just like binary conversations. 

I see no room possible in the debate now between iron-clad certainty that Trump in invincible and will win again, that none of his supportrs will defect and certainty that he will be defeated.

What?

I didn't say Trump will win again. I said he won't be removed from office before the election, because the only GOP senator who will vote to convict him if he's impeached (which will most likely happen, imo) is Romney.

In your exchange with pookie (and Michael) from posts 105 to 111, you say there are reasons to think the GOP will turn on Trump and vote for removal. Pookie and others have disagreed. You decided to pull some Google links to support your case. For something like that, a credible source would be someone who is generally pro Trump, or at least pro conservative. Citing NPR, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Slate, etc, about what Trump supporters are thinking is just as worthless as citing Breitbart or the Daily Wire about what democratic primary voters are thinking.

Here is a Twitter poll from an influencer on Trump's side of the aisle. 98% predict he won't be removed, and 2% predict he will. If you read the replies, you'll see that the only debate being had on Trump's side of the aisle is if he will be impeached or not - and they believe it will be worse for the dems if they impeach him.

https://twitter.com/Styx666Official/status/1198609303848046592

No you are misrepresenting what I said.

1) "reasons to think the GOP will turn on Trump and vote for removal" NO NO NO I said that there are reasons they COULD turn on Trump and that it was not certain. 

2) I objected to the sweeping statements that Trump's base has "no signs of cracks" and that what why I included a number of links to "signs." I did not give this as evidence of what would happen but that these statements of certainty are wrong.

3) No I will not join the chorus of people that will not accept something reported in msm as even a "sign." I will not say that everything they report is a lie. That is what you suggest given that these articles are not about opinions in those media about Trump but reporting about  his supporters. They are signs. You can argue them if you like but they are signs. No No No I will not accpet a twitter poll over one done by a company and reported in the media. I know many hate the media and I do not trust it but I sure as hell trust it over a self-selecting twitter poll of those who still support Trump asking if the still support Trump.

NDPP wrote:

"...The American public has become the meat in a political duopoly sandwich. To listen to Elizabeth Warren expostulating on Bolivia attests to a form of political incest that bedevils America. The Massachusetts Senator wanted to air her foreign policy bona fides in an interview with a former Barack Obama administration apparatchik on the podcast 'Pod Save America'. Warren praised Trump's strategy of appointing the deflated Venezuela coup leader Juan Guaido as president and declared, 'I support economic sanctions.' She also described the country's democratically elected president Nicolas Maduro as a 'dictator'...although the interview was conducted back in February, video clips have recently resurfaced and gone viral on social media.."

The American Posse Waging Economic Warfare on the Globe Thrives by Weaponizing its Mawkish Culture

https://thesaker.is/the-american-posse-waging-economic-warfare-on-the-gl... mawkish-culture/

Am I reading that correctly that Warren praised Trump's policy? I thought Trump was the devil incarnate and evil personified. That's what all the Establishment Democrats keep telling us.

Liz Warren jumps the shark:

Quote:

Amid fresh warnings that progressives in the U.S. should be on guard against efforts by the corporate media to sow division between the Warren and Sanders campaigns, CNN came under fire Monday afternoon after publishing an unsubstantiated hit piece that cited anonymous sources—not even in the room at the time—claiming Bernie Sanders privately told Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency.

Sanders told CNN in "an aggressive, on the record pushback" that the claims were absolutely false. Kristen Orthman, the Warren campaign's communication director, on the other hand, declined to comment for the story by CNN political correspondent MJ Lee.

"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders told CNN. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."

Her campaign, as far as I can see, has let this accusation stand.

We are now in crunch time. Pressure is ratcheting up, candidates are cracking, the masks are coming off, and the true character of all candidate is coming through. One candidate has emerged who has demostrated integrity and resolve throughout this process. That candidate is Bernard Sanders. This integrity is why he has consistently led in crowd size, enthusiasm, and fundraising. He has survived not only a heart attack, but every tactic the Establishment has thrown at him so far to stop his candidacy. The media black-out. Kamala "vote-for-me-because-I'm-a-black-woman" Harris who vigourously prosecuted poor African-Americans in her own state (thank you Tulsi Gabbard!). Pete Buttigieg, a gay millenial mayor who played up his identity in the hopes of being the "millenial" candidate, who was exposed for taking big money and scandals with the South Bend police department. "Uncle" Joe Biden, who tried to capitalize on nostalgia for Obama, but who was exposed as being a horrible politician who had nothing going for him, and whose many pictures of touching women inappropriately shows his treatment of women to be as horrible as anything Trump ever said. Elizabeth Warren, who despite championing progressive reform on consumer protection, did not challenge a Democratic candidate whose record is opposed to what Warren was trying to accomplish, who tried to paint herself as a progressive despite never taking any risks to promote a single progressive public policy item, and who tried to project herself as the smartest candidate in the room, reminding people of the failed campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerrey, and Hillary Clinton.

#Bernieorbust2020

I disagree completely. I think this was a last-ditch desparate attempt to revive a faltering Warren campaign. It's reminiscent of the smears that went around in 2016 accusing people who supported Bernie Sanders of being sexist, to the point that young women who supported Sanders were accused of supporting him only to get action from guys. These same people then endorsed New York governer Andrew Cuomo over his progressive challenger Cynthia Nixon. I've yet to see anybody come to Warren's defense on social media.

The crazy thing about all of this is that if Warren had run in 2015-2016, many progressives who are currently her strongest critics would have cheered her on back then had she done so.

This is a major accusation.

Not really.  It's silly.  It's a matter of political analysis, not a personal viewpoint.  It's not like he said he didn't think a woman should become president.  A lot of analysis of 2016 had focused on whether Clinton failed to win because she is a woman.  And most came to the conclusion that it was a negative factor.  And I think a female candidate would have more trouble winning in 2020 than a male candidate.  That doesn't mean I agree with it, or like it.  I don't.  It's simply a political analysis.

"Even the 'very' anti-Bernie crowd doesn't believe Liz, that's how bad this is. That whole stunt has been a fiasco. Even Sally Albright thinks the Warren story is bull."

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1217429026744291329

Yes, a media manufactured story to rally women voters away from Bernie and provide a ratings bump to the debate.   This sort of cynical media manipulation increasingly does not work, and from the social media response to it, it seems like it is backfiring.   Good!

More Taibbi on this:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/

"After the debate, Trump fans online were in full schadenfreude mode, crowing about how “the left” finally understood that CNN really is fake news. Overall, #CNNisgarbage trended and #fuckCNN wasn’t far behind.

If the network doesn’t see trouble in this, it’s delusional. Voters on both sides of the aisle have changed since the Bernard Shaw days. They pay more attention to media manipulations, and it doesn’t get much more manipulative than punching above the facts to advance transparent political narratives, which is a new and accepted habit in the commercial news landscape.

We’ll find out in Iowa and New Hampshire what Democratic Party voters believe about that Warren-Sanders meeting, but that grimy story pales in comparison to the bigger picture: Episodes like this are why people hate the media."

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Video evidence proves Bernie to be a sexist who believes a woman cannot be elected.

Note that the video was filmed in 1988 but was posted in the last few days.

hah

Then there is this take on how well her attack on Bernie in the debate is playing out for her. Krystal Ball explains why the media got it wrong about the results of the Warren-Bernie sexism fight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbW0eSYsuKE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR...

Gee Misfit speaking of people only talking about Trump, this is a thread about Warren not Trump but you come in and want to talk about Trump. WTF is that!!

Misfit wrote:

Ok, I did write this.

"I am very scared right now. I don't see any leader who is strong enough to take on the task of defeating the Republican Party. I also don't think that the Democrats really understand the full magnitude of what they are up against."

This includes Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie Sanders' public policy proposals are capable of standing on their own without mentioning Donald Trump. When polled to see which Democratic candidates had the most cross-over support from previous Trump voters, Sanders was among the candidates who did the best in this area.

Misfit wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Ok, I did write this.

"I am very scared right now. I don't see any leader who is strong enough to take on the task of defeating the Republican Party. I also don't think that the Democrats really understand the full magnitude of what they are up against."

This includes Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie Sanders' public policy proposals are capable of standing on their own without mentioning Donald Trump. When polled to see which Democratic candidates had the most cross-over support from previous Trump voters, Sanders was among the candidates who did the best in this area.

I hope so. Unlike some, I do like both Warren and Sanders. I prefer Sanders over Warren.

I have this fear. and it is a part of my reaction to all Democrat leaders and campaigns. They are simply not prepared to take on the Tea Party.

I am anot making this a prediction -- I hope to be wrong:

I fear that the Democratic party in the US is in a real hole. They risk not being able to win if they are not progressive enough while they remain vulnerable to accusations of extremism. The option of a slightly better conservative party has long been a strategy. Now I think it is not any more. They need more votes than the Republicans as we are aware due to the distortions in the College. I think that the majority want Trump gone but they are not enough on the same page as to support a single candidate.

Democrats will not get enough people to come out and vote for a warmed over Clinton/Biden like candidate. Many who have watched Sanders and Warren will not come out to vote for the same old same old. They want something real.

On the other hand, Sanders and Warren also may not have enough support when they get painted as extremists as you can be sure the Republican party will try to do. Either one would get out the people who would stay home for a Clinton/Biden candidate but can they hold the centre votes needed from independents?

We have spoken here about the problems of the Republicans. That party is too extreme and has a problem being able to appeal to a wide enough audience. The Democrats are in the opposite situation. They may be too wide to produce a consensus candidate capable of beinging out enough of the party to win. If the Democrats are split even enough, and will not come out for the "wrong" candidate, the Republicans do not need more than 35-38% public support to win.

At the same time I fear that the Democrats are counting on a Trump candidacy and campaign and theya re unprepared for an alternative that in may respects is worse, in part becuase it might be more competent just as it is more malevolent.

I also worry that the other things that people speak about including the ages of the candidates are not seen as factors becuase people see them all as the same. The problem is that the Republicans will come out for their old Candidate. It is the Democrats that might have the difficulty getting their people to come out. The role of nonvoters is being underestimated when the candidates imagine things like the age of each other being a draw. Progressives can get fired up for Sanders not matter his age -- but the centrists may not react as well to the oldest Candidate to ever be on the ballot for a major party (not certain he is the absolute oldest but he is up there and older ones did not win).

This comes back to the fact that progressive people in North America have not won the ideological and political culture confrontations. They ahve not effectively fought back and beaten the most wealthy and concentrate on individual campaigns neglecting the serious position they are in. Workers trust the employers more than they do their own organizations. Think about this as a symptom of the rot in the political culture.

Yes I am scared.