Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

The electorate might be familiar with Sanders, but they never had to decide on whether or not to vote for him outside of Vermont or primaries. I wish I had as much faith in you that the electorate will overlook it in a general election.

When you have headlines like this, it can be harder to spin it away. Again, it feeds into the narrative

I'm sorry, he called him a "vicious tyrant" and repeatedly condemned him.

I think you have an outdated view, as well as a depersonalized one, of what kind of attacks will stick to what kind of candidates. Negative partisanship is a very strong force today.

To you, maybe.

Even people who hate Sanders repeatedly report finding his "authenticity" admirable. Again, it is what it is. I'm just trying to describe the state of affairs. If Joe Walsh and Mike Bloomberg can choose Sanders over Trump then I'm sure almost every voting Democrat will.

But would they vote? Seems like a hell of a gamble to me.

Let's take the argument implied by the article, which can be assessed and criticized - but I just want to describe it. It is contributing evidence that in some swing states (habitual) nonvoters may lean more Republican, or at least Trumpian, than toward Democrats, and that this may be related to the same cohort's antiestablishmentarian and 'shake things up' attitudes. It is well-known that Democrats, both as a matter of principle and political strategy, promote voter registration and participation and oppose vote-suppressing policies. If it is correct that in a certain state nonvoters are net Republican-leaning, then increasing their turnout in the general would be a net negative for Democrats. On the other hand, given the characteristics of the nonvoting cohort, the contrarian Bernie "political revolution" Sanders might be expected to be more appealing to them than other Democratic candidates would be.

So what it amounts to is an argument for the above-replacement electability of Sanders in swing states. I don't fully buy it - across the states ~1/3 of respondents have no preference between parties or don't know, and I doubt if you forced them all to vote they would vote 3rd party 10X the general rate - but it is food for thought. Average Democrats will turn out against Trump as long as they're not outright demoralized by the nominee, and if the nominee is good with weak leaners or nonvoters then that's a bonus.

Both GWB and Obama were at around the same percentage at this point in the race. Barring some gigantic scandal (well, more than impeachment anyways), I think he has just as strong of an incumbent advantage as his predecessors did. Combine that with voters having a pretty good outlook on the economy, Id say more voters are sadly likely willing to overlook the whole corrupt wannabe dictator thing.

Here's the thing - the incumbent advantage has been observed to be continually weakening, and the difference between Trump's current polling and his most recent minimum in late October is 3 or 4 points. As always, to win reelection he has to perform at least as well in a specific set of states as he did in 2016. If his polling is running very high in October then we have a problem, but there's no ground for preemptive pessimism. To paraphrase someone, Sanders (if nominated) is on course to handle Trump fairly comfortably barring him suffering another heart attack on stage during the general and subsequently confessing his admiration for Stalin's 1930s policies. Your concerns can't be conclusively dissolved but they are weaker than you hold them to be. You shouldn't be complacent but you shouldn't stress yourself with misdirected anxiety.

National polls clearly indicated there's only one who has more possible votes in the final election - Sanders.

And let's be honest here, with Bloomberg suddenly polling at 19% out of the blue, it's really not unreasonable to expect the DNC will switch to someone more moderate. Hooah is right - America dislikes any mention of socialism, even if they like Bernie. At this rate, I would honestly expect the next ones to drop out would be Liz and Klobuchar.

This leaves the DNC with 3 guys who are nearly 80 and a young Army veteran who will not poll well in the conservative South because he's gay.

If the DNC were somehow to award the candidacy to someone other than Sanders then they would not be restricted to any of the contenders. If everyone other than Sanders concedes and releases their delegates from their pledges they could theoretically nominate Hillary Clinton or Al Gore if it were worked out that way. But it's not going to happen.

Expect Bloomberg to be a paper tiger just like Biden. We should have learned from Warren that a rapid surge built on soft support from squishy moderates is not a guarantee of lasting dominance.

The Cuban Revolution is generally viewed positively pretty much everywhere, except for the land of the sponsors of the previous regime. America has a huge problem with chauvinism, even among self-described liberals. I just read rant from a conservative-hating Democrat calling for sanctioning Russia to oblivion and intervening for an independent Chechnya. Rambles like these approach Ann Coulter levels of insanity. Although I personally don't like Sanders much, his candidacy might be on the long term a useful way to gradually reject some of the most extreme Cold War taboos.

Sanctioning Russia and an independent Chechnya is not exactly chauvinism. I'd be interested to see international polling on the Cuban Revolution though, I can't find any.

I'd say that Sanders is enough of an actual Socialist, as opposed to a Social Democrat, that more moderate educated voters will not vote for him - comparison to Corbyn as you say. Sanders is on mic saying things like "I supported Castro" and "I don't trust markets" and these sentiments are fundamentally un-American.

Corbyn comparisons are lazy and uninformed, and the "un-American" take is even worse, but to claim Sanders is on mic saying he supported Castro and doesn't trust markets, in the face of him saying the opposite on multiple occasions, requires some evidence. (And for the former, pointing out the increase in living standards in Cuba and opposing a coup is not tantamount to praising Castro.)

Note that this plan has failed in both my homeland and mit fosterland.

That is incorrect.

Owning your own business is central to the American dream - forcing you to give your business to your employees is anathema to it.

Phil, can you at least try?

Large companies with public stock offerings managed by board-selected executive officers are not equivalent to self-employed small business owners.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with co-operatives, but the key word here is ​forcing.

Do you have a problem with companies being forced to pay wages? If not, why not? What is the crucial distinction?