• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dem voters only - how happy would you be with a Bernie nomination?

Dem voters only - how happy would you be with Bernie as the nominee?


  • Total voters
    60
Yeah, I get it. But the last primary election is in early June (I looked up the schedule), so it is too early to tell which candidate would have a better chance of beating Trump. Unfortunately Florida's Election Day is March 10, one week before Super Tuesday, so I will have to do some guessing in preparation for it. My guess is Joe Biden would have a better chance because he can appeal to moderates and independents who worry about their taxes going up.

Exactly. I'll probably go with Biden for this very reason.

I wish we could know in advance who the veeps will be. Bernie *could* have a strong chance against Trump, with the right veep. Like, if by miracle he could convince Michelle Obama to be his veep, he'd win in a landslide. I know it's wishful thinking and will never happen, but as an example, if Bernie got a very popular, very strong, youngish, a bit more to the center than him, woman of color, his ticket would be much enhanced. Michelle won't run, but he needs someone like her. I don't know who that person might be.
 
I voted moderately happy, but like some others here I'll take anyone who can beat Trump. In '16 I felt better about him, and I did believe he had a good chance to win against Trump, I also felt Hillary was not very likeable, but she got my vote because even back than, anyone but Trump.

I would be a bit happier with Biden or Klobuchar, because I think they just may get more votes from people who who are not so far left, who might be okay with Medicare for All, providing they could ease into it, and keep their private insurance if they choose to. With the right VP, a winning ticket could be there with either of them. I just want to get it right this time, another four years with the lunatic baby in the white house and the damage will be a lot worse than it is so far.
 
Exactly. I'll probably go with Biden for this very reason.

I wish we could know in advance who the veeps will be. Bernie *could* have a strong chance against Trump, with the right veep. Like, if by miracle he could convince Michelle Obama to be his veep, he'd win in a landslide. I know it's wishful thinking and will never happen, but as an example, if Bernie got a very popular, very strong, youngish, a bit more to the center than him, woman of color, his ticket would be much enhanced.

15-abrams-3.w570.h712.jpg


What’s Next for Stacey Abrams?
 
Based on what? How is Biden stronger than Bernie versus Trump?

I said, Biden vs. Trump. Don't you think that Biden is less bad than Trump? This much is obvious.

How is Biden stronger than Bernie versus Trump: 30 polls, national and state, which you can find over the 3 pages of all electoral polls on Real Clear Politics, show Biden beating Trump by higher margins than Bernie, or Biden beating Trump while Bernie loses, or both Biden and Bernie losing to Trump but Biden losing by a smaller margin. Sure, there are a few showing Bernie ahead, but the vast majority show Biden with better chances. That's one.

Two, Bernie scares moderates.

Three, Bernie scares seniors.

Four, Bernie has very strong liabilities in his past that have never been exploited by any campaigns. He had the luxury of running in 2016 without being attacked, because Hillary didn't want to attack him too harshly and risk losing his supporters in the general election, and Trump was delighted to prop him up since he was hurting the more viable adversary.

So, all Bernie numbers in polls represent a state in which NONE of his severe liabilities have been exploited yet in adversarial campaign ads. I don't think that Bernie's numbers will hold if he is the nominee, once the general elections come up. I've quoted elsewhere some of his liabilities that will be exploited:

- saying that women fantasize of being simultaneously raped by three men when they make love to their men (as per his essay on the alternative newspaper Vermont Freeman in February of 1972)
- saying that women possess the qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism (same source above).
- saying that it's understandable that porn magazines sell when they mention stories about 12-year-old girls being raped by 14 men (no kidding, he said so in an interview with NPR, wow!)
- having voted against a bill that wanted to ensure harsher sentencing guidelines for pedophiles
- indicating that women can't win a presidential race
- proposing that convicted felons serving their sentences (including terrorists like the Boston Marathon Bomber, pedophiles, rapists) should have the right to vote
- advocating for free non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens
- having supported Sandinists who marched singing "Death to the Yankees"
- his wife having been accused of embezzlement.

Mark my words, I *guarantee* that all of the above will be in attack ads sponsored by right-wing PACs, together with lots of scare tactics for seniors indicating that Medicare for All will overwhelm Medicare and result in their benefits under Medicare being diluted and curtailed, with shortage of services and waiting lists. Also, they will insist on taxes going up for the middle class to pay for all the freebies that Bernie proposes.

Expect the airwaves to be bombarded with ads highlighting all 11 liabilities above; social media will also have racist attacks against him based on his Jewish faith

Meanwhile Trump will be touting his economy, full employment, his being tough on Iran, and will highlight that Bernie has a track record of being ineffective as a senator.

When this is all said and done, Bernie's numbers will drop (a lot of women/mothers will be disgusted with the above, a lot of seniors will be scared, a lot of middle class people will fear tax hikes, etc) and Trump's numbers will rise.

Biden has liabilities too but not as serious, and he appeals more to minorities and women. If Obama jumps into the campaign and supports him as his former veep who will redo parts of the Obama legacy that Trump destroyed, his numbers will probably go up. Biden will also use against Trump the fact that Trump is so scared of him that he engaged in impeachable offenses, trying to get Biden down.

Against Trump, I'd expect Sanders numbers to go down in the general election campaign if he is the nominee, and Biden's numbers to go up if he is the nominee instead.

I don't have a crystal ball, but the above is my best guess.
 
To me, he's second to Warren. I will say this, though. His followers are too rabid for me. They scare me a lot more than Bernie.

...this is a thing? Admittedly, I do not frequent enough social media sites beyond YouTube, but most support I have seen for Joe Biden has been extremely apathetic compared to that of Bernie Sanders.
 
I voted moderately happy, but like some others here I'll take anyone who can beat Trump. In '16 I felt better about him, and I did believe he had a good chance to win against Trump, I also felt Hillary was not very likeable, but she got my vote because even back than, anyone but Trump.

I would be a bit happier with Biden or Klobuchar, because I think they just may get more votes from people who who are not so far left, who might be okay with Medicare for All, providing they could ease into it, and keep their private insurance if they choose to. With the right VP, a winning ticket could be there with either of them. I just want to get it right this time, another four years with the lunatic baby in the white house and the damage will be a lot worse than it is so far.

Excellent post. Agreed.
 
In otherwords, your certainties are based, fundamentally, on theoreticals from a biased vantage, namely that attack ads from Trump will be overwhelmingly effective against Bernie specifically, and yet they will somehow not be vs say Biden who has to win the Rust Belt despite a much less than stellar record on trade which Trump's campaign team has promised to hammer him on, legitimate questions about his cognitive ability, and some extremely creepy moments including but not limited to talking about kids touching his 'hairy legs'; this is not any basis for drawing 'objective' conclusions by any means. I don't like Biden at all, but I can at least concede that he has a good chance despite a litany of vulnerabilities and ammunition for Trump to exploit.

As to the polling, the overall trend at present is Bernie surging, and massively at that, and Biden treading water or at best increasing modestly, but not surging in the way Sanders currently is. There was indeed one poll by ABC News that shows Biden up nationally by 12 points, but this is an anomaly vs everything else within the past 2 weeks or so.

Yes, Biden has vulnerabilities, just not as bad as Bernie's, as per another post of mine, here (#55).

Bernie is "surging" because Warren is losing terrain, not because he is getting Biden fans to switch to him. The thing is, Bloomberg and Buttigieg still siphon out Biden's moderate voters, but they won't stay in the race forever, so the same phenomenon you're seeing with Bernie consolidating the progressive vote, you'll likely also see with Biden consolidating the moderate vote.

Regarding the Rust Belt, if the 2020 is exactly the same as the 2016 in terms of red and blue states, but Pennsylvania flips to blue, Trump is toast, and Pennsylvania, Biden's home state, is solidly with him. This alone indicates choosing Biden as a better strategy to beat Trump.
 
I would be unhappy with Bernie. I think he's too old and his health is too suspect, and also he's just too far out there.

We need someone to come in and tame the chaos that Trump has created, and that ain't Bernie. Bernie wants a revolution.

No, we want to get back to some sense of normalcy. We don't need a revolution. Trump will pounce all over Bernie and label him a socialist. That is scary to hear for a lot of people.

Who Trump will not be able to demolish is Amy Klobuchar. He's got nothing on her. She is bread and butter. Feet on the ground. No flash or dazzle, just substance...she works and gets the job done. No time for all that tweeting. I think she will be a very stabilizing force for a country that has been turned upside down by Trump.

No Bernie, please. He can go back to being an Independent.
 
I said, Biden vs. Trump. Don't you think that Biden is less bad than Trump?

I’ll concede that Biden is less bad than Trump. That’s basically what Biden is running on and nothing else.

How is Biden stronger than Bernie versus Trump: 30 polls

Have you seen the polls lately?

Two, Bernie scares moderates.

Bernie also gets out voters that who would otherwise stay home.

Three, Bernie scares seniors.

What scares seniors is advocating to cut Medicare and Social Security, something Biden has done.

He had the luxury of running in 2016 without being attacked, because Hillary didn't want to attack him too harshly and risk losing his supporters in the general election, and Trump was delighted to prop him up since he was hurting the more viable adversary.

The person who did Opo-research on Bernie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (Peter Daou) now works in favour of Bernie Sanders. He said there is nothing on Bernie — he knows, he was in charge of finding it.

- saying that women fantasize of being simultaneously raped by three men when they make love to their men (as per his essay on the alternative newspaper Vermont Freeman in February of 1972)
- saying that women possess the qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism (same source above).

This was brought up against Bernie in 2016 and it was nothing.

- having voted against a bill that wanted to ensure harsher sentencing guidelines for pedophiles

What bill is that? And what are you implying?

- indicating that women can't win a presidential race

BULL****.

- proposing that convicted felons serving their sentences

That’s right, they should. It’s a fundamental American right which is disproportionately denied people of colour. For every “Boston Marathon Bomber” there’s a thousand minor drug offences.

- advocating for free non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens

In other words, they already get free healthcare. And yes, Bernie isn’t a monster who would turn away “illegal aliens” who need healthcare. Would your candidate of choice turn them away?

- having supported Sandinists who marched singing "Death to the Yankees"

Reagan was funding MURDER and RAPE squads in Nicaragua. Bernie Sanders has nothing to apologize for. Seriously, this line of attack is ****ing disgusting. Bring it on and let the American people decide. I guarantee it’s not a liability for Bernie.

How One American Diplomat Solved the Case of the Murdered Churchwomen in El Salvador - The Atlantic

The American That Reagan Killed

- his wife having been accused of embezzlement.

Total bull****.

Mark my words, I *guarantee* that all of the above will be in attack ads sponsored by right-wing PACs,

Bring it on.

Expect the airwaves to be bombarded with ads highlighting all 11 liabilities above; social media will also have racist attacks against him based on his Jewish faith

Bernie and his supporters aren’t cowards, unlike certain candidates and their supporters.

Meanwhile Trump will be touting his economy, full employment

An economy where middle income earners are ~$500 away from going into debt and healthcare is unaffordable.

his being tough on Iran,

Wait, you support his actions with Iran?

When this is all said and done, Bernie's numbers will drop (a lot of women/mothers will be disgusted with the above, a lot of seniors will be scared, a lot of middle class people will fear tax hikes, etc) and Trump's numbers will rise.

All of this is already public knowledge and amounts to pocket lint.

Biden has liabilities too but not as serious

- Wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare
- Supporting the Iraq Invasion (vehemently)
- Pushing Reagan to the right on the war on drugs
- Working with pro-Segregationists on THEIR agenda
- His disgusting actions regarding Anita Hill
- Crime Bill
- Making Bush’s Tax Cuts permanent
- Nepotism
- Corporate funding (read: legalized bribes)
- Garbage policies

and he appeals more to minorities and women.

Incorrect, Bernie’s minority appeal is higher.

Biden will also use against Trump the fact that Trump is so scared of him that he engaged in impeachable offenses, trying to get Biden down.

Or Trump will drag Biden through the mud like he dragged Hillary.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Biden has vulnerabilities, just not as bad as Bernie's, as per another post of mine, here (#55).

Bernie is "surging" because Warren is losing terrain, not because he is getting Biden fans to switch to him. The thing is, Bloomberg and Buttigieg still siphon out Biden's moderate voters, but they won't stay in the race forever, so the same phenomenon you're seeing with Bernie consolidating the progressive vote, you'll likely also see with Biden consolidating the moderate vote.

Regarding the Rust Belt, if the 2020 is exactly the same as the 2016 in terms of red and blue states, but Pennsylvania flips to blue, Trump is toast, and Pennsylvania, Biden's home state, is solidly with him. This alone indicates choosing Biden as a better strategy to beat Trump.

The best strategy/candidate will reveal itself in the data drawing closer to general, not in presumptions nearly a year off; not having control of the Rust Belt means vulnerabilities to a loss elsewhere.

Further, even if we assume that what you're saying is true regarding Sanders' surge (which I very much doubt), that the entirety of Bernie's surge is attributable to Warren's falloff (which is about impossible as his increment exceeds her decline in terms of averaged polls), that should bode poorly for at least one of your listed modes of attack against Bernie (that he said a woman can't win); it implies that not only do people believe Sanders over Warren, but that the allegation backfired immensely, making it obviously a poor method of attack (nevermind Trump having obviously less than no basis to go after Sanders on sexism).

The rest of what you listed are either things taken wildly out of context and are thus easily diffused (the 'rape' article for example, which comprises many of your theorized attacks, refers to tensions in the modernization and change of gender roles, and is actually a progressive piece; I'd go so far as to say there is even backfire potential for any attacker using this), and/or are utterly ancient (the article in question was authored nearly half a century ago), or are a point that all other front runner Dems agreed with (healthcare for illegals). Moreover, virtually all of these attacks have already been leveled against Sanders during the 2016 primary and they didn't leave much of a mark.

This is in stark contrast to Biden, where most lines of attack not only are relatively contemporary and material (i.e. they are matters of policy), but they do not get better given the context either; in fact they are sometimes made worse for the additional detail.
 
Last edited:
I’ll concede etc

You make a few good points. I won't respond one by one like you did, because you made a very significant mistake in terms of understanding my post. NONE of the things I mentioned would be my doing or the doing of people I support. I said what RIGHT WING PACs will be saying against Bernie, and sure, some of it is bull****, and sure, some of it is out of context, but when did they ever play fair? Remember Kerry and the Swift Boat conspiracy? Those are not things I would be saying of Bernie in the general elections if he is nominated. Much the opposite, I'd be supporting him against Trump. Those are things that TRUMP SUPPORTERS will be saying.

Again, you assumed that I support Trump's economy, Trump's actions in Iran, etc.

I said what TRUMP will be touting, I didn't say I consider his claims to be valid or accurate (they aren't - but again, since when does truth stop our liar-in-chief?). I hate Trump and will do all I can to prevent his victory (I can't do much, I'm just a private citizen, but what I can do, I will do).

Regarding these things being known in 2016, sure, they were, but they weren't hammered every day, several times a day, in the airwaves and social media, because no campaign wanted to frontally attack Bernie. This time it will be different, if he wins the nomination.

Bernie is not a credible threat that deserves attack ads, until he gets nominated (if he does). That's when the attacks will start, and they will be brutal.

You say "bring it on" like I'd be the one doing the attacking. Again, I've made it clear multiple times: if Bernie is the nominee I'll support him and vote for him. But I don't think he will beat Trump. Biden might.
 
The best strategy/candidate will reveal itself in the data drawing closer to general, not in presumptions nearly a year off; not having control of the Rust Belt means vulnerabilities to a loss elsewhere.

Further, even if we assume that what you're saying is true regarding Sanders' surge (which I very much doubt), that the entirety of Bernie's surge is attributable to Warren's falloff (which is about impossible as his increment exceeds her decline in terms of averaged polls), that should bode poorly for at least one of your listed modes of attack against Bernie (that he said a woman can't win); it implies that not only do people believe Sanders over Warren, but that the allegation backfired immensely, making it obviously a poor method of attack (nevermind Trump having obviously less than no basis to go after Sanders on sexism).

The rest of what you listed are either things taken wildly out of context and are thus easily diffused (the 'rape' article for example, which comprises many of your theorized attacks, refers to tensions in the modernization and change of gender roles, and is actually a progressive piece; I'd go so far as to say there is even backfire potential for any attacker using this), and/or are utterly ancient (the article in question was authored nearly half a century ago), or are a point that all other front runner Dems agreed with (healthcare for illegals). Moreover, virtually all of these attacks have already been leveled against Sanders during the 2016 primary and they didn't leave much of a mark.

This is in stark contrast to Biden, where most lines of attack not only are relatively contemporary and material (i.e. they are matters of policy), but they do not get better given the context either; in fact they are sometimes made worse for the additional detail.

They didn't leave much of a mark in 2016 because attacks on Bernie were timid and few, in 2016, because of the obvious fact that neither Hillary nor Trump wanted to frontally attack him. This will change if he is the 2020 nominee.

Sure, it's out of context. Sure, some of it is bull. But do you think that this will stop the right wing PACs? They don't play fair.

Sanders' surge: I'm still to be convinced. Two recent national polls showed the opposite, with Biden actually jumping ahead faster than Bernie (4% vs. 2% of surge), and in one of them, +7% for Biden, and the other one +11% for Biden.

If you add Bloomberg's + Buttigieg's percentages, they are higher together than the remaining Warren percentages, so, future consolidations will tend to favor the moderate who stays standing, more than the progressive who stays standing.
 
I would be unhappy with Bernie. I think he's too old and his health is too suspect, and also he's just too far out there.

We need someone to come in and tame the chaos that Trump has created, and that ain't Bernie. Bernie wants a revolution.

No, we want to get back to some sense of normalcy. We don't need a revolution. Trump will pounce all over Bernie and label him a socialist. That is scary to hear for a lot of people.

Who Trump will not be able to demolish is Amy Klobuchar. He's got nothing on her. She is bread and butter. Feet on the ground. No flash or dazzle, just substance...she works and gets the job done. No time for all that tweeting. I think she will be a very stabilizing force for a country that has been turned upside down by Trump.

No Bernie, please. He can go back to being an Independent.

Perfect, except that Amy Klobuchar doesn't stand a chance. If she could surge and surpass the frontrunners, sure, I'd strongly consider voting for her. But she won't, so, it's a wasted vote.
 
Try hard to understand how your defensiveness is making Middleground's point for her. Try very hard.

Really? This is what she meant when she said Bernie supporters are rabid and scary? They ask you to explain yourself on internet forums?
 
They didn't leave much of a mark in 2016 because attacks on Bernie were timid and few, in 2016, because of the obvious fact that neither Hillary nor Trump wanted to frontally attack him. This will change if he is the 2020 nominee.

Sure, it's out of context. Sure, some of it is bull. But do you think that this will stop the right wing PACs? They don't play fair.

The thing is, if you come at Sanders with something that is easily debunked or is obviously disingenuous and unfair, it can very well backfire as he has clearly demonstrated.

Sanders' surge: I'm still to be convinced. Two recent national polls showed the opposite, with Biden actually jumping ahead faster than Bernie (4% vs. 2% of surge), and in one of them, +7% for Biden, and the other one +11% for Biden.

If you add Bloomberg's + Buttigieg's percentages, they are higher together than the remaining Warren percentages, so, future consolidations will tend to favor the moderate who stays standing, more than the progressive who stays standing.

President: Democratic primary Polls | FiveThirtyEight

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

There is no way you can look at these numbers and reasonably come away thinking that Biden is trending better than Bernie is lately.

While I agree there is a possible threat in the consolidation of the moderate vote, I also find that this primary will be won more off the back of the electability question than anything else; if Sanders can make his case on this, he will almost certainly take the nomination. Having said that, should he win both Iowa and NH, it becomes difficult to imagine an outcome where he does not win aside from robbery via a brokered convention which would be a recipe for disaster in the general.
 
Having said that, should he win both Iowa and NH, it becomes difficult to imagine an outcome where he does not win aside from robbery via a brokered convention which would be a recipe for disaster in the general.

What??? Do you think that if he wins two small states just because they are early and overwhelming white (not to forget, NH is almost home court for him), there is no scenario for him to lose??? If he wins these two states but then Biden wins a bunch of the next ones including the majority of Super Tuesday ones, why would you think that Bernie's ultimate victory would be inevitable?
 
What??? Do you think that if he wins two small states just because they are early and overwhelming white (not to forget, NH is almost home court for him), there is no scenario for him to lose??? If he wins these two states but then Biden wins a bunch of the next ones including the majority of Super Tuesday ones, why would you think that Bernie's ultimate victory would be inevitable?

I didn't say inevitable; I think if he wins both of these states, beyond their historic statistical relevance, it will result in a great deal of momentum and shore up the notion of electability and give him exploitable status as a front runner, creating a compounding cascade/run on effect. Sure, if Biden manages to win all of the next ones, it will probably counterbalance things, but that's a big if, particularly with these factors in play.

Bottom line is Bernie as nominee becomes exceedingly likely if he wins both NH and Iowa.
 
I suspect a lot of Sander's 2016 Democratic primary votes were anti-Hilary votes more than pro-Sanders. If not, he would be flying high in the polls now.
He hasn't been flying high, but he's been a fairly solid second or third for most of the race.
 
Those are things that TRUMP SUPPORTERS will be saying.

Who cares what Trump says? Trump will say anything.

Again, you assumed that I support Trump's economy, Trump's actions in Iran, etc.

Well, you kinda touted those as strengths.

Regarding these things being known in 2016, sure, they were, but they weren't hammered every day, several times a day, in the airwaves and social media, because no campaign wanted to frontally attack Bernie. This time it will be different, if he wins the nomination.

In other words, Bernie will be no different than any other candidate, he’ll just have less ammo to use against him.

Bernie is not a credible threat that deserves attack ads, until he gets nominated (if he does).

I think you greatly underestimate the threat Bernie poses NOW to both Democrats and Republicans. If they could take him down now, they would.
 
I didn't say inevitable; I think if he wins both of these states, beyond their historic statistical relevance, it will result in a great deal of momentum and shore up the notion of electability and give him exploitable status as a front runner, creating a compounding cascade/run on effect. Sure, if Biden manages to win all of the next ones, it will probably counterbalance things, but that's a big if, particularly with these factors in play.

Bottom line is Bernie as nominee becomes exceedingly likely if he wins both NH and Iowa.

The only reason most people even care about those states is how early their elections are. That is why New Hampshire decided to be the first state to hold a primary election and moved it up to early February.

It is interesting that people ignore Florida when they make presidential nominee predictions. Everyone talks about Super Tuesday and I'm sitting here thinking, "What about the week before?"
 
Back
Top Bottom