All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Malvolio]

Those obstacles still remain but Sanders is winning now. He's leading nationally by double digits, and continues to rise in state polls.

He can win the electoral college. He's more liked in the states Hillary lost than she was.

Still need a plan to stop some of the shenanigans from 2016. Michigan having a Democratic governor will help this time around, but more must be done in Wisconsin and Ohio.

[Jack Dracula]

Bloomberg is perhaps the last Dem running I would vote for. But to say he is similar to Trump is ridiculous. As a New Yorker I have lived through Bloomberg's years as mayor. He was good in some ways and bad in others. No major scandals. But not the corrupt, disgusting, worthless POS we New Yorkers have known Trump to be for decades.

Obviously I don't have your firsthand experience with Bloomberg as mayor, but I don't trust his motivations for running and I don't like the idea of him as President. I just see that as being more of a positive for the billionaire class and financial institutions than for the average person just trying to get by.

[Superbat]

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Sanders could have -- or can -- beat Trump.

I think the most popular politician in the country could have beaten the least popular.

The Democrats thought differently and so they lost the general election.

Trump is more popular now than he was in 2016 but I still think Sanders can beat him.

Bernie winning against Trump is a theory. I could be wrong about it but what isn't a theory is a moderate lost to Trump. That's a fact.

I'll go with the progressive than trying again with a losing strategy.

[Superbat]

Still need a plan to stop some the shenanigans from 2016. Michigan having a Democratic governor will help this time around, but more must be done in Wisconsin and Ohio.

You're right and I'm sure Sanders knows it.

He won't make the mistakes Hillary made.

[numberthirty]

Viability is a primary concern, which is exactly why many people would prefer a moderate -- even Bloomberg -- in the general election to Sanders.

You're just making excuses for Sanders' losses, which is to be expected any time someone engages in dialogue with you.

Blame the DNC, blame Democratic voters, blame Hillary, blame moderates -- blame anyone but Sanders for his losses.

Again, maybe you will manage to drag everyone else down enough this time to help Sanders win the primary.

But it remains to be seen how making so many enemies in the Democratic party will play out in the general.

On Bloomberg, I'd disagree.

There is a clearly realistic scenario where that winds up at "Please Vote For The Least 'Complete Garbage..." Option..." Ignoring the issue with viability when it comes to him is unwise, at best.

As for viability when it comes to Sanders, it's hard to get around that the primary process isn't really geared towards surely picking the most viable candidate.

That's a reality that I have internalized. You can only hope that candidates will run a serious General. I have no doubts about Sanders when it comes to that.

[aja_christopher]

I think the most popular politician in the country could have beaten the least popular.

The Democrats thought differently and so they lost the general election.

Trump is more popular now than he was in 2016 but I still think Sanders can beat him.

Bernie winning against Trump is a theory. I could be wrong about it but what isn't a theory is a moderate lost to Trump. That's a fact.

I'll go with the progressive than trying again with a losing strategy.

Yet your theory doesn't take into the account the fact that moderates won the White House in 2012 and 2016 (Obama) and the House in 2018.

While progressives have not won a presidency in modern history and didn't do well in the most recent Congressional midterm elections.

A solid theory should take into account all relevant facts, and not just those that support your opinion.

On Bloomberg, I'd disagree.

Of course you would, because you refuse to acknowledge Sanders isn't a deity and that many voters would prefer Bloomberg.

Just as many preferred Hillary to Sanders.

[Theleviathan]

He lost the primary. He would have won the general.

This time he'll win both.

Your reasoning behind this is that the "most popular" beats the "less popular". You state Bernie was the "most popular" in 2016.....yet he didn't win against someone who (by definition of the word "most") was less popular.

One wonders how you lose by 4 million votes when you are the most popular guy around.

[numberthirty]

Obviously I don't have your firsthand experience with Bloomberg as mayor, but I don't trust his motivations for running and I don't like the idea of him as President. I just see that as being more of a positive for the billionaire class and financial institutions than for the average person just trying to get by.

Ditto.

..........

[numberthirty]

Your reasoning behind this is that the "most popular" beats the "less popular". You state Bernie was the "most popular" in 2016.....yet he didn't win against someone who (by definition of the word "most") was less popular.

One wonders how you lose by 4 million votes when you are the most popular guy around.

No, not really.

Democrats are fond of nominating "Who's Next?..."/"We Believe This Is A Safe Bet..." choices.

Never mind that there were only to viable options. It ain't hard to run the numbers up in that scenario.

[aja_christopher]

Your reasoning behind this is that the "most popular" beats the "less popular". You state Bernie was the "most popular" in 2016.....yet he didn't win against someone who (by definition of the word "most") was less popular.

One wonders how you lose by 4 million votes when you are the most popular guy around.

Because voting isn't a popularity contest.

These voters have to actually show up, and that's what people want to see from the Sanders campaign.

Less trash talking and more voting.

Not just win a primary voting, but win the White House and start a democratic socialist revolution voting.

[Theleviathan]

No, not really.

Democrats are fond of nominating "Who's Next?..."/"We Believe This Is A Safe Bet..." choices.

Never mind that there were only to viable options. It ain't hard to run the numbers up in that scenario.

You're putting a shallow amount of thought into this. Let's pretend I buy this....alright....then how is 2020 magically different come the general? They'll just stop making the "safe bet" vote?

Sanders will never be the safe bet, even against Trump for many voters. It's a patently ridiculous argument to state Bernie's popularity is so great it's a certainty he'd win a general election when he translates that same popularity into ass-kickings from half the voters. Voters you decry for their stupid decision making who'll just....magically I guess?....make less stupid decisions in the general?

Can we try, just try, to examine this with a bit clearer heads?

[Superbat]

Yet your theory doesn't take into the account the fact that moderates won the White House in 2012 and 2016 (Obama) and the House in 2018.

While progressives have not won a presidency in modern history and didn't do well in the most recent Congressional midterm elections.

A solid theory should take into account all relevant facts, and not just those that support your opinion.

My theory is about who can beat Trump.

A progressive has not gone against Trump, a moderate has.

Your reasoning was what was given for why Hillary was the better choice to against Trump in 2016 and it was proven wrong. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in 2020 but I don't think so.

[numberthirty]

You're putting a shallow amount of thought into this. Let's pretend I buy this....alright....then how is 2020 magically different come the general? They'll just stop making the "safe bet" vote?

Sanders will never be the safe bet, even against Trump for many voters. It's a patently ridiculous argument to state Bernie's popularity is so great it's a certainty he'd win a general election when he translates that same popularity into ass-kickings from half the voters. Voters you decry for their stupid decision making who'll just....magically I guess?....make less stupid decisions in the general?

Can we try, just try, to examine this with a bit clearer heads?

No one said any of that.

You asked how a more popular candidate could lose during the nomination process. It's easy.

"Seemingly Sensible..." Vs. "Actual Popularity..."

Not that complicated.

Also?

Not just Democratic voters who have that tendency in a General.

That's another discussion though.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Basically, The "LIBERALS" are so scared of change and progress they continually delude themselves with utter nonsense. They are continually wrong, and only look back when they start losing elections after learning nothing.

It's not delusion hen those tactics end up with more electoral and congressional victories than the left has within the government. It's not us who are being delusional. We're fighting for progress like you are, except we admit how strong the barriers are and get what we can through. This argument you're making tears down liberals but isn't a strong argument to lift up leftists.

It's why I refuse to quote or respond to some that post here. Their nonsense has been continual for the last few years. They want to beat Trump so bad, they'll accept another Trump, as long as that Trump has a D next to his name.

Instead it makes you looking you're conceding.

[Superbat]

Your reasoning behind this is that the "most popular" beats the "less popular". You state Bernie was the "most popular" in 2016.....yet he didn't win against someone who (by definition of the word "most") was less popular.

One wonders how you lose by 4 million votes when you are the most popular guy around.

Because primaries are different from the general.

If Bernie does lose to Trump, are going to still stick with saying no one who lost the primary would have done better than the nominee?