Has Bernie Sanders basically won the nomination?

Blue Donkey said:

Sanders never called himself a socialist because he never was one. I already explained that.

Click to expand...

He has and he is. Care to explain why you're avoiding the question I asked earlier if you're so informed about what socialism is? Tell us how "democratic socialism" doesn't fall under the "socialism" banner.

FieldTheorist said:

I really haven't been following this election cycle. However since yesterday's election, I have begun to read every single bit of state polling, demographic favorability polling + the exit polling of the three states for far, and little bit the punditry. I've thought through the scenarios of how each candidate could drop out and who that would hurt and help, especially relative to what's left on the map.


I cannot come up with any reasonable scenario where any other candidate has a plausible shot at the nomination. To summarize:

1.) By the end of March, >60% of delegates will be set in stone, and it looks like Bernie is leading half of the states with high single or even double digits (including Texas and California) and basically is a very close #2 in every state where he's not #1. The remaining candidates all have failed to seriously break into wider demographics. Everyone else, except maybe Biden, will come in 3, 4, or 5 more often than not. If everyone stays, this basically decreases the likelihood of any shake up.

2.) Now then, what if people drop? Well, actually, there's a good reason Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Biden have all stayed. Most of these candidates #2 choice is Bernie, meaning that if anyone of them drop the person who'll be helped the most is likely Sanders. Given Sanders is second choice for most of them + the perception that he's the winning candidate right now, no establishment candidate can safely drop before Super Tuesday without possibly seriously helping Sanders on Super Tuesday. They just ran out the clock on their option to do this; it's simply too late to do this effectively now.

3.) And if people drop (and they will) after Super Tuesday, it basically means whoever is left will likely be fighting against Bernie --who will have a ~3 point lead in delegates, a cash surplus, he will probably have the momentum, and has the most energized base. Oh and also all current polling shows that in all 1-vs-1 situations, Bernie beats his primary contenders.


Yes, shake-ups happen, but it's looking less and less possible as the election continues.

Click to expand...

If Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and either Biden or Warren all dropped out and all threw their support behind Biden or Warren, then Biden or Warren MIGHT beat Sanders.

Key to that strat wold be Bloomberg.

But Bloomberg wins financially if he prevents Sanders/Warren from getting elected president OR ensures Trump becomes president.

So I do not know what he will do.

cpwill said:

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt, folks.

Gonna be interesting to see how many folks deal with the cognitive dissonance by insisting he's not a "real" socialist, and how many switch to simply defending Socialism.

Click to expand...

I actually did some research on it. You have not, obviously for the sole purpose of hating on Bernie Sanders. I researched that too: seeing only conservatives want to deny Democratic socialism and socialism are two different political parties.

mike2810 said:

I changed from independent to Democrat so I can vote in the Democrat primary. I will change back after the election to independent. In my State it can be done on line in less than 5 minutes. Basically as an independent I want to have my say in who I think has the best chance at beating Trump. imo, it is not Sanders.

Click to expand...

Republicans and Conservative Independents have also done this in the GOP’s Operation Chaos.

With South Carolina as an OPEN primary, and republicons having cancelled their SC primary, who do you think non-Democrats will vote for?

Have you noticed a pattern between which states the GOP has cancelled primaries and caucuses in and which states Democrats have an open or modified voting system?

Blue Donkey said:

Prgressives want all the same things liberals do and therefore are liberals.

Why do you think this is not true without having done any research on the subject?

Click to expand...

I've stated the difference. What do you say is the difference between a liberal and a progressive?

joko104 said:

I've stated the difference. What do you say is the difference between a liberal and a progressive?

Click to expand...

Progressives are on the left side of the spectrum and therefore can't be the "antithesis" of liberals. So you were wrong.

Blue Donkey said:

Progressives are on the left side of the spectrum and therefore can't be the "antithesis" of liberals. So you were wrong.

Click to expand...

You mean the socialist side or the communist side? :lol:

joko104 said:

You mean the socialist side or the communist side?

Click to expand...

Uh, what? Progressives and liberals are not even close to either of those.

"Democratic socialism" is an authoritarian government that controls everything, everyone one, every dollar, supposedly for what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people - and that government is elected.

Blue Donkey said:

Uh, what? Progressives and liberals are not even close to either of those.

Click to expand...

Sanders is. He's a socialist. He joined the Socialist party. He has said he is a socialist for over 50 years - every year. He did not say he is a liberal who supports some socialist programs. He outright condemned liberalism. His own words. "Liberalism" is "futile."

joko104 said:

Sanders is. He's a socialist. He joined the Socialist party. He has said he is a socialist for over 50 years - every year. He did not say he is a liberal who supports some socialist programs. He outright condemned liberalism. His own words. "Liberalism" is "futile."

Click to expand...

He never joined the Socialst Party. He was a member of the Liberty Union Party and is an independent in the Senate. He identifies himself as a Democratic socialist. He is running for president as a Democrat.

Blue Donkey said:

He never joined the Socialst Party. He was a member of the Liberty Union Party and is an independent in the Senate. He identifies himself as a Democratic socialist. He is running for president as a Democrat.

Click to expand...

BD, democratic socialists are under the umbrella of socialism, hence, the term democratic socialism. It's not about a political party, but about a political philosophy of how a government's economy should work. You really don't know what you're talking about, but for some reason you are very confident in your inaccuracies.

Blue Donkey said:

I actually did some research on it. You have not, obviously for the sole purpose of hating on Bernie Sanders. I researched that too: seeing only conservatives want to deny Democratic socialism and socialism are two different political parties.

Click to expand...

No they are not. Socialism is socialism. There are various forms of it in terms of government, but socialism is socialism.

Linc said:

SDS came back into being in 2006.

Click to expand...

"Came back into being"...so if I call up Jeff Dowd or Tom Hayden, I'll get a ringing endorsement from at least one of them?

By your logic, the "Black Panthers" also "came back into being"...except that in that case, the few remaining originals not only disowned them immediately, they even tried to sue to prevent use of the name, losing the case because they had never copyrighted or trademarked it in the first place.

Despite its name, the NBPP is not an official successor to the Black Panther Party.
Members of the original Black Panther Party have insisted that the newer party is not legitimate and "there is no new Black Panther Party".

Click to expand...

I imagine you had a point somewhere in all of this, smells like you're making a feeble attempt at painting Sanders as some bomb-throwing armband wearing commie radical. I'm sure you will eventually make your point, but so far I see a bunch of rhetorical bluster and knee-jerk reactionary posturing.

Is Joe Pyne in the room where you're at? How about Wally George?

Blue Donkey said:

Nap, You Tube has no connections with any Bernie Sanders websites. Anyone wtih a video or slideshow can post inaccurate information about him on it.

Click to expand...

Lol, You said that he has never called himself a socialist and I presented video evidence of the contrary. Are you referring to someone else with the last name Sanders when you made that comment?

Nap said:

LOL You said that he has never called himself a socialist and I presented video evidence of the contrary. Are you referring to someone else with the last name Sanders when you made that comment?

Click to expand...

LOL You might want to look at more than just one video to base your argument on. I am thinking about Bernie, not another guy named Sanders. My information comes from Wikipedia, his campaign website, and a variety of news articles about him.

Nap said:

Lol, You said that he has never called himself a socialist and I presented video evidence of the contrary. Are you referring to someone else with the last name Sanders when you made that comment?

Click to expand...

I think she truly just doesn't get it. She's one of the most wide-eyed, naive people I've ever encountered here.

joko104 said:

Well yes, if he is a political terrorist confirming he never was, isn't and never will be a Democrat.

What if Bloomberg said he will spend over a billion dollars and put his entire political staff of thousands into defeating Sanders "the communist" in November if they ordain Sanders who didn't even get a majority of delegates? Bloomberg calling Sanders "a communist" well could have meant that. As much as Bloomberg despises Trump, Trump ain't no communist.

Click to expand...

Given what he went through in 2016 and despite his campaigning for Hillary against Trump, both she and the DNC continue to treat him as an outsider. I honestly couldn't blame the guy if he gave them the finger should they attempt to screw him over.

As far as the Bloomberg question, we don't have to wonder what if as that is precisely what Bloomberg is going to do. I don't really see your point on that.

Blue Donkey said:

LOL You might want to look at more than just one video to base your argument on. I am thinking about Bernie, not another guy named Sanders. My information comes from Wikipedia, his campaign website, and a variety of news articles published this year.

Click to expand...

I literally posted a video of Bernie himself stating that he is a socialist.......

I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders > Wikipedia on what his political ideology is.

Josie said:

I think she truly just doesn't get it. She's one of the most wide-eyed, naive people I've ever encountered here.

Click to expand...

Lol, I'm completely at a loss. I never would have imagined showing actual video footage of someone saying something would not be enough to prove he actually said it because it wasn't on his Wiki page or a WaPo article.

Josie said:

I think she truly just doesn't get it. She's one of the most wide-eyed, naive people I've ever encountered here.

Click to expand...

:lamo It is a video of Bernie Sanders speaking himself. Maybe she's a Biden supporter when he said that Democrats "will no longer accept facts."

Nap said:

Given what he went through in 2016 and despite his campaigning for Hillary against Trump, both she and the DNC continue to treat him as an outsider. I honestly couldn't blame the guy if he gave them the finger should they attempt to screw him over.

As far as the Bloomberg question, we don't have to wonder what if as that is precisely what Bloomberg is going to do. I don't really see your point on that.

Click to expand...

Because the topic is NOT just "what happens if Sanders has the most delegates, but not a majority" - claiming he is not made the nominee he will retaliate and therefore he must be selected.

There also is the flip side of what if Sanders is selected - even though a majority of Democratic voters and delegates oppose Sanders? What will Bloomberg and the entire wealth and power of capitalism itself - including literally OWNING every media outlet, press outlet, and the Internet - throwing tens of billions and every trick they got at defeating Sanders "the communist." Is that a threat if the Democrat convention refuses to follow democracy - majority rule - by being extorted by a non-Democrat making political terrorism threats - "give me what I want or I will destroy the Democratic Party!"

Why wouldn't he? He's never been a Democrat. He despises liberalism - outright said so. He's a socialist revolutionary - also his own words. How many times in the season has he used the word "revolution" and "revolutionary?" How many HUNDREDS of times?

Will Bernie win the Democrat presidential nomination?

In short, either Bernie wins the nomination, or the Democrats are sure to lose the general as they did in 2016 when Hillary alienated so many which chose to stay home. Yes, the 2016 election was a referendum on Hillary, not Trump, in which case, the Democrats lose.

Or they run Bernie as the nominee and the sane electorate reject his far, far, hard purity driven left public policy proposals, and the Democrats lose.

As the Durham investigation continues to drip, drip, drip out some really, really bad stuff about the previous administration (see SpyGate and related prosecutorial abuses), this is only sure to happen.

So the DNC establishment is faced with a real problem.

The Democrat establishment have finally come to the realization that their decision to allow the 'new fresh faces' to drag the party too far to the left wasn't the wisest political decision. Politics is won with the most votes, and that's in the middle, the same middle voters, which the Democrat party, now in their far, far, hard purity driven left have forsaken.

Bernie is taking advantage of the enthusiasm of the far, hard, uncompromising, purity Socialist driven left, as they've now taken over control of the Democrat party.

So either the Democrat establishment again deny Bernie the nomination at the convention, likely to lose the general because of it, or they go with Bernie as the nominee, and lose the general because of his extremist Marxist leftism.

It's a no win for the Democrats in the general this time around, especially so with a good economy. Now the general is Trump's to lose with a stupid Tweet or an economy down turn with the possible impact of the Corovirus.

But right now, it really doesn't matter if Bernie wins the nomination or not, the Democrats are screwed in the general, anyway to look at it.

One thing that's not talked about much in the media is Bernie's far, far, hard purity driven left's effect on the down ballot elections, and in this, it is looking really bad for the Democrats, candidates there are running away from Bernie and his policy proposals as fast as they can.

All taken together, it looks like Trump's second term is going to have a majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and a large number of State legislature gains as well.
:shrug:
Then we all, as in all (or at least most) of the electorate, get to bitch about how badly Republican politicians are doing. :shrug:

The political pendulum swings back and forth, back and forth. Cheer up though, taking the average it's the middle. :mrgreen:

Bernie Sanders absolutely could win it all this November - CNN

But comparisons to McGovern's electoral fate fall flat. In head-to-head matchups in 1972, Nixon never polled less than 53% while McGovern never got over 38% -- trailing Nixon at times by over 30 points. In contrast, last week's Washington Post/ABC poll shows Sanders topping Trump 51% to 45%. Obviously, this poll doesn't mean the election will turn out that way, but it does make it clear Sanders currently attracts more support than McGovern ever did and that Nixon was far more popular in 1972 than Trump is today.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

Follow my monthly forecasts, that will let you know who leads in the states. But I'm using the generic Democratic candidate, not a specific candidate. That can and does make a difference. I'm sticking with generic for my 1 March update. Although I thought about using Sanders, but decided against it.

Warren is going nowhere. After she attacked Bloomberg and left front runner Sanders alone, Sanders has taken the lead in Massachusetts. Seems the folks in Mass realized Warren didn't want Bloomberg as the democratic nominee, she wanted Sanders. If she was still interested in gaining the nomination, she would have went after number one instead of number two.

https://www.uml.edu/docs/2020-Mass-topline_tcm18-322473.pdf

I agree, a lot of these general election polls this far out are meaningless to a point. The candidates aren't attacking each other. Those attacks can sway independents. But even this far out, one gets a sense of how many Democrats and how many Republicans are in each state by watching trends, the ups and down. So they are useful, but all they do is let you know where the election stands today, not in November. but I love them.

Click to expand...

Great link on MA. I like the state polling on RCP. They’re doing 14 states right now. I’ve added six more states of my own. Most of these six had the winner in 2016 under 50%. Most have a big Senate race also.

If you tap on the NAME of the poll on the left hand side of the page for each state poll, you get all the specifics of the poll. I’ll continue to watch the crossover GOP vote and INDY vote. TX is closed and CA is modified on ST.