2020 Democratic Presidential nominee

Allan, I wish that Sean was wrong but I don't think so. He has also emphasized that it is not about polls at all but rather about the electoral college. Hillary beat out Trump in the polls and lost the election in 2016. Trump got elected with the lowest popular vote of any US president ever. He can sink much lower in the polls and still win.

alan smithee wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Allan, I wish that Sean was wrong but I don't think so. He has also emphasized that it is not about polls at all but rather about the electoral college. Hillary beat out Trump in the polls and lost the election in 2016. Trump got elected with the lowest popular vote of any US president ever. He can sink much lower in the polls and still win.

OK. Let's forget about the polls. What do we know? Trump has a solid 35% support, no matter what he does. The rest of his support from 2016 is waning.

He promised not to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Low and behold he lied. Surprise surprise. This is going to hurt him politically when the cuts take affect.

The Dems have 65% of potential voters up for grabs. Trump NEVER had support like that.

I was watching Morning Joe today. They explained that it was in fact Biden with the huge point advantage for potential voters. I think they had him solidly at plus 8 for every intended voter against Trump.

On the other hand.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cohYnKrZ94U

I don't believe they are being honest however. Every other poll I have seen has Biden at the bottom of the top contenders.

When Sean says this is not a sure thing, I respect his caution. But I still say that Orange bastard will be thrown out on his ass in November.

Call me an idiot after that if I'm wrong.

Ok so I missed your other post.

No it was not mocking -- but it was irritation. I find it a little irritating to respond with detail only to have some sweeping answer that ignores all the detail as if it is a counter to what I am saying.

Never have I suggested the possibility of a Trump win in popular vote. I think it will be a significant loss. But popular vote does not make Presidents in the US.

I said clearly (and I will give you a chance to ignore it again) that Sanders and Trump could produce the most extreme difference in popular vote vs electoral college that has ever happened. I am not the only person to observe that the critical Trump states that were even marginal appear to be largely sticking with him even as the popular vote in states the Dems won before is stacking up. So we could see razor thin margins across just enough marginals; deep in low population Trump states and extreme wins for the Dems in their states and still an electoral college loss.

Poll after poll shows both sides in the margin of error on in the critical states -- and this is after in 2016 Clinton was ahead by wider margins. But I backed this up if you had been interested.

I suspect that the reason for this is that the Trump campaign is running very targetted messages that are working with a lot of money behind them in those states. Trump is also using a system of rallys that may be designed to win just where he needs to. 

A little red scare in a couple crucial states and you have a close election at the college and maybe a 52-42 Dem win in pop vote.

The point I am making is also that the Republicans run the elections in a partisan way AND the filed is already titled their way due to the college favoring low pop right wing states. So do not expect a fair election. also you can expect that a real left person like Trump will bring out business scare tactics like you have never seen.

But I went through all this and looked at the actual electoral college numbers, then I went and looked at the polls from now for the critical states, then I compared to the polls from 2016. I even compared the same company polls to what they are saying today to keep methodology consistent. I totalled the figures and ran the math in each scenario in order to make a thoughtful post. So you can imagine why I would be irritated at your post that ignores all the work I did to produce the analysis I did. I am happy to go get stuff and engage but on this site people seem to think that they pull an opinion out of their butt with no backup at all and that a person who worked through the data is being a jerk to ask them for the data. 

I want Sanders to win. I hope he does. But I really want to question anyone who thinks this is better than a crapshoot with a lot of unfairness stacked against him.

Misfit wrote:

Allan, I wish that Sean was wrong but I don't think so. He has also emphasized that it is not about polls at all but rather about the electoral college. Hillary beat out Trump in the polls and lost the election in 2016. Trump got elected with the lowest popular vote of any US president ever. He can sink much lower in the polls and still win.

There have been presidents elected with a lower percentage of the popular vote.  But with a major third candidate in the race.  There was no major third candidate in 2016, but Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin together drained off about 6%.

Point of information...

Misfit wrote:

the election hasn't even been called yet

Well, American elections don't get called, they get scheduled, according to a fixed system(first Tuesday in November?). And this one is scheduled for November 3rd 2020.

The point I was trying to make is that the Americans don't go into full slug out election campaign mode until after the national convention which I think is in July when the Democrats have their new party leader.

josh wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Allan, I wish that Sean was wrong but I don't think so. He has also emphasized that it is not about polls at all but rather about the electoral college. Hillary beat out Trump in the polls and lost the election in 2016. Trump got elected with the lowest popular vote of any US president ever. He can sink much lower in the polls and still win.

There have been presidents elected with a lower percentage of the popular vote.  But with a major third candidate in the race.  There was no major third candidate in 2016, but Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin together drained off about 6%.

I -- at least -- spoke about the difference between the popular vote of the winner in the electoral college and the winner of the popular vote. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether there were additional people running. It only applies where the winner of the popular vote did not get the most electoral college votes.

This has happened 5 times in US history: 3 times in the 1800s and twice in the 21st century (never in the 20th). In one case the discrepency was 10% in 1824. It was half a percent in the year 2000 and 2.1% in 2016.

Misfit wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that the Americans don't go into full slug out election campaign mode until after the national convention which I think is in July when the Democrats have their new party leader.

Dems in July, GOP in August and most experts say after labour day.

You can expect Trump to understand this math and be in a position to cheat as wel as offer gifts to the states he needs with plenty of time as well as target social media attacks.

alan smithee wrote:

Well, I definitely appreciate the time you take to crunch the numbers. Quite honestly, I have no idea how the Electoral College works. Nor does the majority of Americans.

I think it is very undemocratic. And wasn't it interesting that the 2 times the Electoral College decided elections in the 21st Century, it went to the Republican.

Americans like to think they are the greatest, freest, most democratic and some sort of moral authority amongst the rest of the world. That is bullshit that only an indoctrinated American education system could produce.

Here's why I think Trump is done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W10GNGMj8NA

But admittedly I have to be real and know that this election is going to be rigged ....bigly. Between Cross Checking,voter I.D. nonsense and gerrymandering, the Repoublicans always have a finger on the scale. It's going to get ugly.

My wish, not a prediction, not based on reality, really is for Trump to be removed forcibly from the White House.

After the Roger Stone affair, you would have thought that would be more than enough and he'd be arrested.

But the President is above the law. And if that's how Republicans want it, I hope the next Democrat President caters exclusively to his/hers base and not work wsith the Republicans at all. Essentially giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Bernie2020 or bust? No, vote blue no matter who.

I think we are on the same page down the line with you being a bit more optimistic than me.

What worries me is that the things happening now which is substantial over reach by the President is not being met with anything significant coming from the public.

As well I have engaged with some Trump supporters. It really is an alternative reality.

The Electoral College is a serious scandal and it is one of many related to US elections.  So too is the fact that there are no independent election coimmissions -- there elections are run by the incumbant state party. Just think about how wacked that is.

NorthReport wrote:

So who will win: Sanders or Bloomberg?

Sanders and Bloomberg Rise, Biden Falls With Sharp Shifts in Views of Electability Bernie Sanders has soared and Joe Biden’s crashed in national preference for the Democratic nomination for president, while the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary helped to clear some running room for a candidate who’s not yet been on the ballot: Mike Bloomberg. Sanders advanced to 32 percent support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, up 8 percentage points from late January. Biden fell to 17 percent, down 11 points to his lowest of the campaign. And Bloomberg, who takes the stage for the first time in tonight’s debate in Nevada, now has 14 percent support, up 6 points. By contrast, there’s been little if any movement for Pete Buttigieg, a strong finisher in both early contests; Amy Klobuchar, third in New Hampshire; or Elizabeth Warren, who fell short in both. Warren has 11 percent support nationally, unchanged; Buttigieg, 7; and Klobuchar, 6. 

https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1211a12020Politics.pdf

Better hope it isn't the billionaire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62eD6QFWUPI

Allan, I will TRY to explain the electoral college. There are the same number of electoral college votes as there are Members of Congress in the House of Representatives and the states are divided up representation by population. So large states like California and New York get more electoral college votes than do states like Vermont and Rhode Island which get just a couple electoral college votes each. This is where the link to the House of Representatives ends. The goal of the Presidential election is to collect a majority of electoral college votes.
 

Aside from historically two states and perhaps a few more now because of Donald Trump winning, the party which wins the most votes from the public in that state takes all the electoral college votes for that state. Someone like Trump can win the state by just one vote and he collects all the electoral college votes for himself.

Americans do not go out to vote to vote for the president themselves. They vote for which party they want to pick the electoral college voters for their state who will meet in December and formally vote for the President of the United States. It is a formal occasion that is covered by the media but many people remain unaware that this is the real election for their national leader.

If the electoral college vote was divied up more equitably on the state level it would more closely approximate the national popular vote. It wouldn't exactly but it would be an improvement of this winner take all crap shoot they have now. Better yet, they should just scrap the electoral college system and let the national vote determine the president.

So under the electoral college system, when the national election in November is over, the party leaders appoint their loyal supporters from the states that they won in November based on the number of electoral college votes collected from each state. Those loyal party insiders will go to Washington and formally vote for the president of the United States.

This may help to explain why Al Gore won the 2000 election and why George W Bush had the votes from two Hispanic counties in Florida thrown out so that he could steal the electoral college votes from Al Gore who really did win them and give Bush the college votes that he needed to steal the presidency.

If the electoral college system was more evenly balanced or scrapped entirely, there would be less need for some corrupt politicians to racially profile voters and sabotage their right to vote in close states.

For all this hand-wringing about the Electoral College, remember that this was the same Electoral College that delivered 2 terms for Barack Obama.

Take a look at how each candidate is campaigning. Sanders is confident and relaxed and enjoying himself. It's almost as if he understands that his opinion is in line with that of a majority of Americans. He has been faced with stupid questions and baseless character assassination from his first run in politics, yet he keeps on going. He also does very well with conservative voters. Northern New England, contrary to popular belief, is not a liberal hippie paradise. As a rural area, it is quite conservative. Vermont elected a Republican Senator as recently as 2000, and its current governor is a Republican. Same with Maine, which has a Republican Senator currently sitting. And here's the thing: even if Republican voters don't like or agree with Sanders, they respect him, which is more than can be said for the other candidates. When people talk about why they support right-wingers, do you know what they often like abou these people? That they are perceived to speak their mind and do what they think is best. Sanders does the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum. And alan has rightly pointed out that Trump has gone after social security and Medicaid. Sanders can prove that. Do you honestly think that these lifetime Republican voters, once they understand what Trump is going to do, are going to stick with him?

Let's also look at Trump's behaviour. In 2016, the idea of a debate between Trump and Sanders was floated. Sanders immediately agreed to it. Trump said he would not do it. That seems very strange for a narcissist like Trump, to turn down a chance to debate someone and the attention that would have gone with it. If Trump and Sanders had agreed to a debate, someone would have agreed to host it. If Trump was confident that he would beat Sanders, why would he turn it down? Could it be that he himself knows that Sanders would beat him?

Sanders also has a loyal crowd behind him. It is very hard to find a YouTube video on news or politics (even on the MSM networks and Fox News) that doesn't have people coming to his defense in the comment sections. That passion can help translate into votes and building momentum where people will vote for Sanders.

It's technically true that there's no guarantee that Sanders would beat Trump. He is, however, the best chance there is to do so.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The exception is Maine which has only 4 electoral votes and divides them as close to proportionately as possible (Trump got one and Clinton 3 last time).

Not proportionately, just by congressional district. Still FPTP, just at a more granular level than statewide. Someone who gets 51% in both districts will still get all the electoral votes.

cco wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The exception is Maine which has only 4 electoral votes and divides them as close to proportionately as possible (Trump got one and Clinton 3 last time).

Not proportionately, just by congressional district. Still FPTP, just at a more granular level than statewide. Someone who gets 51% in both districts will still get all the electoral votes.

Nebraska also does that.  Obama won one EV there in 2008.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

For all this hand-wringing about the Electoral College, remember that this was the same Electoral College that delivered 2 terms for Barack Obama.

I am sorry but this statement is just plain stupid.

The electoral college has 4 times gone against the popular vote. All 4 times to deliver victory to Republicans Twice in the 19th century and twice in the 21st.

Democrats never won becuase of the Electoral College. Not. Once.

Russians at it again.

Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, in a disclosure that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/politics/russian-interference-trump-democrats.html?referringSource=articleShare

It seems to me that this New York Times piece has all the classic hallmarks of fake news. I can never figure out why anyone bothers with that particular propaganda mill. It is possibly the worst purveyor of misinformation in the US media and that is saying a lot.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems to me that this New York Times piece has all the classic hallmarks of fake news. I can never figure out why anyone bothers with that particular propaganda mill. It is possibly the worst purveyor of misinformation in the US media and that is saying a lot.

I would think that the NYT story is probably correct. That is, members of the intelligence community may well have told congress persons that the Russians are attempting to influence the 2020 election to help Trump. Whether that warning is well founded is much more doubtful, but that doesn't invalidate the story.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

For all this hand-wringing about the Electoral College, remember that this was the same Electoral College that delivered 2 terms for Barack Obama.

I am sorry but this statement is just plain stupid.

The electoral college has 4 times gone against the popular vote. All 4 times to deliver victory to Republicans Twice in the 19th century and twice in the 21st.

Democrats never won becuase of the Electoral College. Not. Once.

We know how the Electoral College works and about the importance of the swing states. You know who else understands this? The Sanders campaign. They will craft a message that resonates in those parts of the country. To some extent, this dichotomy between the blue states and the swing states is a fabrication. Do you really think that young voters in the midwest don't care about student debt? Do you really think older voters in the midwest aren't concerned about medical debt, Medicare, Medicaid, and social security? All of these things will take centre stage during a Sanders campaign. Furthermore, Michael Moriarity posted upthread polls that, with one exception, showed Sanders leading Trump in all the key swing states that are crucial for swinging the Electoral College. Sanders also comes within 3% of beating Trump in Texas. If that swing is replicated across the country, Sanders wins the key swing states, along with a few red ones that haven't voted Democrat in a long time.

You know who didn't understand how the Electoral College works? Hillary Clinton. You know why she lost those states? She never made any serious effort to reach out to Sanders voters, never visited Wisconsin during the campaign, and instead chased after fools gold in the red states of North Carolina and Arizona. It's true that the Electoral College may tilt the balance to the Republicans, but proper campaign planning takes that into account. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama succeeded there. Al Gore, John Kerrey, and Hillary Clinton did not.

The fact that Sanders (or any Democrat) knows about the swing states does not mean that he can be successful there or that there is a message that can work there.

As far as the young and student debt or any other issue -- The fact that people have the same issues does not mean they understand them the same way or see the same causes. This idea that you imply the blue and swing states are not different (fabrication) is strange and makes no sense. They are obvioulsy different by definition. The red states are on average poorer and more desperate on most social scales -- they are this way becuase they vote for crappy policies. And they keep doing that becuase the political ideology there is different.

As for the leads in swing states -- most of these are no better than Clinton's were  -- in the polls. There is no indication that the polls are more accurate today than they were in 2016.

Now let's look at your candidate history and see what else might be going on:

Bill Clinton -- 1992 - won after a period of recession beating incumbant (90-91)

Obama -- 2008 - won during a period of recession after a President second term (08-09)

Gore -- 2000 - lost after President second term Economy in expansion

Kerry -- 2004 - lost to President seeking second term Economy in expansion

H. Clinton -- 2016 - lost after a Persident's second term Economy in expansion

The Democrat in 2020 has to unseat a President seeking re-election in what are seen as good economic times. 

In terms of unseating a President seeking a second term this almost never happens. It has happened 3 times in the last century all following severe economic slowdowns -- George H Bush, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover -- that is it. All other Presidents in the last 70 years won a second term. This is not about some person not understanding the electoral college. You upset a sitting President when you are in economic difficulty.

I am not saying Trump cannot be beaten but the idea that it is a sure bet is ridiculous. It is a very close, tight and difficult election. To defeat Trump in the electoral college would be historic. 

As well you are ignoring the fact that the polls are showing very tight races in these swing states and that Clinton had similar margins in the polls. The Democrats have to win 38 electoral votes in places they lost last time. 

Here is a quick refresher of the 2016 polls: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As far as the young and student debt or any other issue -- The fact that people have the same issues does not mean they understand them the same way or see the same causes.

So let's play this out. Do you really imagine that people are thinking along the lines of, "well, I'm struggling under loads of student debt, I just lost my job and have no health insurance, I'm worried about social security, and I know Bernie's been really hammering that he has a plan to deal with that, but dammit I'm so racist and homophobic and I hate immigrant children so much that I'll still vote for Trump even though he's going to screw me over in all of those areas?"

Sanders does very well among social conservatives in Vermont because of his relentless focus on economic issues. Even if people are more socially conservative in the swing states, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are right-wing economically. People may not agree with Sanders on social issues or immigration, but they at least respect him for his consistency, and for saying what he believes and doing what he feels is best. If people disagree with someone on an issue, if they otherwise trust the person (and Sanders is among the most trusted politicians in the US) they will overlook that disagreement.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This idea that you imply the blue and swing states are not different (fabrication) is strange and makes no sense. They are obvioulsy different by definition.

There are differences, but what the Electoral College does is it magnifies differences between states and minimizes the differences within them. Some of the most right-wing Republican congresspeople elected are from the state of California. Big cities in Texas, particularly Austin and Houston, are in many ways very liberal and progressive in their thinking. Alabama is one of the most red states out there, and the current mayor of Birmingham was elected on a very progressive platform.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The red states are on average poorer and more desperate on most social scales -- they are this way becuase they vote for crappy policies. And they keep doing that becuase the political ideology there is different.

Voters in red states routinely vote for progressive ballot measures.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Democrat in 2020 has to unseat a President seeking re-election in what are seen as good economic times. 

In terms of unseating a President seeking a second term this almost never happens. It has happened 3 times in the last century all following severe economic slowdowns -- George H Bush, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover -- that is it. All other Presidents in the last 70 years won a second term. This is not about some person not understanding the electoral college. You upset a sitting President when you are in economic difficulty.

The conventional metrics indicate that the economy is good. Many economists, however, have said that the US is clearly in a bubble and the question regarding a crash is not if, but when. Additionally, you talk to average every-day people, and they understand very well that the economy is not working for them. They have to work 2 or sometimes more jobs to make ends meet. They have to do gigs to make ends meet. Expenses are rising around them, and their take home pay is not. They are also very heavily in debt. Sanders' has been speaking directly to those issues, and appeals to the frustration people feel that their reality is not reflected back to them in the news and the media and other things.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As well you are ignoring the fact that the polls are showing very tight races in these swing states and that Clinton had similar margins in the polls. The Democrats have to win 38 electoral votes in places they lost last time. 

Here is a quick refresher of the 2016 polls: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

I remember the polls very well that showed Clinton beating Trump. It also shows that Presidential campaigns matter, which is something that you have completely disregarded. Clinton started out with a big lead only to blow it after running a horrible campaign. I gave 2 examples explaining why she ran a bad campaign upthread. There is more outlining Clinton's bad performance here. We are still nowhere near the Presidential campaign. Sanders political instincts are very solid (much better than Clinton's), as has been pointed out by several people here. Sander's campaign is focused on the very real issues everyday Americans are facing, and he has a plan that meets those challenges. His support also tends to go up in every campaign he's run against. He is a fundraising machine. He draws big crowds at his rallies. He appeals to people who are frustrated with the status quo. He is very well positioned to take on the faux populism of Donald Trump.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Holy crap this is a wierd response.

It is a response that responds to the specific points you made.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No I did not disregard the fact that there will be a campaign. I said it is tight and close. You were the one on the side of pretending this was a done deal -- remember?

Several of us have given specific reasons why we think Sanders is uniquely suited to defeat Trump and why we think he would prevail. What do you imagine are the strengths Trump has on Sanders?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

And the thing you are playing out is nonsense. Is this how you think Trump voters see themselves?

I thought it was an obvious caricature of midwestern and swing state voters. Yes, there are still people who would vote for Trump over Sanders in an actual election, but in a democracy you are always going to have someone disagree with you. I made the point about issues like student and medical debt affecting people in swing states as they do in the states the Democrats take easily. You said that swing state voters vote differently. How do you feel that difference will play out in the swing states versus the blue states?

1) It was a wierd response from you given that I was the one saying that it was going to be a tight too-close-to call election and you were the one saying Bernie had it in the bag if he got the nomination. Your argument appears to ignore my position and support it at the same time. No, otherwise you are ignoring the specific points I am making repeating the same stuff I refuted. Also in a strange twist, the polls I listed from 2016 showed the Democrat lead after the campaign meanign that the polling position we have now is close to where Clinton was at the end of the campaign she lost. Campaigns can go either direction and this is not in the books yet, however the Democrats are starting from a position that is roughly even with the Republicans on who would win. I think my argument that this is uncertain is better founded than your argument that it is heavily favoured to Sanders.

2) Several of you repeat the same stuff over and over and over that Sanders leads Trump in the polls (as did Clinton) and that he will defeat Trump in total vote (as did Clinton -- and I think Sanders will only increase that) But the data you show points to the opposite of your claims: the polls are tight and a lead in the polls at this stage is no guarantee of success when a lead in the polls in November 0f 2016 was not a guarantee. As for Trump's advantages, I have laid them out in detail -- do you need me repeat again? The electoral playing field is severely tilted in favour of the GOP due to electoral vote. Misfit posted at length on this at one point as well. All this you dismiss pointing to narrow leads 9 months out, before a campaign, as conclusive. Also I pointed out the number of time the Democrats have beaten a first term Republican without a serious economic downturn in progress = the number is zero. Remember I am not the one arguing that the election is a foregone conclusion -- I think Sanders can win. I am arguing that this is close and not at all certain. You are the one who picked the impossible job of proving that this election is a done deal. I have laid out many reasons why it is close including an analysis of polls -- from the same pollsters before the 2016 election comparing to now. 

3) Your comments about there being little difference between states are bizarre and contradicted by history. There is no doubt that different geographies and segments in the US have different ways of looking at the world including who to blame for their troubles. There is no doubt that different segments and geographies have different prevailing ideologies and perspectives. It feels a little like you are asking me to prove the existence of gravity. I think it is ridiculous to demand that I have to defend the idea that the strongly democratic states are stronger on Democratic ideas and more receptive to Democrats than the swing or Republican states. Your position is completely illogical and I cannot even understand why you would even try to defend it. The difference between these states by definition is the very point you are trying to pretend does not exist.

Yes your post is illogical and wierd on several levels.

I get that you are confident but beyond that you have not made a case.

I already had said that Sanders could win, that he was leading in the polls -- just not by enough to provide certainty -- and the election would make the difference. You need more than a couple straw men here -- you need a whole straw army becuase the argument you are trying to make is near impossible and is extreme. My argument -- not to predict a winner of a tight race -- is a much easier one to make. I am not a better debater than you are -- the issue here is you picked a side impossible to defend without any data to back up such an extreme position that none of the expert policial watchers have ever tried to defend.

This will be a tough election and we will have to wait for some time -- likely after both conventions and the announcement of running mates and later polls -- in order to be able to offer predictions more accurate than too-close-to-call.

The pro Sanders forces want to project the idea that he is unstopable and that is his job. But many of us here are not advocates but observers so we don't need to swallow campaign propaganda for any side. 

Ari wrote:

"What do you imagine are the strengths Trump has on Sanders?"

1. He can lie through his teeth on a daily basis and get away with it.

2. He can make an embarrassing fool of himself on the international stage and maintain his popularity in the polls.

3. He can ask on national television for the Russians to hack his opponent's computers and win an election.

4. He can survive a Mueller investigation without a drop in the polls.

5. He can be impeached and maintain his public support.

6. He can belligerently insult, bully, and demean women, Muslims, Hispanics, disabled people and, in fact all minorities and journalists and increase his popularity.

7. He can pardon the most outlandish  criminals, give the most inappropriate people the Congressional medal of honour, and appoint an alleged rapist to the Supreme Court of the United States.

8. He can appoint the most notoriously wrong people to key positions of power in order to undermine their intended roles. EPA and Education come to mind.

9. He can refuse to submit his taxes and maintain his presidency.

10. He can use his foundation money to help finance his election campaign and make it seem perfectly ok.

11. He can make threats to his opponents like "lock her up",  make faces, and call his opponents bullying names like "crooked Hillary" to publicly mock them and gain in popularity.

12. He can say things like "if she weren't my daughter I would date her"  and other creepy things, and then give her a role in the White House despite her having no qualifications.

13. He can allegedly sexually harass and rape women with public indifference and no legal consequences for his alleged actions.

24. He can display no identifiable expertise or aptitude for any role he performs as President of the United States.

25. He can respect and admire Vladimir Putin and  notorious ruthless dictators and pass it off to his electorate as being ok.

26. He can take directives from Russian intelligence ahead of his own American intelligence and not be investigated for treason.

27. He can directly violate US conflict of interest laws involving his hotels.

I think that Bernie Sanders holds himself up to a higher standard than this. I personally think that Bernie Sanders will be held to a higher standard by the media and by the Republican Party than they do for Donald Trump.
 

With Donald Trump there are no rules and boundaries. He acts like he is above the law and he gets away with it. This gives Donald Trump some very key  and definite strengths over Bernie Sanders or any Democrat for that matter who wins the Democratic ticket.

Two more hurdles for Sanders:

1. McCarthy style campaign smears.

2. Trump can cause one of two extremes. Voter anger or voter apathy. He can inflame people to go out and vote against him like they did in 2018 or he can create so much apathy that people especially minorities just don't show up to vote.
 

Voter apathy has been a chronic and consistent problem in the United States. Jessie Jackson tried to tackle this issue back in the 1980s. Barrack Obama was able to get the black vote out and win. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So let's play this out. Do you really imagine that people are thinking along the lines of, "well, I'm struggling under loads of student debt, I just lost my job and have no health insurance, I'm worried about social security, and I know Bernie's been really hammering that he has a plan to deal with that, but dammit I'm so racist and homophobic and I hate immigrant children so much that I'll still vote for Trump even though he's going to screw me over in all of those areas?"

The danger is that the MSM will launch some unfounded smear against Sanders, similar to the Anti-Semitism smear against Jeremy Corbyn, and like said smear, it will stick. And so you'll get a whole whack of voters who will wind up thinking along the lines of "I know that a second Trump presidency will be worse for me than a Sanders presidency, but I can't vote for Sanders because (insert unfounded MSM smear here)".

[Edited to add]: Sanders is my choice for President, and I agree that he would be a much better campaigner against Trump than any of the other Democratic nominees -- barring a major economic downturn between now and November, any other Democratic candidate would likely lose to trump.

That said, don't discount the ability of the mainstream media to use lies and falsehoods to engineer the result they want.

Also should be noted that Sanders has to actually win the Democratic nomination before he can win the presidency, and the other candidates all basically indicated at the Nevada debate that they are willing to deny Sanders the nomination if he doesn't win a majority of the pledged delegates.