Biden vs. Sanders - Biden way ahead in Pennsylvania

[GreatNews2night]

Even if we were to assume polling on individuals more than a year and a half out meant anything (which they generally tend not to, especially in light of the current political climate/recent precedent), the specific 39/15 break you mentioned derives from a completely bogus one, besides only being a singular polls rather than an aggregate. Effectively the only people included in that poll were 45+ years old; you can see this clearly on page 35 here: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/29/rel6a.-.2020.democrats.pdf

Obviously this is going to have a dramatic skewing effect given Bernie's dominance among the young, and Biden's among the old.

Meanwhile another one with a better, more diverse sampling per Emerson has the spread at a mere 8%:

Emerson Polling - May National Poll: Biden Back In the Lead for the Democratic Nomination


If after a year and debates have happened, with Biden's rather disturbingly conservative history and votation having been challenged and exposed, he still has a dramatic lead, then I would begin to concede the point.

Well, meanwhile, Sanders is shrinking. In four polls, he lost 4%, 2%, 2%, and 8% of his previous numbers. See the link in one of my posts above.

On average between the four national polls, Biden has gained 8 percentage points. Where did he take that support from? It came from all over the place. Sanders is down 4 points, on average, as is Beto O’Rourke. Kamala Harris is down 2 points; Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar are each down 1 point.

Even more concerning for Sanders, is that in New Hampshire he started polling 40%, then he dropped to 16%, and then to 12%, with Biden passing him (20%).

Like I said, people are not "feeling the Bern" any longer. Bernie the loser is shrinking, LOL

I guarantee that when it's all said and done, Bernie will have fewer delegates and fewer votes than he had in 2016 when he ran against highly rejected Hillary Clinton. Mark my words.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't like Bernie for president, though his heart is in the right place:

First, a lot of the luster of "feel the bern" is lost. His numbers have shrunk.

What I don't like about Bernie is that every time he appears on a townhall, interview, etc., he doesn't really banter, doesn't wing conversation well, he always falls onto a narrow bullet points he carries around with him. He does stick to the script, I will say that.

Also, when asked about what 'socialism' means, he NEVER defines it. He never dispells the right wing notion that Bernie wants USSR communism, Cuba styled, Venezuela, etc. He never explains what DS actually means, he just starts talking about policies, which are socialistic, only confirming right wing fears. ( I am for those pollicies, however, I would go out of my way to dispell the idea that they are socialism, and try and define socialism what it originally meant. In fact, today's "democratic socialists" aren't really socialists, they are progressives, or rather "social democrats". Bernie has done a fine job of mucking it all up withi the socialist label, making it harder for dems to present their case. )

Additionally, I think the socialist moniker was a strategic blunder of epic proportions, giving the right a hammer that they will beat upon his balding head and dems in general, for frickin' ever. Let's get it straight about what socialism is, it's state ownership of all the means of production and distribution, plus some other egalitarian ideals. Dems are for egalitariansim, but state ownership of everything? No dem I know is for that.

This gives the right the ammunition to claim that dems want "Venezuela", "Cuba", "USSR", etc. ANd it's a lie.

And they know that it is a lie, but all is fair in the blood sport called politics.

Kamala Harris rejects the label, as does Biden. They are both correct for doing it.

Another thing I don't like about Bernie is his failure to be a democrat. He spends his life being "independent" (which he isn't , he caucuses with dems 95% of the time ) and when it's convenient to be a democrat, take advantage of their caucus machinery which does not exist for independents, now that he is running for president and needs DNC machinery, he is a democrat.

I"m sorry Bernie, but that doesn't cut it.

Though I would agree that the policy he describes is not socialism, democratic or otherwise, I'm certain such branding was and is a deliberate and prescient attempt to get and front of and rob the power of predictable Republican attacks, knowing full and well that they would call him a communist, a socialist and the like. To this end he's largely succeeded; the word socialism has been greatly detoxified since 2016, and has since lost a great deal of its former weight and power, becoming greatly blunted as a pejorative.

Further, I would disagree with the notion that he never defined socialism; he absolutely defined it, his 'brand' of socialism in terms of policy; again, this is a deliberate blunting of an inevitable GOP pejorative, associating it with policies and ideas that poll extremely well with the American populace so it lacks the punch it would otherwise have.

Lastly, I would completely disagree that he doesn't converse or banter well; to date he has generally rocked his appearances, and there is perhaps no greater proof of that than the strong and consistent applause during his Fox Town Hall which certainly did ask tough questions of him or made outright veiled attacks; likewise with his appearance on CNN. He has to date never failed to rise to the challenge of a hard ball audience member. Moreover, he has thus far to experience any truly embarrassing, devastating moments like when Pete couldn't really answer Anderson Cooper when confronted about his notable lack of policy: Mayor Pete Buttigieg pressed on why he doesn't have policy proposals - CNN Video

 

[Amelia]

I also think it's highly likely that Sanders would beat Trump.

But I'm not as sure of it as I am that Biden would.

 

[Surrealistik]

Well, meanwhile, Sanders is shrinking. In four polls, he lost 4%, 2%, 2%, and 8% of his previous numbers. See the link in one of my posts above.

Even more concerning for Sanders, is that in New Hampshire he started polling 40%, then he dropped to 16%, and then to 12%, with Biden passing him (20%).

Like I said, people are not "feeling the Bern" any longer.

I guarantee that when it's all said and done, Bernie will have fewer delegates and fewer votes than he had in 2016 when he ran against highly rejected Hillary Clinton. Mark my words.

Again, I don't think the numbers out thus far for individuals are particularly meaningful; Trump at this point in time was considered a joke candidate without a shot in the world.

Moreover, per policy polling, people are certainly feeling the Bern now more than ever at least in terms of his substantive policy pillars.

If anything is hurting Bernie's apparent popularity, or fomenting that perspective, it is dilution of his vote among many progressive or progressive identifying candidates. As the field consolidates, and Biden's sins become apparent, I would be surprised if he ends up being in a worse position a year out. The exception would be if he decides to consolidate his progressive support behind someone like Warren.

 

[GreatNews2night]

In one of the national polls, the Quinnipiac, Sanders lost 8% from their previous one and is not even the second placed candidate any longer, with 11%, while Warren took over second place, having scored 12%. Biden leads with 38%.

 

[Grandpappy]

Buttigieg knows he has to appeal to the loony leftists to win the nomination, and the American public to win the election. Crafty. Tell you what. Please don't nominate that SOB. I want Trump for a second term.

 

[Amelia]

I do not feel good about Warren's chance of beating Trump.

In addition to other things I mentioned above, she takes Trump's bait in an unfortunate way. Also, I think sexist stereotypes would work against her -- in her voice and her age though she's younger than Trump.

She had her chance in 2016 and didn't take it. I think she missed her moment.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Again, I don't think the numbers out thus far for individuals are particularly meaningful; Trump at this point in time was considered a joke candidate without a shot in the world.

Moreover, per policy polling, people are certainly feeling the Bern now more than ever at least in terms of his substantive policy pillars.

If anything is hurting Bernie's apparent popularity, or fomenting that perspective, it is dilution of his vote among many progressive or progressive identifying candidates. As the field consolidates, and Biden's sins become apparent, I would be surprised if he ends up being in a worse position a year out. The exception would be if he decides to consolidate his progressive support behind someone like Warren.

In the case of Biden and Sanders, I believe that the numbers are more important than usual, even 18 months ahead, precisely because they are both very well-known politicians, by now. It's not like people are very tentative because they don't know the candidates.

Look, Bernie went from 1% to 30% last time and that was impressive, sure. But now he is going the other way around... he is shrinking. If that doesn't tell you anything, I don't know what else to tell you.

And yes, what you see as not so concerning, the dilution between progressives, is actually very concerning for Bernie. When the primary races start, it means that Sanders will be winning fewer primaries... the progressive vote will be split between him, Warren, and Harris. Meanwhile Biden will be gobbling up the majority of the moderate votes. He'll be collecting undivided votes while his opponents will be cannibalizing each other. By the time people start dropping out, it might be too late, with Biden sporting a commanding delegate lead.

18 months ahead we are ALREADY seeing Bernie losing support to other progressives like Warren...

So he is going in the wrong direction, as opposed to 2016.

Feeling the Bern regarding policies...

Sorry, buddy. Unfortunately the American people don't vote for policies... they vote for charisma. Do you think that Trump won 2016 based on policy? Hillary was way more prepared than him, policy-wise. Trump couldn't put 2 and 2 together during the debates, regarding policy.

Yes, Bernie spouts out policy in monotonous and unappealing delivery... while Biden is charming (unlike Hillary).

You'll see what will happen.

 

[Surrealistik]

I do not feel good about Warren's chance of beating Trump.

In addition to other things I mentioned above, she takes Trump's bait in an unfortunate way. Also, I think sexist stereotypes would work against her -- in her voice and her age though she's younger than Trump.

She had her chance in 2016 and didn't take it. I think she missed her moment.

I agree with this.

Having said that, I think Biden is in real trouble if he doubles down on Hillary's lazy approach of Orange Man Bad which seems to be his current trajectory, rather than advancing any substantive solutions of his own, so I'm not sure I'd consider him much better off.

Overall though, who wins the nomination is still a crap shoot at this point; the polling is fairly meaningless this far out.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I do not feel good about Warren's chance of beating Trump.

In addition to other things I mentioned above, she takes Trump's bait in an unfortunate way. Also, I think sexist stereotypes would work against her -- in her voice and her age though she's younger than Trump.

She had her chance in 2016 and didn't take it. I think she missed her moment.

Exactly. She is the weakest candidate in terms of facing Trump. I think the Pocahontas issue is a mortal wound for her, and she will never recover. Trump is likely rooting for her to be the nominee, because he knows that he will mop the floor with her.

And even her, is growing while Sanders is shrinking, and in one of the polls she has already passed Sanders.

And did you see the national rejection indexes? 51% of Americans said they won't vote for a socialist (by far, the most undesirable characteristic they picked). Disadvantage Sanders. Disadvantage Warren. Advantage Biden. And sure, it's unfair, this "socialist" label, but fairness has never stopped Trump and his rabid dogs in his PACs, for the attack ads.

If either Sanders or Warren wins the nomination, the right wing will label them socialists, to death. They can't do the same to Biden.

Do you want to defeat Trump? Pick Biden in the primaries.

 

[Surrealistik]

In the case of Biden and Sanders, I believe that the numbers are more important than usual, even 18 months ahead, precisely because they are both very well-known politicians, by now. It's not like people are very tentative because they don't know the candidates.

Look, Bernie went from 1% to 30% last time and that was impressive, sure. But now he is going the other way around... he is shrinking. If that doesn't tell you anything, I don't know what else to tell you.

And yes, what you see as not so concerning, the dilution between progressives, is actually very concerning for Bernie. When the primary races start, it means that Sanders will be winning fewer primaries... the progressive vote will be split between him, Warren, and Harris. Meanwhile Biden will be gobbling up the majority of the moderate votes. He'll be collecting undivided votes while his opponents will be cannibalizing each other. By the time people start dropping out, it might be too late, with Biden sporting a commanding delegate lead.

18 months ahead we are ALREADY seeing Bernie losing support to other progressives like Warren...

So he is going in the wrong direction, as opposed to 2016.

Feeling the Bern regarding policies...

Sorry, buddy. Unfortunately the American people don't vote for policies... they vote for charisma. Do you think that Trump won 2016 based on policy? Hillary was way more prepared than him, policy-wise. Trump couldn't put 2 and 2 together during the debates, regarding policy.

Yes, Bernie spouts out policy in monotonous and unappealing delivery... while Biden is charming (unlike Hillary).

You'll see what will happen.

Um, I actually said dilution _was_ a point of concern and almost certainly his biggest Achilles. The timeline of progressive consolidation and impact of Biden's dirty laundry are the two big questions that will decide things going forward IMO.

Also Biden isn't charming; I think he certainly has a modicum of charisma, but nothing particularly outstanding; something that's true of Bernie as well, but no one can say with any kind of objectivity that Bernie has none, and is 'monotonous and unappealing' or uninspiring in light of what he has done for progressive policy and the FDR wing of the party singlehandedly.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Buttigieg knows he has to appeal to the loony leftists to win the nomination, and the American public to win the election. Crafty. Tell you what. Please don't nominate that SOB. I want Trump for a second term.

Don't worry. Like you said, America is not yet prepared for a gay POTUS. He won't win. That's unfortunate, and I don't share it, but that's the way it is.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Um, I actually said dilution _was_ a point of concern and almost certainly his biggest Achilles. The timeline of progressive consolidation and impact of Biden's dirty laundry are the two big questions that will decide things going forward IMO.

Also Biden isn't charming; I think he certainly has a modicum of charisma, but nothing particularly outstanding; something that's true of Bernie as well, but no one can say with any kind of objectivity that Bernie has none, and is 'monotonous and unappealing' or uninspiring in light of what he has done for progressive policy and the FDR wing of the party singlehandedly.

Sorry, I misread you.

I think the consolidation of the progressive vote will come too late for Bernie. By then, Biden will have secured the nomination. Sanders was unopposed for the progressive vote in 2016, and the situation is far different, for 2020.

I personally find Biden waaaaaaay more charming and charismatic than Sanders, whom I consider to be a bore. Biden has the capacity to be funny. Sanders entirely lacks that capacity.

What Bernie has done singlehandedly for the progressive ideals of America, is that he contributed to the victory of Donald Trump, who then picked conservative justices and judges for essential courts, which essentially killed FOR A GENERATION any chance the progressive ideals will have of any success. That's what Sanders did. A disaster.

And many people do blame him for it, thus his shrinking popularity, according to all polls.

Remember Nader in Florida in 2000? Bush beat Gore (with the helping hand of the SCOTUS) by 537 votes. Nader had 97,421 votes in Florida. If not for spoiler Nader, we wouldn't have had the Iraq war. People don't remember Nader fondly, for that.

I feel the same way about Sanders in 2016, and many Americans feel it, too.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Having said that, I think Biden is in real trouble if he doubles down on Hillary's lazy approach of Orange Man Bad which seems to be his current trajectory, rather than advancing any substantive solutions of his own, so I'm not sure I'd consider him much better off.

Well, Biden went after Trump with ten stones, when he launched his candidacy, and I think it was a good idea (as shown by how fast he jumped to the front of the Democratic pack); it's part of why I say that Trump won't have much success ridiculing Biden, who has the capacity to fight back, hard. But that's just a campaign launch. I'm sure he will develop a viable platform, in due time.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Overall though, who wins the nomination is still a crap shoot at this point; the polling is fairly meaningless this far out.

Hm... that's not what Nate Silver from 538 is saying: "Bad early polls spell trouble for well-known candidates."

Does Biden’s Polling Bounce Mean Anything? | FiveThirtyEight

The problem for Sanders is that he already got the name recognition... tones of it... but is shrinking, anyway.

In Nate Silver's analysis of polls taken six months before the primaries start, from 1972 through 2016, candidates with good name recognition (Sanders' case - said by Silver to have *universal* name recognition) who were polling in the 15% range, had just a 10% chance of winning the nomination. Candidates without name recognition had a much higher chance, if they were polling at the same level.

So, no, for people with high name recognition, poor early polling actually bodes very poorly.

Like I've mentioned before, Bernie supporters are in denial... they think he *should* be the people's preference given his sound policies... but the fact is that polls show that he is NOT the people's preference, and he is shrinking rather than growing.

Nope. Sanders won't win.

 

[Surrealistik]

Sorry, I misread you.

I think the consolidation of the progressive vote will come too late for Bernie. By then, Biden will have secured the nomination. Sanders was unopposed for the progressive vote in 2016, and the situation is far different, for 2020.

I personally find Biden waaaaaaay more charming and charismatic than Sanders, whom I consider to be a bore. Biden has the capacity to be funny. Sanders entirely lacks that capacity.

What Bernie has done singlehandedly for the progressive ideals of America, is that he contributed to the victory of Donald Trump, who then picked conservative justices and judges for essential courts, which essentially killed FOR A GENERATION any chance the progressive ideals will have of any success. That's what Sanders did. A disaster.

And many people do blame him for it, thus his shrinking popularity, according to all polls.

Remember Nader in Florida in 2000? Bush beat Gore (with the helping hand of the SCOTUS) by 537 votes. Nader had 97,421 votes in Florida. If not for spoiler Nader, we wouldn't have had the Iraq war. People don't remember Nader fondly, for that.

Seeing as a generation is generally considered to be about 20 years, that's an exaggeration to the point of fallacy, even if you attribute him with blame, which I do not.

What Sanders has objectively and concretely done, indeed singlehandedly, is revitalize the FDR wing of the Dem party against all odds that has been dead pretty much since the 80s, despite every conceivable obstacle the New Dems/Neolibs could put in his way, and shift the Overton Window on things like MFA, campaign finance and post-secondary funding into mainstream discourse and acceptance, so that there is indeed some kind of substantive hope that the United States will within the next couple of decades, at last join its fellow first world peers in these very important ways, rather than continue with what I can only describe as laughably inefficient barbarism and legalized corruption.

I feel the same way about Sanders in 2016, and many Americans feel it, too.

The only people who feel that way are establishment Dems or people who are aligned with them that I've seen.

 

[Surrealistik]

Hm... that's not what Nate Silver from 538 is saying: "Bad early polls spell trouble for well-known candidates."

Does Biden’s Polling Bounce Mean Anything? | FiveThirtyEight

The problem for Sanders is that he already got the name recognition... tones of it... but is shrinking, anyway.

In Nate Silver's analysis of polls taken six months before the primaries start, from 1972 through 2016, candidates with good name recognition (Sanders' case) who were polling in the 15% range, had just a 10% chance of winning the nomination. Candidates without name recognition had a much higher chance, if they were polling at the same level.

So, no, for people with high name recognition, poor early polling actually bodes very poorly.

Like I've mentioned before, Bernie supporters are in denial... they think he *should* be the people's preference given his sound policies... but the fact is that polls show that he is NOT the people's preference, and he is shrinking rather than growing.

Nope. Sanders won't win.

Trump had name recognition in spades, yet he was again, a joke candidate at this point in time, and Nate got him completely wrong too.

Again, we'll see how this plays out; I'm not particularly interested in debating potential trajectories predicated on Nate's projections/opinion.


This is a pretty good (partial) breakdown of Nate's foibles in his analysis thus far:



In general he seems more interested in cherrypicking and less concerned with the exceptions that undermine his analysis or put it to a lie, and understanding and analyzing why his models haven't held in the past and may not hold in the future.

 

[Amelia]

Um, I actually said dilution _was_ a point of concern and almost certainly his biggest Achilles. The timeline of progressive consolidation and impact of Biden's dirty laundry are the two big questions that will decide things going forward IMO.

Also Biden isn't charming; I think he certainly has a modicum of charisma, but nothing particularly outstanding; something that's true of Bernie as well, but no one can say with any kind of objectivity that Bernie has none, and is 'monotonous and unappealing' or uninspiring in light of what he has done for progressive policy and the FDR wing of the party singlehandedly.

To me both Biden and Bernie are charismatic. I think Biden's charm is more universal but Sanders has it too.

This is another place that sexism will come in with Warren. Biden can charmingly knock Trump's block off. But it's very hard for a woman to be charmingly pugilistic ... and charming pugilism is needed against Trump.

 

[Amelia]

Sorry, I misread you.

I think the consolidation of the progressive vote will come too late for Bernie. By then, Biden will have secured the nomination. Sanders was unopposed for the progressive vote in 2016, and the situation is far different, for 2020.

I personally find Biden waaaaaaay more charming and charismatic than Sanders, whom I consider to be a bore. Biden has the capacity to be funny. Sanders entirely lacks that capacity.

What Bernie has done singlehandedly for the progressive ideals of America, is that he contributed to the victory of Donald Trump, who then picked conservative justices and judges for essential courts, which essentially killed FOR A GENERATION any chance the progressive ideals will have of any success. That's what Sanders did. A disaster.

And many people do blame him for it, thus his shrinking popularity, according to all polls.

Remember Nader in Florida in 2000? Bush beat Gore (with the helping hand of the SCOTUS) by 537 votes. Nader had 97,421 votes in Florida. If not for spoiler Nader, we wouldn't have had the Iraq war. People don't remember Nader fondly, for that.

I feel the same way about Sanders in 2016, and many Americans feel it, too.

It's quite unfair to compare Sanders to Nader. Nader ran as third party. Sanders put up a good fight in a primary which was weighted for Hillary. Hillary is to blame for Hillary's loss. The DNC shares much of the blame also. The superdelegate system shared much the blame. The superdelegate system put Hillary 20% of the way to the win before a single primary vote was cast, and of course more than 30 state committees had already signed on with Hillary. They shut out competition. If Democratic power brokers hadn't settled on Hillary so far in advance, Biden might have been able to get into the race in time to change the course of it. Others might also have decided it was worth a shot, instead of looking at all the money going to Hillary and saying "maybe next time". If the Democrats hadn't settled on Hillary so far in advance, she wouldn't have seemed so inevitable, and she probably wouldn't have won Iowa (because without the people who didn't like her but thought "most electable", she wouldn't have won by that tiny fraction of a percent which put her over the top, and that could have changed the course of the race). If the Democrats hadn't settled on Hillary so far in advance, the media wouldn't have concluded that Hillary was going to be the winner, and they would have focused earlier on turning the Democratic race into a ratings generator instead of having only Trump for that purpose.

The DNC thought Hillary could coast to victory in the primaries and then coast to the win in the general. In addition to them doing scuzzy-looking things like reversing Obama's anti-lobbyist policies, they missed the one thing Trump knows inside and out -- the importance of putting on a good show.


And, oh yes, Obama ... Obama is also to blame for the loss. In more than one way. For six years, he watched Republicans start to take over Wisconsin and other formerly Democratic strongholds and he did nothing to stop the bleeding. AND he didn't repay his debt to the DNC coffer, which left their finances in shambles, giving them little alternative to signing on to whatever it took to get Clinton to agree to help them out with Clinton machine money.



And the voters who climbed on board with picking Hillary for the nomination in spite of how unpopular she was with non-Democrats and in spite of the self-made FBI cloud she had over her head -- it didn't take hindslght to know that was stupid. I watched in horror as Democrats ignored Hillary's baggage and turned the race into a crap shoot.



But somehow it's Bernie's fault for daring to put up a good fight in the primaries. Somehow that earns Bernie a comparison to Nader.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Seeing as a generation is generally considered to be about 20 years, that's an exaggeration to the point of fallacy, even if you attribute him with blame, which I do not.

Really? When do you figure the SCOTUS will have a progressive majority? With the way Trump is filling it up with conservative judges, 20 years is actually a generous prediction.

What Sanders has objectively and concretely done, indeed singlehandedly, is revitalize the FDR wing of the Dem party against all odds that has been dead pretty much since the 80s, despite every conceivable obstacle the New Dems/Neolibs could put in his way, and shift the Overton Window on things like MFA, campaign finance and post-secondary funding into mainstream discourse and acceptance, so that there is indeed some kind of substantive hope that the United States will within the next couple of decades, at last join its fellow first world peers in these very important ways, rather than continue with what I can only describe as laughably inefficient barbarism and legalized corruption.

So what? In practical terms, he won nothing, contributed to the victory of the worst president in the history of the United States, and contributed to the composition of the courts as they are today (and they will get worse).

The only people who feel that way are establishment Dems or people who are aligned with them that I've seen.

You haven't been talking to enough people of all walks of life. Are you just talking to fellow Sanders fans?

 

[GreatNews2night]

Trump had name recognition in spades, yet he was again, a joke candidate at this point in time, and Nate got him completely wrong too.

Again, we'll see how this plays out; I'm not particularly interested in debating potential trajectories predicated on Nate's projections/opinion.


This is a pretty good (partial) breakdown of Nate's foibles in his analysis thus far:



In general he seems more interested in cherrypicking and less concerned with the exceptions that undermine his analysis or put it to a lie, and understanding and analyzing why his models haven't held in the past and may not hold in the future.

Regardless of Nate's predictions, the data he compiled from 1972 through 2016 is factual.
And he wasn't that off about Trump and Hillary. In national numbers, his margins pretty much held, with her leading the popular vote by 3 million. It's in 3 states of the Rust Belt that Trump won by the tiniest of margins, resulting in an electoral college victory.

 

[GreatNews2night]

It's quite unfair to compare Sanders to Nader.

You are missing some essential points.
If you look at my posting history you'll see that when I talked about who is to blame for Trump's victory, I placed as the absolutely #1 guilty part, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But the problem is, given the razor-thin margin, 80K votes in 3 Rust Belt states, any ONE factor that didn't line up for Trump, and he would have lost. Any ONE factor. So EACH SINGLE FACTOR is responsible for his victory.

The analogy is with a murder by committee. One guy buys the gun. The other ones buys the ammunition. The other one lures the victim to the back alley. The other one pulls the trigger. The other one disposes of the body. The police find out; and guess what, all five are charged with murder, as co-responsible, not just the guy who pulls the trigger and takes the shot.

So, yes, Hillary is #1 most responsible. Comey too. The Russians too. Wikileaks too. Hillary's moronic campaign manager who not only thought she didn't need to campaign in the Rust Belt but clicked on an attachment causing the email hacking, too. And so on and so forth. The DNC too, like you said, and even Obama, like you said. Sexism. Xenophobia. Racism. And the list goes on. Trump's victory had multiple factors.

But then, ALSO Bernie Sanders. Sure, he fought a good fight... but for too long. He lingered on, PAST the point when it was clear that the nomination was utterly, definitively, beyond his reach. He only reluctantly, too little too late, conceded and even more belatedly joined the campaign, in a lackluster effort. He pushed the narrative that the nomination was stolen from him, disregarding the fact that millions of primary voters preferred even Hillary to him. This narrative turned off his supporters who sit out the election or some of them, even joined Trump. So, yes, a very Nader effect.

And what you say about his joining the primary is the utmost hypocrisy. He spent decades thumping his chest and saying he was independent... then joined the Democratic Party at the last minute just to run, and spent the entire campaign bombarding the party and its rules. No wonder the party didn't support him. So part of the lack of support by the DNC was Bernie's own doing. Then he loses, pushes the narrative that it was stolen from him, bitches and complains, quits the party... guess what? In 2020 he joins again!!!!

I'd respect him more if, like Nader, he ran as an independent.

The point is, if Bernie Sanders had graciously stepped out when it became clear he wouldn't win the nomination, and had joined her campaign early, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today.

Also, if she hadn't made a number of unforced errors, she'd be the POTUS. If Comey hadn't written his letter to Congress 11 days before the election, she'd be POTUS. If the Russians hadn't interfered, she'd be POTUS.

But yes, absolutely, if Sanders had behaved like the party member he pretended to be, she'd be POTUS. So, yes, Bernie Sanders is ALSO responsible for Trump's victory, and I don't like him precisely for this reason. I don't like Comey either. Or Hillary. Or the DNC. Or the Russians. And so on and so forth.

But yes, Bernie Sanders did play the spoiler and did contribute to Trump's victory. Like the murder by committee, he isn't the main one (the one who pulled the trigger; that would be Hillary) but he is ALSO guilty.

Nader is to be blamed for Bush. But Bush, as terrible as I thought he was at the time, is not as bad as Trump, not even close. So, I resent Bernie (and Hillary, and Comey, etc.) even more than I resent Nader.

 

[Surrealistik]

Really? When do you figure the SCOTUS will have a progressive majority? With the way Trump is filling it up with conservative judges, 20 years is actually a generous prediction.

So what? In practical terms, he won nothing, contributed to the victory of the worst president in the history of the United States, and contributed to the composition of the courts as they are today (and they will get worse).

30 years rather; 20 was a typo. Personally, I don't know when the SCOTUS will have a progressive majority, but I do know that a conservative held SCOTUS doesn't remotely mean that progressive policy can't come to fruition; you're looking at the House and Senate as the real cockblockers.

Again, I don't accord Sanders any meaningful blame in this, and certainly not nearly as much blame as the establishment Dems that were factually and directly responsible for one of the most historic losses of Dem power in history, nevermind merely the office of POTUS.

And no, you can't look at what is going on today in the Dem party, its reforms, its platform, the shift of overall attitudes and national polling in terms of policy and say he, in practical terms, won nothing. Even if he loses this nomination and falls off the map for the remainder of his career, he will have made his mark in history and have left a legacy in terms of the revival of the FDR wing and normalization of policies that are standard in the developed world.

You haven't been talking to enough people of all walks of life. Are you just talking to fellow Sanders fans?

If that were true, I wouldn't have asserted that this opinion is about exclusively held by people whose political allegiance cleaves to establishment Dems would I? I know because the only people I've encountered that held this view with any kind of consistency are indeed 'moderate/conservative' Dems who were either supporters of Clinton, or who preferred her to Bernie.

Regardless of Nate's predictions, the data he compiled from 1972 through 2016 is factual.
And he wasn't that off about Trump and Hillary. In national numbers, his margins pretty much held, with her leading the popular vote by 3 million. It's in 3 states of the Rust Belt that Trump won by the tiniest of margins, resulting in an electoral college victory.

He was absolutely off about Trump's chances, and he admitted as much to his credit. Again, at this point in time he all but considered Jeb and Rubio strong front runners and Trump a laughable joke.

Nate in general has a bad, demonstrable habit of disregarding data, exceptions and/or conclusions that are incompatible with his political preferences.

I do think he's better than most other pundits, and at least makes an effort to support his bias with facts, but ultimately, he is ruled by his lean.

 

[Winston]

You are missing some essential points.
If you look at my posting history you'll see that when I talked about who is to blame for Trump's victory, I placed as the absolutely #1 guilty part, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But the problem is, given the razor-thin margin, 80K votes in 3 Rust Belt states, any ONE factor that didn't line up for Trump, and he would have lost. Any ONE factor. So EACH SINGLE FACTOR is responsible for his victory.

The analogy is with a murder by committee. One guy buys the gun. The other ones buys the ammunition. The other one lures the victim to the back alley. The other one pulls the trigger. The other one disposes of the body. The police find out; and guess what, all five are charged with murder, as co-responsible, not just the guy who pulls the trigger and takes the shot.

So, yes, Hillary is #1 most responsible. Comey too. The Russians too. Wikileaks too. Hillary's moronic campaign manager who not only thought she didn't need to campaign in the Rust Belt but clicked on an attachment causing the email hacking, too. And so on and so forth. The DNC too, like you said, and even Obama, like you said. Sexism. Xenophobia. Racism. And the list goes on. Trump's victory had multiple factors.

But then, ALSO Bernie Sanders. Sure, he fought a good fight... but for too long. He lingered on, PAST the point when it was clear that the nomination was utterly, definitively, beyond his reach. He only reluctantly, too little too late, conceded and even more belatedly joined the campaign, in a lackluster effort. He pushed the narrative that the nomination was stolen from him, disregarding the fact that millions of primary voters preferred even Hillary to him. This narrative turned off his supporters who sit out the election or some of them, even joined Trump. So, yes, a very Nader effect.

And what you say about his joining the primary is the utmost hypocrisy. He spent decades thumping his chest and saying he was independent... then joined the Democratic Party at the last minute just to run, and spend the entire campaign bombarding the party and its rules. No wonder the party didn't support him. So part of the lack of support by the DNC was Bernie's own doing. Then he loses, pushes the narrative that it was stolen from him, bitches and complains, quits the party... guess what? In 2020 he joins again!!!!

I'd respect him more if, like Nader, he ran as an independent.

The point is, if Bernie Sanders had graciously stepped out when it became clear he wouldn't win the nomination, and had joined her campaign early, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today.

Also, if she hadn't made a number of unforced errors, she'd be the POTUS. If Comey hadn't written his letter to Congress 11 days before the election, she'd be POTUS. If the Russians hadn't interfered, she'd be POTUS.

But yes, absolutely, if Sanders had behaved like the party member he pretended to be, she'd be POTUS. So, yes, Bernie Sanders is ALSO responsible for Trump's victory, and I don't like him precisely for this reason. I don't like Comey either. Or Hillary. Or the DNC. Or the Russians. And so on and so forth.

But yes, Bernie Sanders did play the spoiler and did contribute to Trump's victory. Like the murder by committee, he isn't the main one (the one who pulled the trigger; that would be Hillary) but he is ALSO guilty.

Nader is to be blamed for Bush. But Bush, as terrible as I thought he was at the time, is not as bad as Trump, not even close. So, I resent Bernie (and Hillary, and Comey, etc.) even more than I resent Nader.

In my opinion DWS holds majority culpability for Trump.

 

[Winston]

In the case of Biden and Sanders, I believe that the numbers are more important than usual, even 18 months ahead, precisely because they are both very well-known politicians, by now. It's not like people are very tentative because they don't know the candidates.

you make the mistake of assuming that people who are into politics decide elections. They don't! Most people really don't give a **** about politics. Most people just plain can't be arsed to think about politics until they start seeing debates on their TV. Everything changes during campaign season. Please man, you know this.

Look, Bernie went from 1% to 30% last time and that was impressive, sure. But now he is going the other way around... he is shrinking. If that doesn't tell you anything, I don't know what else to tell you.

I sincerely doubt Bernie is shrinking in support. What about fundraising #'s all from small dollar donors? Crushing it as per usual? Bernie has a significant base and the funds to grow it.

And yes, what you see as not so concerning, the dilution between progressives, is actually very concerning for Bernie. When the primary races start, it means that Sanders will be winning fewer primaries... the progressive vote will be split between him, Warren, and Harris. Meanwhile Biden will be gobbling up the majority of the moderate votes. He'll be collecting undivided votes while his opponents will be cannibalizing each other. By the time people start dropping out, it might be too late, with Biden sporting a commanding delegate lead.

Beto, Buttigieg, Booker, Julian Castro, etc. will all siphon votes from Biden. It's not like it's a 3way race between Noam Chomsky, Sanders, and Biden.

18 months ahead we are ALREADY seeing Bernie losing support to other progressives like Warren...

Warren's policies are appealing, thats why she's gaining support. Was it the wealth tax? I can't remember, or student debt relief. Can't remember what she released lately. That's why she's gaining. Biden got an anouncement bump, based upon false hopes of returning to Obama years. Biden is weak, substantively, weak on policy, with an awful track record of supporting things Democrats don't like. And he's corrupt! Maybe the most toxic thing in politics today, is having the stench of big donor money and industry about you, and Biden has that in spades. So, basically Warren rising because of policy substance, that Biden cannot produce (because he's corrupt), means Biden will only go down when he cannot advocate for policy Democrats support or he would have to return his bribes.

Sorry, buddy. Unfortunately the American people don't vote for policies... they vote for charisma.

Yet Warren is getting a bump because of her policy proposals, surely. Not because she fake drank a beer on camera!

Do you think that Trump won 2016 based on policy? Hillary was way more prepared than him, policy-wise. Trump couldn't put 2 and 2 together during the debates, regarding policy.

Yes, Bernie spouts out policy in monotonous and unappealing delivery... while Biden is charming (unlike Hillary).

You'll see what will happen.

I think Trump did win on policy. Opposing the Wars (left wing policy) (Opposing NAFTA), The Wall (fantasy policy, but, a policy nonetheless) Anyway, yes Trump won because of policy.