US Presidential Election 2020

Red for Danger

Foxtrol wrote: »

The exact same risk is there with Bernie as the nominee.



Their combined vote is more than Bernie's.

Moderates are shooting themselves in the foot by candidates being too stubborn to drop out.

Just because the establishment media says this kind of nonsense all day long doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
Bernie is 3 for 3, if this primary is anything, it's proof that nobody is listening to the msm or any of those bull**** shows like "the view" and "morning joe" left or right.

The electable argument they've been pushing is pure nonsense his votes show this.
The Bernie bro, propagandists are only helping him
The cuba statements, propagandists are only helping him.
Lets see how this latest piece of trash analysis plays out.

briany

Foxtrol wrote: »

No matter what way you cut the votes, Clinton beat Sanders.

His moaning at the time and since makes me fear he'd just be another Trump if he won the presidency. His way or the highway, if it doesn't work then blame everyone else.

It was inevitable after the Republicans went into battle mode after losing to Obama in 2008. They stirred up the populist pot, steadfastly refused to work with Obama and went all in behind Trump. Can't now be a surprise that there is an appetite in the Democrat base for someone who'll fight back.

sid waddell

Manic Moran wrote: »

Lots of pandering to black voters

I find your phraseology rather unsettling, to say the least.

Maybe you should focus on Donald Trump actually pandering to racists.

sid waddell

Barack Obama said the exact same things Bernie Sanders said about Cuba.

Meanwhile Michael Bloomberg literally said that "Xi Jinping is not a dictator."

And Donald Trump cosies up to pretty much every scumbag dictator on the planet.

Over the last couple of days Donald Trump has been continuing his cosying up to India's Narendra Modi, who was banned from the US and the EU for over a decade for inciting murderous anti-Muslim pogroms whille governor of Gujarat in 2002, and who is now inciting similar pogroms all across India. Modi is perhaps the world's most dangerous man. Trump's presence has incited more pogroms.

The head of Genocide Watch, Professor Gregory Stanton, says that "India is preparing for genocide".

But the narrative, oh the narrative.

Foxtrol

Red for Danger wrote: »

Just because the establishment media says this kind of nonsense all day long doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
Bernie is 3 for 3, if this primary is anything, it's proof that nobody is listening to the msm or any of those bull**** shows like "the view" and "morning joe" left or right.

The electable argument they've been pushing is pure nonsense his votes show this.
The Bernie bro, propagandists are only helping him
The cuba statements, propagandists are only helping him.
Lets see how this latest piece of trash analysis plays out.

Bernie didn't win Iowa...

Care to expand on how the democratic vote in 3 states, where Bernie never won a plurality, proves anything regarding him being electable in the general election?

pixelburp

Foxtrol wrote: »

Bernie didn't win Iowa...

Care to expand on how the democratic vote in 3 states, where Bernie never won a plurality, proves anything regarding him being electable in the general election?

He won the popular vote in all three states IIRC, while the demographics of his voters so far show a very healthy spread (despite the mantra that non-whites don't vote for him). Nevada was the first "diverse" state and suggested Sanders should have no trouble with other similarly diverse states. IMO he's more likeable and liked than the media is currently giving him credit for.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Agree to a point but it is hard to say whether a good proportion of those Biden voters haven't already abandoned Biden to Sanders since that December poll.

Though the front runner effect will definitely impact where votes go it isn't really a sign of 'likability', which is the point I was responding to.

Even with the disparate group of moderates, Bernie hasn't yet been able to come close to a plurality of votes. He basically had the same result as Pete across the first 2 states and got 34% of the first count in Nevada. If 'nobody' likes the other candidates, then people barely like Bernie (I'm not claiming this myself).

Bernie won a plurality of votes in each state so far. I think you're mixing up the word with something else.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Barack Obama said the exact same things Bernie Sanders said about Cuba.

Meanwhile Michael Bloomberg literally said that "Xi Jinping is not a dictator."

And Donald Trump cosies up to pretty much every scumbag dictator on the planet.

Over the last couple of days Donald Trump has been continuing his cosying up to India's Narendra Modi, who was banned from the US and the EU for over a decade for inciting murderous anti-Muslim pogroms whille governor of Gujarat in 2002, and who is now inciting similar pogroms all across India. Modi is perhaps the world's most dangerous man. Trump's presence has incited more pogroms.

The head of Genocide Watch, Professor Gregory Stanton, says that "India is preparing for genocide".

But the narrative, oh the narrative.

No matter how much people cry about it, politics is perception. You can't compare statements from two people in isolation, without looking at the context involved.

Did Obama repeatedly call himself a socialist, did he praise the soviet union (and honeymoon there), did he say positive things about other countries like Nicaragua?

Bloomberg would be getting more focus if he was the front runner but he isn't (though someone should tell Warren this). When you're the front runner you get more focus and scrutiny. Do you think it isn't going to happen if he faces Trump? Better these things are teased out now than during the general.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Bernie won a plurality of votes in each state so far. I think you're mixing up the word with something else.

My bad, meant to say he didn't win a majority

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

He won the popular vote in all three states IIRC, while the demographics of his voters so far show a very healthy spread (despite the mantra that non-whites don't vote for him). Nevada was the first "diverse" state and suggested Sanders should have no trouble with other similarly diverse states. IMO he's more likeable and liked than the media is currently giving him credit for.

We'd be just finishing the first term of President Hillary Clinton if the popular vote mattered, unfortunately you win an election by winning the agreed rules.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

No matter how much people cry about it, politics is perception. You can't compare statements from two people in isolation, without looking at the context involved.

Did Obama repeatedly call himself a socialist, did he praise the soviet union (and honeymoon there), did he say positive things about other countries like Nicaragua?

Bloomberg would be getting more focus if he was the front runner but he isn't (though someone should tell Warren this). When you're the front runner you get more focus and scrutiny. Do you think it isn't going to happen if he faces Trump? Better these things are teased out now than during the general.

Wow. Apparently calling yourself a "socialist" and even visiting the Soviet Union amounts to "dirt" now.

For the Republicans and for Democrat "centrists", the problem with Bernie Sanders is he wasn't in support of Reagan's death squads in Nicaragua.

For them that's a disqualifying offence.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

We'd be just finishing the first term of President Hillary Clinton if the popular vote mattered, unfortunately you win an election by winning the agreed rules.

That (possible) extra one delegate should make a massive difference for Buttigieg in getting the nomination.

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

Care to expand on how the democratic vote in 3 states, where Bernie never won a plurality, proves anything regarding him being electable in the general election?

Do we have different understanding if the word plurality? I understand it to mean "the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority."

Which means Sanders has achieved in all three primaries so far, as he has had more votes than the others in all of them. In Iowa he had 45,831 votes to Buttigieg 42,273. In New Hampshire he had 76,352 votes to buttiegiegs 72,443 votes. And in Nevada he had 41,075 votes to Bidens 19,179.

How has he not achieved a plurality in any of these states, despite literally meeting the dictionary definition of the word in all of them?

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

My bad, meant to say he didn't win a majority

Following up on my post above re pluralities, you are being absurd if this is your claim. There are what, 7 candidates and you are trying to say Sanders isn't a worthwhile candidate* because he hasn't won more votes than all 6 other candidates combined?

Would you like me to tell you how many majorities Trump had won at this point in 2016, where it was also a crowded stage?

How many majorities had Romney won at this point in 2012, again a crowded field?

At this point in 2004, again with a primary with numerous competitors, how was John Kerry faring?

What about Clinton at this point in 1992, how many majorities had he won in a field of numerous Democratic hopefuls?

I'll give you a hint: the combined numbers of the answers to the above questions come to less than one.

*Please feel free to clear up if this is not what you mean.

pixelburp

Foxtrol wrote: »

We'd be just finishing the first term of President Hillary Clinton if the popular vote mattered, unfortunately you win an election by winning the agreed rules.

I don't disagree with you, and as another said I think there's confusion about "plurality" here, just saying myself that when it comes to the momentum, Sanders - so far - has had it and shown a popularity that some narratives are trying to claim doesn't exist. The so-called Super Tuesday will inform a great deal however, 3 states is still a touch too early to call it Sanders' nomination to win.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Wow. Apparently calling yourself a "socialist" and even visiting the Soviet Union amounts to "dirt" now.

For the Republicans and for Democrat "centrists", the problem with Bernie Sanders is he wasn't in support of Reagan's death squads in Nicaragua.

For them that's a disqualifying offence.

Hypocritical much? A few posts ago you were twisting Trump visiting the 2nd most populated country in the world.

People twist things, that is politics. If you're going to dish it out you shouldnt moan about it.

sid waddell wrote: »

That (possible) extra one delegate should make a massive difference for Buttigieg in getting the nomination.

Never said it did.

It does however mean that Bernie is not 3 for 3 so far.

Foxtrol

Englo wrote: »

Following up on my post above re pluralities, you are being absurd if this is your claim. There are what, 7 candidates and you are trying to say Sanders isn't a worthwhile candidate* because he hasn't won more votes than all 6 other candidates combined?

Would you like me to tell you how many majorities Trump had won at this point in 2016, where it was also a crowded stage?

How many majorities had Romney won at this point in 2012, again a crowded field?

At this point in 2004, again with a primary with numerous competitors, how was John Kerry faring?

What about Clinton at this point in 1992, how many majorities had he won in a field of numerous Democratic hopefuls?

I'll give you a hint: the combined numbers of the answers to the above questions come to less than one.

*Please feel free to clear up if this is not what you mean.

Where have I said Bernie isn't a 'worthwhile' candidate?

What I originally pushed back on was a poster claiming that 'nobody likes Biden. Or Buttigieg. Or even Bloomberg'. Pointing out that there are more moderates in the field so it is far more difficult to gauge their popularity. None of that is saying Bernie isn't 'worthwhile'.

I also pushed back on a poster claiming that the 3 results so far prove anything about how electable Bernie would be against Trump, which again isn't saying Bernie isn't 'worthwhile'.

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, and as another said I think there's confusion about "plurality" here, just saying myself that when it comes to the momentum, Sanders - so far - has had it and shown a popularity that some narratives are trying to claim doesn't exist. The so-called Super Tuesday will inform a great deal however, 3 states is still a touch too early to call it Sanders' nomination to win.

I don't think anyone is saying Bernie isn't popular, it is more a concern that his popularity has a ceiling. The way some talk about him, you swear he was pulling in the majority of votes in each state so far, with some folk even forgetting he lost Iowa.

Given how he talks a big game regarding his 'movement', there hasn't been a significant overall increase in voters in states thus far. This is a problem if what he is selling scares away independents/moderate republicans, especially down ballot. Trump got around scaring away some moderates by bringing in new voters, I haven't seen strong evidence yet of Bernie doing this.

The nomination is his to lose (or his to blame someone else for taking from him) but what I'm talking about is transferring it into the general election

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Hypocritical much? A few posts ago you were twisting Trump visiting the 2nd most populated country in the world.

People twist things, that is politics. If you're going to dish it out you shouldnt moan about it.



Never said it did.

It does however mean that Bernie is not 3 for 3 so far.

How am I hypocritical?

People are free to visit countries as private citizens. It doesn't mean they are supporters of governments in those places. If I travel to the US it doesn't mean I am a supporter of Donald Trump.

Trump has consistently sucked up to Modi and given him total support for his domestic policies. Modi occupies Kashmir against the will of its people, has it under lockdown and has diappeared protestors. He is building massive gulags for people who fall foul of his insane citizenship laws. It's by no means alarmist to state that India is preparing for genocide - the head of Genocide Watch says exactly this.

And at no stage has Trump voiced even the mildest objection to any of this.

The so called "centrist" narratives have been hilarious. After Iowa it was all about how "Buttigieg won". After New Hampshire it was "Klobuchar and Buttigieg had great nights". After Nevada it was "Biden had a good night, he's still alive". Sense a theme here?

The nonsense about Sanders here would remind you of the media here throing stuff at Sinn Fein. It isn't going to work.

If you want to dispute Sanders' suitability for the nomination, have a look at something llike his policy on the filibuster, which Warren brought up last night - bacause on that, he's trailing other candidates. You will get nothing done as president if you don't get rid of the filibuster.

Red for Danger

Foxtrol wrote: »

Bernie didn't win Iowa...

Care to expand on how the democratic vote in 3 states, where Bernie never won a plurality, proves anything regarding him being electable in the general election?

Just to be clear.

I'm for Bernie Sanders because I think he's the best person to run the country.

If there was reasonably strong evidence that Sanders couldn't beat trump and some other candidate could I would certainly take that into account.
But no such evidence exist, the general election has way to many moving parts.
Right now, I reckon 5 of those remaining dems will win the gereral election, at the same time none come with a guarantee. Of those 5 id be most confident about sanders.

This electable thing gets so much air time because, what else can they say.
If they go head to head, on policy, honesty or sound judgement down through the years with a guy like sanders it would be political suicide.
By every metric an establishment candidate would be destroyed.

pixelburp

What do we reckon Sanders will get hammered on by the GOP attack dogs if it comes to it? Cos say what you will about him, Sanders has operated in the open for decades, without so much as a scandal or skeleton to be (apparently) found, all the while maintaining a pretty consistent message. Heck he hasn't even aged that much, footage from his 40s showing an equally grey, elder look. It's telling the only things so far pulled up against him have been some comments about Cuba. It's pretty small potatoes (though as Obama showed, there's nothing too small the GOP can't leverage into outrage)

I'm guessing the GOP will hit the "socialism" angle hard but if it doesn't appear to gain traction with demographic (which it hasn't with the Democrats) you'd wonder how long they'll persist with it. The only other strategy I can immediately imagine is Health, Sanders' age & recent fall possibly becoming weaponised in campaign ads. To that, the VP pick for Sanders could be more critical than usual, because there's a non-zero chance they'd become President by inheritance.

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

Where have I said Bernie isn't a 'worthwhile' candidate?

What I originally pushed back on was a poster claiming that 'nobody likes Biden. Or Buttigieg. Or even Bloomberg'. Pointing out that there are more moderates in the field so it is far more difficult to gauge their popularity. None of that is saying Bernie isn't 'worthwhile'.

I also pushed back on a poster claiming that the 3 results so far prove anything about how electable Bernie would be against Trump, which again isn't saying Bernie isn't 'worthwhile'.

Apologies and thanks for the clarification; think I jumped to a assumption based on our exhcnsge on the other thread a day or two back.

It is worth noting though that the field began with several progressive candidates and sanders has stood out above all of them, including Warren who was the third most popular candidate if I recall, up until shortly before Iowa.

I think Bloomberg has really helped shine light on the fact that so, so manh voters will just vote for who they saw on TV lost recently, whichis depressing but expectdd at this point. For months we heard about how Biden was so 'electable' but never were given any specifics at all, and rarely did he even attempt to give reason for what would make him so "electable" - this was highlighted quite a bit last night as myself and the other half, who doesn't follow politics as much, watched the first hour or so of the debate. Every time he spoke she couldn't help but mention "that guy just talks but never actually says anything!"

Biden has been an infamous gaffe machine for his whole career, so much so that it came up in 2008 and 2012 as potential hindrances to the Obama campaigns. Yet when they wheeled him out as some kind of messiah in no clothes, it very quickly came apparent just how terrible a candidate he would have been. The incident with the Iowa Steyer voter was a great example of this.

And just like that, they abandoned him. And ran straight to Pete, whom not a lot was known about other than he had been closest to Bernie so far, and even held a tiny lead after Iowa.

Next thing, Bloomberg literally buys his way in only a year after being a registered Republican who has spent tens of millions on republican election campaigns right until 2018, as best I can see. He then spends money never seen before on TV ads but offers good as nothing beyond that and gets destroyed in the debates in an unmerciful fashion. And sure enough, many of those Biden and Pete voters just immediately upped sticks and decided they wanted this guy instead.

Changing candidates definitely makes sense very often, but the corporatist side of the democrat party are wishy washy in the extreme, and seem more interested in saying they voted for the eventual candidate than voting for who they think best represents them. I wasn't very big on Clinton, but there was a hell of a lot more coherency to her campaign than Biden or Bloomberg have given so far (probably Pete too, but he has to be fair had a bit more substance than the other two a d has done a really good job punchjng above his starting point weight).

A bit of a rant granted, but it utterly disgusts me how Bloomberg just immediately got to 20% for basically no reason beyond flaunting his cash. Partly at him and the DNC, but in this instance more so towards their electorate and their inability to see that politics are not a reality tv show (anyone else notice the set and production last night were identical to Britain's got talent, x factor, etc?).

Englo

pixelburp wrote: »

What do we reckon Sanders will get hammered on by the GOP attack dogs if it comes to it? Cos say what you will about him, Sanders has operated in the open for decades, without so much as a scandal or skeleton to be (apparently) found, all the while maintaining a pretty consistent message. Heck he hasn't even aged that much, footage from his 40s showing an equally grey, elder look. It's telling the only things so far pulled up against him have been some comments about Cuba. It's pretty small potatoes (though as Obama showed, there's nothing too small the GOP can't leverage into outrage)

I'm guessing the GOP will hit the "socialism" angle hard but if it doesn't appear to gain traction with demographic you'd wonder how long they'll persist with it. The only other strategy I can immediately imagine is Health, Sanders' age & recent fall possibly becoming weaponised in campaign ads. To that, the VP pick for Sanders could be more critical than usual, because there's a non-zero chance they'd become President by inheritance.

Made up investigation, calling it now.

It has been a huge silver lining of Biden holding a pretty strong lead through 2019 polls. Were it not him and was Sanders instead who was leading, we would have Outlaw Pete and co trying to convince us that Bernie definitely committed those times in Ukraine that forced Trump with withdraw aid until they announced investigations.

I think even the Trump supporters are fully aware of this, loathe though they would be to admit it.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

How am I hypocritical?

People are free to visit countries as private citizens. It doesn't mean they are supporters of governments in those places. If I travel to the US it doesn't mean I am a supporter of Donald Trump.

Trump has consistently sucked up to Modi and given him total support for his domestic policies. Modi occupies Kashmir against the will of its people, has it under lockdown and has diappeared protestors. He is building massive gulags for people who fall foul of his insane citizenship laws. It's by no means alarmist to state that India is preparing for genocide - the head of Genocide Watch says exactly this.

And at no stage has Trump voiced even the mildest objection to any of this.

The so called "centrist" narratives have been hilarious. After Iowa it was all about how "Buttigieg won". After New Hampshire it was "Klobuchar and Buttigieg had great nights". After Nevada it was "Biden had a good night, he's still alive". Sense a theme here?

The nonsense about Sanders here would remind you of the media here throing stuff at Sinn Fein. It isn't going to work.

If you want to dispute Sanders' suitability for the nomination, have a look at something llike his policy on the filibuster, which Warren brought up last night - bacause on that, he's trailing other candidates. You will get nothing done as president if you don't get rid of the filibuster.

Look if you don't see the hypocrisy of using Trump's relationships/comments about countries with questionable leaders against him and then complaining when others do the same to Bernie then there is no point in going around in circles on it.

I'm not sure what your issue with the narrative "Buttigieg won"... Pete literally won that state. Everything out of Nevada was about Bernie winning, including melt downs from several folks. Everyone was talking about him as the presumptive nominee. I think you're looking through a very specific lens.

When Biden was the front runner he received months of negative press for what his son did. Sanders is having to deal with a bit of the same. You mightn't see it is fair but I don't think any of it has been outrageous. Bernie supporters seem to have the same mindset as those of Trump, no one has any right to question 'the leader'.

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

What do we reckon Sanders will get hammered on by the GOP attack dogs if it comes to it? Cos say what you will about him, Sanders has operated in the open for decades, without so much as a scandal or skeleton to be (apparently) found, all the while maintaining a pretty consistent message. Heck he hasn't even aged that much, footage from his 40s showing an equally grey, elder look. It's telling the only things so far pulled up against him have been some comments about Cuba. It's pretty small potatoes (though as Obama showed, there's nothing too small the GOP can't leverage into outrage)

I'm guessing the GOP will hit the "socialism" angle hard but if it doesn't appear to gain traction with demographic (which it hasn't with the Democrats) you'd wonder how long they'll persist with it. The only other strategy I can immediately imagine is Health, Sanders' age & recent fall possibly becoming weaponised in campaign ads. To that, the VP pick for Sanders could be more critical than usual, because there's a non-zero chance they'd become President by inheritance.

Reds under the bed, increasing the deficit, his health, 'the squad', anti-fracking, increasing taxes, taking away people's healthcare/doctor.

I know some of those are pot vs kettle and others should be able to be countered easily but given how Sanders has reacted so far to attacks I'm not sure he'll deal with them well.

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

Reds under the bed, increasing the deficit, his health, 'the squad', anti-fracking, increasing taxes, taking away people's healthcare/doctor.

I know some of those are pot vs kettle and others should be able to be countered easily but given how Sanders has reacted so far to attacks I'm not sure he'll deal with them well.

Is there any candidate you feel might do better on that front?

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Look if you don't see the hypocrisy of using Trump's relationships/comments about countries with questionable leaders against him and then complaining when others do the same to Bernie then there is no point in going around in circles on it.

I'm not sure what your issue with the narrative "Buttigieg won"... Pete literally won that state. Everything out of Nevada was about Bernie winning, including melt downs from several folks. Everyone was talking about him as the presumptive nominee. I think you're looking through a very specific lens.

When Biden was the front runner he received months of negative press for what his son did. Sanders is having to deal with a bit of the same. You mightn't see it is fair but I don't think any of it has been outrageous. Bernie supporters seem to have the same mindset as those of Trump, no one has any right to question 'the leader'.

Nothing in Sanders' past is remotely comparable to Trump's litany of horrible foreign connections and to be honest I see pretty much nothing there that is a problem for anybody fair and reasonable - that obviously doesn't include Republicans but they will dig up stuff to try and smear whoever the candidate is.

Sanders literally got the most votes in Iowa. He is more popular in Iowa than Buttigieg, and pretty much everywhere else too, it seems.

Specific lens? The lens people have to look through to think there is a problem with Sanders' past is extremely specific indeed and depends on a worldview where any praise at all for socialism is disqualifying.

Foxtrol

Englo wrote: »

Apologies and thanks for the clarification; think I jumped to a assumption based on our exhcnsge on the other thread a day or two back.

It is worth noting though that the field began with several progressive candidates and sanders has stood out above all of them, including Warren who was the third most popular candidate if I recall, up until shortly before Iowa.

I think Bloomberg has really helped shine light on the fact that so, so manh voters will just vote for who they saw on TV lost recently, whichis depressing but expectdd at this point. For months we heard about how Biden was so 'electable' but never were given any specifics at all, and rarely did he even attempt to give reason for what would make him so "electable" - this was highlighted quite a bit last night as myself and the other half, who doesn't follow politics as much, watched the first hour or so of the debate. Every time he spoke she couldn't help but mention "that guy just talks but never actually says anything!"

Biden has been an infamous gaffe machine for his whole career, so much so that it came up in 2008 and 2012 as potential hindrances to the Obama campaigns. Yet when they wheeled him out as some kind of messiah in no clothes, it very quickly came apparent just how terrible a candidate he would have been. The incident with the Iowa Steyer voter was a great example of this.

And just like that, they abandoned him. And ran straight to Pete, whom not a lot was known about other than he had been closest to Bernie so far, and even held a tiny lead after Iowa.

Next thing, Bloomberg literally buys his way in only a year after being a registered Republican who has spent tens of millions on republican election campaigns right until 2018, as best I can see. He then spends money never seen before on TV ads but offers good as nothing beyond that and gets destroyed in the debates in an unmerciful fashion. And sure enough, many of those Biden and Pete voters just immediately upped sticks and decided they wanted this guy instead.

Changing candidates definitely makes sense very often, but the corporatist side of the democrat party are wishy washy in the extreme, and seem more interested in saying they voted for the eventual candidate than voting for who they think best represents them. I wasn't very big on Clinton, but there was a hell of a lot more coherency to her campaign than Biden or Bloomberg have given so far (probably Pete too, but he has to be fair had a bit more substance than the other two a d has done a really good job punchjng above his starting point weight).

A bit of a rant granted, but it utterly disgusts me how Bloomberg just immediately got to 20% for basically no reason beyond flaunting his cash. Partly at him and the DNC, but in this instance more so towards their electorate and their inability to see that politics are not a reality tv show (anyone else notice the set and production last night were identical to Britain's got talent, x factor, etc?).

Biden was touted as the most electable because he was winning pretty much every poll and I think he still leads Bernie when it comes to head to head with Trump in some, if not most, swing states.

You might only see the gaffs but over the years Biden has done a lot for the party, across many states and communities. I unfortunately think time has caught up with him and it was always going to be a disappointment when people saw more of him.

From the way you feel frustrated about Bloomberg floating in as a former Republican I hope you can understand that how some feel similar about Bernie, floating into the party from being an independent. The money element is very different but there's a similar sense of entitlement

Red for Danger

Foxtrol wrote: »

but given how Sanders has reacted so far to attacks I'm not sure he'll deal with them well.

Can you be more specific?

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Nothing in Sanders' past is remotely comparable to Trump's litany of horrible foreign connections and to be honest I see pretty much nothing there that is a problem for anybody fair and reasonable - that obviously doesn't include Republicans but they will dig up stuff to try and smear whoever the candidate is.

I don't think you understand the background to feelings about Cuba and how strongly those that escaped there or their descendants feel about that regime. Trump was rightly gone after for his 'good people on both sides' statement.

No amount of whataboutery about Obama excuses them.

Sanders literally got the most votes in Iowa. He is more popular in Iowa than Buttigieg, and pretty much everywhere else too, it seems.

Clinton literally got more votes than Trump but lost the election.

Specific lens? The lens people have to look through to think there is a problem with Sanders' past is extremely specific indeed and depends on a worldview where any praise at all for socialism is disqualifying.

I'm talking about the lens where you're annoyed the media called the victor of Iowa the victor (especially as he was such an underdog) and your lens where you believed the post Nevada coverage was about Biden. I'm not sure what US TV stations/Newspapers you're taking in to get those narratives.