Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020

[ursus arctos]

Buttigeig has a strong chance of being "a heartbeat away" come January 2021.

[Femme Folle]

Maybe by then all the media folks will be able to pronounce his name correctly.

[Gerontophile]

Bernie Sanders and Mikhail Gorbachev have the same eyes.

Swapped on weekends.

[ad hoc]

Is there any evidence at all of this vast constituency of voters who supported Sanders in the primary and then Trump in the election? Or even abstained? It sounds to me like a myth put out by the DNC . A story even more ridiculous than the one about how Nader made Bush Jr president.

I can't see Sanders winning the nomination and I think, probably, it would be a problematic outcome if he did (for age reasons mostly). But his candidacy moves the Overton Window, and he is also the only mainstream US politician who doesn't have a racist hard on for the mass murder of Palestinians

[linus]

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but trump will win reelection in 2020. We have done nothing to prevent Russian hacking--trump's government won't even acknowledge that it happened (for obvious reasons). So I'm not getting my hopes up. Maybe I will be proven wrong, and I will be very happy to admit that I was wrong.

And fucking Bernie Sanders. He's not going to win the nomination (again) and his Bernie Bros will sit out the election or vote for trump (again). Bernie isn't the real problem, his fanboyz are.

Russia did not "hack" the last elections. There is plenty of that going on in the US, but it's all domestic. The Republicans hacked the Ohio electronic voting process in 2004 to steal the elections, and probably Florida in 2000 to swing that presidential election. Sanders was shafted in the last primaries as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRW3Bh8HQic

[Nefertiti2]

here's an analysis about why Bernie's going to win

Not sure I agree- but it's worth a read.

[Gerontophile]

I can't see Sanders winning the nomination and I think, probably, it would be a problematic outcome if he did (for age reasons mostly). But his candidacy moves the Overton Window, and he is also the only mainstream US politician who doesn't have a racist hard on for the mass murder of Palestinians

Imagine Trump's goal was money, and he has grifted the fuck out of the US in 2 years..now, imagine Bernie is soon to be the most powerful Jewish man in the world... Now imagine if he had a hidden... bias.

[Gerontophile]

OK, that was more than 3 minutes (Hi, other thread. McCabe is boring.)

[ad hoc]

Imagine Trump's goal was money, and he has grifted the fuck out of the US in 2 years..now, imagine Bernie is soon to be the most powerful Jewish man in the world... Now imagine if he had a hidden... bias.

I don't follow this at all. And it sounds like it is the set up for a horribly dodgy conclusion (and one that I am sure you are NOT driving at).

[ursus arctos]

ad hoc, Approximately 12 percent of Sanders voters in the primaries went for Trump in the general

As the article makes clear, that isn't unusual and is very much subject to interpretation, but it isn't a chimera.

[Tactical Genius]

ad hoc, Approximately 12 percent of Sanders voters in the primaries went for Trump in the general

As the article makes clear, that isn't unusual and is very much subject to interpretation, but it isn't a chimera.

To be fair, Trump and Sanders both campaigned on change, both had different policies to achieve that change, but their policies spoke to the same demographic.
Hillary didn't so they probably thought giving Trump a go was the next best thing.
There is logic to that on a base level.

[ad hoc]

Thanks ursus, that's interesting. So I guess they do exist, in "normal" numbers, and arguably if they had voted for Hillary instead of Trump (all other things being unchanged) it would have made a difference. But on the other hand they were typically older voters (which is not the "Bernie Bros" demographic), and of course there are a thousand factors that led to Trump's win ahead of this group.

Like I say i have my doubts about the viability of Sanders as a presidential candidate , but his presence in the race doesn't in some way support Trump, or make Trump's reelection more likely.

[ursus arctos]

Agreed.

Bernie Bros are very noisy on Twitter, but I have never thought that their prominence in that forum was reflected in the actual electorate (even before one notes that they tend to reside in massively uncompetitive states).

I think that TG has captured the thought process of the majority of Sanders/Trump voters, others were inspired by a "Never Hillary" mindset.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

To be fair, Trump and Sanders both campaigned on change, both had different policies to achieve that change, but their policies spoke to the same demographic.
Hillary didn't so they probably thought giving Trump a go was the next best thing.
There is logic to that on a base level.

Agree with this. Probably also a factor that there are still some people who are registered as Dems, and therefore vote in the Dem primary, but would always tend to vote Republican in the General? Particularly in traditionally blue states like WV that have now swung very much to be red?

[ursus arctos]

It is difficult to generalise about that because the rules are so different depending on state.

A number of states run "open primaries" in which anyone (even registered members of other parties) can vote; others allow "registered independents" to vote in a primary of their choice. Still others have hybrid systems.

But yes, in states where you have to be registered in a party to vote in that party's primary, there will be people fitting your description. And increasingly, there are now "moderate" registered Republicans who in a parallel position.

For the record, in West Virginia, you can vote in the Democratic primary if you are registered as a Democrat or Independent/Unaffiliated, but not if you are registered as a Republican.

[Flynnie]

I've never really seen an adequate codification of a Bernie Bro. From my perspective, there seems to be two people people have in mind, neither of whom would have been Trump voters.

1) Socialists for whom Bernie was the only Democratic candidate they were going to support. These people live largely in rock-solid blue states anyway. These people are also hella Online.

2) Democrats who voted Bernie in the primary, but are incandescent with Hillary for being the Grady Little of politics. These people are less Online, but still Online.

As the Vox article notes, disaffected primary voters voting for the other party in the general is not uncommon (remember PUMAs, anyone?) and old, white people seem not like the memelords people have in mind as Bernie Bros.

[Flynnie]

Senator Deadhead, Pat Leahy, has endorsed Bernie.

Endorsements never really mean much, and Leahy is the other Senator from Vermont. But I think this is notable because IIRC only one Senator (Jeff Merkley) endorsed Sanders last time, so that indicates the progressive wing of the Dems could throw their lot in with Bernie since he's in it to win it this time.

[ursus arctos]

That's right about Merkley being the only sitting Senator who endorsed him last time.

Markey has endorsed Warren, so that's them even at the moment.

[Flynnie]

Barbara Lee endorsing Harris is my early pick for most WTF endorsement so far.

[Gerontophile]

I don't follow this at all. And it sounds like it is the set up for a horribly dodgy conclusion (and one that I am sure you are NOT driving at).

Yep, I made it up as a 'conspiracy theory' which has even less basis in reality, than the current incumbent being a money-laundering, (possible) wife-beating, pussy-grabbing, climate-denying, white-supremacist, xenophobic, imbecile*, who was elected with help by a foreign power, who is hated by probably 75% of the current world leaders, who has lied more than 8000 times (to the American people) since his 'annunciation', and whose staff choices are utterly infallible.

Can you imagine how strongly someone who cares about all this might feel?

*which words are ok to describe people who are... intelligently-challenged? I'm ok with not calling people names, but at some point, we** are going to need some.

[ad hoc]

I'm still not following you, honestly. I get that you're making a point, but I'm not clear what point you're making (when i say not clear, I mean i have no idea).

[Gerontophile]

Very simple. Trump got help to make money from the US Presidency. Project your worst imaginings on Senator Sanders.

[San Bernardhinault]

Is there any evidence at all of this vast constituency of voters who supported Sanders in the primary and then Trump in the election? Or even abstained? It sounds to me like a myth put out by the DNC . A story even more ridiculous than the one about how Nader made Bush Jr president.

I can't see Sanders winning the nomination and I think, probably, it would be a problematic outcome if he did (for age reasons mostly). But his candidacy moves the Overton Window, and he is also the only mainstream US politician who doesn't have a racist hard on for the mass murder of Palestinians

This very much reflects my thinking.

I'm surprised at the link Ursus found of 12% of Bernie voters going to Trump. If I was guessing, I'd have guess at low single digits.

I also agree that while Sanders would be problematic as candidate and is unlikely to win, his presence - like it did in 2016 - very much helps shift the conversation towards more progressive policy.

[anton pulisov]

There's always drift between candidates. 2008, for example:

According to the Post-ABC poll, 62 percent of women who backed Clinton say they will support Obama, compared with 25 percent who say they will support McCain.

I wonder, if Clinton had won in 2016, would she have given Sanders a post as important as Sec. of State, like Obama did for her? My guess is he would have been frozen out of the administration.

[Gerontophile]

There is logic to that on a base level.

In other news, every wanker in the country, is focusing on Nevada. (No, I'm not putting a link. But they're coming. Part-time jobs are springing up.)