|
|
Post by tiberius on Sept 17, 2017 10:22:45 GMT
The party is pretty divided right now. If either Sanders or someone in the mold of Booker runs and stays near the top, one should fairly expect a close result, or at least no Kerry-in-2004-esque landslide.
|
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,905 
|
Post by spqr on Sept 17, 2017 20:32:46 GMT
I'm really looking forward to the legendary President Sanders/PM Corbyn camaraderie that will surely be developed by 2021. I can only presume given the posting time that that was some horrible nightmare. I'd put both events being odds against. Really hope I'm right... To be fair, those of us of a left-wing bent have had to put up with the Reagan/Thatcher duo in the 1980s and, more recently, the 'interesting' spectacle of Trump and May. Sometimes you just have to suck things up in politics. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 17, 2017 21:54:34 GMT
Would Americans really be prepared to vote for someone as far left as Sanders in a general election? Especially With Trump appealing to the Rust Belt and Sanders' dismal performance among the minorities Democrats have come to rely on?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 20, 2017 7:30:18 GMT
Would Americans really be prepared to vote for someone as far left as Sanders in a general election? Especially With Trump appealing to the Rust Belt and Sanders' dismal performance among the minorities Democrats have come to rely on? Depends on how everything is sold, really. Most voters don't think in terms of the left-right spectrum. Yes, he struggled with minorities in the primaries. But that doesn't mean they won't support him over Trump in the general. Or that he can't find a way to connect with them by 2020. Also, Sanders has far more appeal to the Rust Belt than Clinton had. If he had been the Democrat nominee in 2016, the chances are that he would have held some of those states. Also, Presidential elections with an incumbent are usually won or lost on the basis of how popular the President is. It's worth noting that whilst Sanders (should he run) would be the Democratic frontrunner, that doesn't mean he has the nomination sewn up. Right now the potential field is far too wide to say that any candidate is more likely than not to be the nominee. Probably the most predictive thing we can say right now is that a large number of the potential Democrat candidates have signed up to Sanders' Single Payer bill - making it more likely than not that the Dems will propose genuine universal health care in their 2020 campaign. |
|
Trab
Labour
Labour Right is Tory Lite
Posts: 123
|
Post by Trab on Sept 27, 2017 19:07:06 GMT
Sanders is surely too old for another run. By conventional wisdom, sure, but it's pretty obvious that he's planning on running again and the odds are heavily in his favor if he does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 19:11:53 GMT
Sanders is surely too old for another run. By conventional wisdom, sure, but it's pretty obvious that he's planning on running again and the odds are heavily in his favor if he does. You would think so - but I guess the risk of running as an anti establishment figure is that Donald Trump is always going to out anti establishment you. The alternative is running as a socialist - which is always going be difficult in the US. Are you risking the Fairfax Counties etc.? Anyone who has inherently billions and lives in a New York penthouse but can connect with the Rustbelt without changing an iota of his personality and just putting a cheap baseball cap on shouldn't be written off. A large part of me thinks that Trump is going to get a 2nd term. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Sept 28, 2017 14:33:07 GMT
The public's response to a populist running riot from the Right could just as easily be to go for the Establishment as much as going for a populist from the Left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 28, 2017 16:08:24 GMT
warren will find it harder to win in the primary, sanders is almost guaranteed if he runs however I wouldn't be so sure. I think there would be some pushback from die-hard Clintonites who blame Bernie for weakening Hillary by a) not dropping out earlier and b) engaging in the same criticisms of her as Trump, feeding the 'Bernie or Bust' idiocy in the process. That these people are skating over Hillary doing the same to Obama in '08 is besides the point, enough people may hold a grudge enough to make it difficult for him to become the nominee. Warren on the other hand would be acceptable to both the Sanders supporting left and enough people in the moderate wing to be a strong candidate in both the primaries and the general election. Agreed. Also she was born and brought up in Oklahoma. That won't do her any harm. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 28, 2017 16:12:05 GMT
Would Americans really be prepared to vote for someone as far left as Sanders in a general election? Especially With Trump appealing to the Rust Belt and Sanders' dismal performance among the minorities Democrats have come to rely on? Clinton didn't shift the minority vote enough where it mattered. If she had done she would have won Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed there is no evidence that she would have done better than any other Democrat. |
|
Trab
Labour
Labour Right is Tory Lite
Posts: 123
|
Post by Trab on Sept 28, 2017 17:18:59 GMT
warren will find it harder to win in the primary, sanders is almost guaranteed if he runs however I wouldn't be so sure. I think there would be some pushback from die-hard Clintonites who blame Bernie for weakening Hillary by a) not dropping out earlier and b) engaging in the same criticisms of her as Trump, feeding the 'Bernie or Bust' idiocy in the process. That these people are skating over Hillary doing the same to Obama in '08 is besides the point, enough people may hold a grudge enough to make it difficult for him to become the nominee. These people are quite common among beltway media types but are not reflected among real life Democrats - only 8% of Democrats have a negative opinion of Sanders. Plus Sanders will have more establishment backing next time around and the liberal vote in the primary will be split between Harris, Booker etc. It's hard to see Sanders losing the nomination as long as he wins Iowa and New Hampshire handily and comes close or wins in California. (Trump won Florida over Rubio so I could see Sanders beating Harris in her home state) |
|
Trab
Labour
Labour Right is Tory Lite
Posts: 123
|
Post by Trab on Sept 28, 2017 17:20:49 GMT
Would Americans really be prepared to vote for someone as far left as Sanders in a general election? Especially With Trump appealing to the Rust Belt and Sanders' dismal performance among the minorities Democrats have come to rely on? Sanders won young black voters in the primary and didn't do particularly worse than Hillary among hispanics I believe; his worst performance among minority groups were in black areas in the South. Sanders' main problem isn't his ideology (the policies he supports are very popular) but his age. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Sept 28, 2017 17:25:27 GMT
I wouldn't be so sure. I think there would be some pushback from die-hard Clintonites who blame Bernie for weakening Hillary by a) not dropping out earlier and b) engaging in the same criticisms of her as Trump, feeding the 'Bernie or Bust' idiocy in the process. That these people are skating over Hillary doing the same to Obama in '08 is besides the point, enough people may hold a grudge enough to make it difficult for him to become the nominee. These people are quite common among beltway media types but are not reflected among real life Democrats - only 8% of Democrats have a negative opinion of Sanders. Plus Sanders will have more establishment backing next time around and the liberal vote in the primary will be split between Harris, Booker etc. It's hard to see Sanders losing the nomination as long as he wins Iowa and New Hampshire handily and comes close or wins in California. (Trump won Florida over Rubio so I could see Sanders beating Harris in her home state) I could definitely see Sanders winning Iowa. New Hampshire on the other hand would be a more open contest depending on what the rest of the field looked like. |
|
Trab
Labour
Labour Right is Tory Lite
Posts: 123
|
Post by Trab on Sept 28, 2017 17:28:37 GMT
These people are quite common among beltway media types but are not reflected among real life Democrats - only 8% of Democrats have a negative opinion of Sanders. Plus Sanders will have more establishment backing next time around and the liberal vote in the primary will be split between Harris, Booker etc. It's hard to see Sanders losing the nomination as long as he wins Iowa and New Hampshire handily and comes close or wins in California. (Trump won Florida over Rubio so I could see Sanders beating Harris in her home state) I could definitely see Sanders winning Iowa. New Hampshire on the other hand would be a more open contest depending on what the rest of the field looked like. He won New Hampshire in a landslide last time. I don't see Booker, Harris, or any of the other right-wingers beating him there. Warren maybe but I don't think she runs if he does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2017 22:59:35 GMT
Would Americans really be prepared to vote for someone as far left as Sanders in a general election? Especially With Trump appealing to the Rust Belt and Sanders' dismal performance among the minorities Democrats have come to rely on? Clinton didn't shift the minority vote enough where it mattered. If she had done she would have won Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed there is no evidence that she would have done better than any other Democrat. Surely there aren't many Republican minority voters in Mi to shift? |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Sept 28, 2017 23:41:42 GMT
Would Americans really be prepared to vote for someone as far left as Sanders in a general election? Especially With Trump appealing to the Rust Belt and Sanders' dismal performance among the minorities Democrats have come to rely on? Clinton didn't shift the minority vote enough where it mattered. If she had done she would have won Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed there is no evidence that she would have done better than any other Democrat. And a fair bit of circumstantial evidence that other Democrats may have done better! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 2:35:41 GMT
Clinton didn't shift the minority vote enough where it mattered. If she had done she would have won Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed there is no evidence that she would have done better than any other Democrat. Surely there aren't many Republican minority voters in Mi to shift? Nah, but plenty to mobilize. Turnout was key. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 3:11:36 GMT
"Trump continues to fare very poorly in possible match ups against Democrats for 2020. We tested Hillary Clinton against Trump this month for the first time, mostly as a baseline for comparison against other possible Democratic candidates, and Clinton leads Trump by 5 points at 47/42. 3 Democrats we tested clearly perform more strongly against Trump than Clinton- Joe Biden who leads by 13 points at 53/40, Bernie Sanders who leads by 11 points at 51/40, and Michelle Obama who leads by 10 points at 51/41. Biden and Sanders both win over 10% of people who voted for Trump last fall while losing almost no Clinton voters.
Other Democrats we tested against Trump are Cory Booker who leads him 47/40, Elizabeth Warren who leads him 47/41, Kirsten Gillibrand who leads him 42/39, and Kamala Harris who leads him 41/40. The percentage support the Democrat gets in these match ups varies from 41% to 53% probably depending on their name recognition, but Trump's support is pretty constant in the 39-42% range against all of these possible challengers."www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/09/2018-shaping-up-big-for-democrats.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 29, 2017 13:55:00 GMT
Clinton didn't shift the minority vote enough where it mattered. If she had done she would have won Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Indeed there is no evidence that she would have done better than any other Democrat. Surely there aren't many Republican minority voters in Mi to shift? No - I meant that the Democrats didn't come out to vote in sufficient numbers and it appears many of them were minority voters |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
Member is Online
|
Post by jamie on Oct 16, 2017 15:38:22 GMT
@benjl Harris and Booker should be in a different category. While Harris is obviously establishment, Booker is on a whole different level of East Coast third way centrism. Harris could at least excite the base while Booker would be almost no ones choice.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 18, 2017 21:53:40 GMT
I am far from convinced that Flake will run for President in 2020 but I am pretty much convinced that he doesn't view his impending retirement from the Senate as the end of his political career.
|
|
