Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
I do. Bernie channels anger. He's no Corbyn who was too much the gentleman and not prepared to get personal. Bernie is a first name person. Bernie is head of an enormous multi-racial, all ages family that rivals Trump's. He is best placed to beat Trump. Democrat activists seem to agree with me.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
I do. Bernie channels anger. He's no Corbyn who was too much the gentleman and not prepared to get personal. Bernie is a first name person. Bernie is head of an enormous multi-racial, all ages family that rivals Trump's. He is best placed to beat Trump. Democrat activists seem to agree with me.
Labour activists thought Corbyn could win.
they were going against what the opinion polls said
Just like Jeremy Corbyn was preparing for government in December?
No. More like Sinn Fein were feeling upbeat in Ireland a couple of weeks ago.
In fact, to be serious for a second, I prefer your position to mine. If you are right and it's a Trump landslide, then you have called it, you're a shrewdy, and (if you're a bettor) will have made money. And if you're very wrong, Trump out, then you will have that glorious event to celebrate along with every person of sound mind and good character on the planet.
Whereas me, I'm exposed every which way - kudoswise, moneywise, and above all politically and emotionally and spiritually. If I'm wrong I lose it all.
If Sanders wins then centrists will have a horrifying truth to face up to: President Trump would never have needed to happen. It would have been them, by supporting Hillary in the primaries last time, who put him in the white house
Not necessarily.
It is possible for Bernie to have lost in 2016 if he was the candidate, but still win in 2020 if he is the candidate, for a number of reasons.
First and most obvious is incumbency, the Dems held the presidency for eight years so voters may have felt it was time for a change.
The second is time. Sanders has had an additional four years to campaign and build his base and convince wavering voters.
The third is changing conditions. Rising wealth inequality since 2016 may mean Sanders' message resonates with more people now than it did then.
The final reason is Trump himself. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and it is perfectly possible that the last four years of Trump have galvanised the left and shifted the overton window to a point where Bernie is able to win, in a way he would not have in 2016.
I don't know whether Sanders can beat Trump or not.
I suspect, but don't know, that he is not best placed of the current contenders to try. I think, given sufficient time and exposure, he would be miles behind Klobuchar, and probably Warren, in electability. Buttigieg I can see being eaten alive by Trump. Biden barely seems alive as it is.
One thing I am fairly sure of, however, is that Trump is just about the only Republican from the 2016 primary field whom I could see losing to Sanders as an incumbent.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
I do. Bernie channels anger. He's no Corbyn who was too much the gentleman and not prepared to get personal. Bernie is a first name person. Bernie is head of an enormous multi-racial, all ages family that rivals Trump's. He is best placed to beat Trump. Democrat activists seem to agree with me.
Labour activists thought Corbyn could win.
As a rule I think party activists are generally a useless group to ask about the viability of a candidate. Their guy is always the born winner, and everyone else losers. In fact I think asking opposing parties is usually more illuminating.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
I do. Bernie channels anger. He's no Corbyn who was too much the gentleman and not prepared to get personal. Bernie is a first name person. Bernie is head of an enormous multi-racial, all ages family that rivals Trump's. He is best placed to beat Trump. Democrat activists seem to agree with me.
Labour activists thought Corbyn could win.
Sanders is not Corbyn. For a start, he has real executive experience, and has proved able to learn from his losing campaign the first time round. And while there are very large numbers of Democrats who do not like him in the slightest, they will still vote for him. As will some Republicans.
The number of traditional Tories who voted for Corbyn (in the general election ... ) is likely close to zero.
Just like Jeremy Corbyn was preparing for government in December?
No. More like Sinn Fein were feeling upbeat in Ireland a couple of weeks ago.
In fact, to be serious for a second, I prefer your position to mine. If you are right and it's a Trump landslide, then you have called it, you're a shrewdy, and (if you're a bettor) will have made money. And if you're very wrong, Trump out, then you will have that glorious event to celebrate along with every person of sound mind and good character on the planet.
Whereas me, I'm exposed every which way - kudoswise, moneywise, and above all politically and emotionally and spiritually. If I'm wrong I lose it all.
If Sanders wins then centrists will have a horrifying truth to face up to: President Trump would never have needed to happen. It would have been them, by supporting Hillary in the primaries last time, who put him in the white house
No you cannot conlcude that. Many light leaning democrats assumed in 2016 that Trump could not win, and would not win, and so did not vote. There is not really any evidence to assume this would have been different in 2016 if Sanders was the Dem Candidate. Not all of the Clinton stay-at-homers would have been the same people as the Sanders-stay-at-homers but in both cases it was enough to have made the difference in the WiMiPa states.
This time round every democrat leaning voter knows that Trump could win again. Trump might be able to in over some swing voter or some centre Democrats but there will be very few "can't be arsed to vote" voters this time round.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
Why not? He came pretty close to the nomination four years ago, and it was widely accepted at the time that the DNC was doing everything they could to help his opponent.
How is it that there is much left to come out into the public domain? Seems more likely to me at this stage that there isn't much?
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
I do. Bernie channels anger. He's no Corbyn who was too much the gentleman and not prepared to get personal. Bernie is a first name person. Bernie is head of an enormous multi-racial, all ages family that rivals Trump's. He is best placed to beat Trump. Democrat activists seem to agree with me.
Labour activists thought Corbyn could win.
they were going against what the opinion polls said
Not at this stage of the electoral cycle they weren't. The opinion polls in March (same gap to the Dec election as now to now to Nov) had Labour in the lead.
But wise heads knew then that Corbyn was unelectable whatever the polls said.
Parroting just opinion polls shows no wisdom. Knowing when the polls are wrong is more impressive.
Just like Jeremy Corbyn was preparing for government in December?
No. More like Sinn Fein were feeling upbeat in Ireland a couple of weeks ago.
In fact, to be serious for a second, I prefer your position to mine. If you are right and it's a Trump landslide, then you have called it, you're a shrewdy, and (if you're a bettor) will have made money. And if you're very wrong, Trump out, then you will have that glorious event to celebrate along with every person of sound mind and good character on the planet.
Whereas me, I'm exposed every which way - kudoswise, moneywise, and above all politically and emotionally and spiritually. If I'm wrong I lose it all.
If Sanders wins then centrists will have a horrifying truth to face up to: President Trump would never have needed to happen. It would have been them, by supporting Hillary in the primaries last time, who put him in the white house
Not necessarily.
It is possible for Bernie to have lost in 2016 if he was the candidate, but still win in 2020 if he is the candidate, for a number of reasons.
First and most obvious is incumbency, the Dems held the presidency for eight years so voters may have felt it was time for a change.
The second is time. Sanders has had an additional four years to campaign and build his base and convince wavering voters.
The third is changing conditions. Rising wealth inequality since 2016 may mean Sanders' message resonates with more people now than it did then.
The final reason is Trump himself. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and it is perfectly possible that the last four years of Trump have galvanised the left and shifted the overton window to a point where Bernie is able to win, in a way he would not have in 2016.
You could also make all the opposite arguments (and I think more convincingly). ie it's possible for Sanders to lose in 2020 when he would have won in 2016:
The economy is doing pretty well with Trump as president - far from the doom predicted by some Trump opponents before he became president (tho they may well prove to be right eventually...)
Sanders is old and has recently had a heart attack.
Just like Jeremy Corbyn was preparing for government in December?
No. More like Sinn Fein were feeling upbeat in Ireland a couple of weeks ago.
In fact, to be serious for a second, I prefer your position to mine. If you are right and it's a Trump landslide, then you have called it, you're a shrewdy, and (if you're a bettor) will have made money. And if you're very wrong, Trump out, then you will have that glorious event to celebrate along with every person of sound mind and good character on the planet.
Whereas me, I'm exposed every which way - kudoswise, moneywise, and above all politically and emotionally and spiritually. If I'm wrong I lose it all.
If Sanders wins then centrists will have a horrifying truth to face up to: President Trump would never have needed to happen. It would have been them, by supporting Hillary in the primaries last time, who put him in the white house
No you cannot conlcude that. Many light leaning democrats assumed in 2016 that Trump could not win, and would not win, and so did not vote. There is not really any evidence to assume this would have been different in 2016 if Sanders was the Dem Candidate. Not all of the Clinton stay-at-homers would have been the same people as the Sanders-stay-at-homers but in both cases it was enough to have made the difference in the WiMiPa states.
This time round every democrat leaning voter knows that Trump could win again. Trump might be able to in over some swing voter or some centre Democrats but there will be very few "can't be arsed to vote" voters this time round.
Agreed. Without President Trump, there would be no President Sanders.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
I do. Bernie channels anger. He's no Corbyn who was too much the gentleman and not prepared to get personal. Bernie is a first name person. Bernie is head of an enormous multi-racial, all ages family that rivals Trump's. He is best placed to beat Trump. Democrat activists seem to agree with me.
Labour activists thought Corbyn could win.
they were going against what the opinion polls said
Not at this stage of the electoral cycle they weren't. The opinion polls in March (same gap to the Dec election as now to now to Nov) had Labour in the lead.
But wise heads knew then that Corbyn was unelectable whatever the polls said.
Parroting just opinion polls shows no wisdom. Knowing when the polls are wrong is more impressive.
The March polls weren't "wrong". They just weren't useful predictors of a future general election result. As you say, anyone with half a brain knew that the key factor was that Corbyn was unelectable. The polls were also telling us that, of course.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
Why not? He came pretty close to the nomination four years ago, and it was widely accepted at the time that the DNC was doing everything they could to help his opponent.
How is it that there is much left to come out into the public domain? Seems more likely to me at this stage that there isn't much?
I don't mean a grab em by the pussy tape. I mean that the vast majority of the public don't get engaged with the process until the last month or two of the GE. At the moment, many will still see him as the old bloke promising healthcare for all, a bit like Jezza had the magic grandpa tag until the media really got stuck into his previous.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
That was discussed on Marr this morning and Marr himself said it was a good idea
That the security services do not trust the Home Sec?
I suspect not the only one at the heart of government who cannot be trusted with official intelligence.
Dominic Cummings was never entrusted with intelligence either, right from birth.
I have an organ to play with. Have a good morning.
So anyway, I was playing with my organ, thinking no evil of anybody, when suddenly there’s a loud pinging noise. I look down, and there at my feet is the knob you push to inflate the bellows.
Clearly I had been pressing too hard somewhere, so I lost my beautiful horn.
And what’s even more exasperating is, somebody who knew what they were doing took only seconds to put he knob back so I could achieve full swell again - after I had finished playing.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I am not sure there is "a media" in the US in the way that there is here. There are many medias in many states and in a couple of languages (at least). There are also far looser impartiality rules for non-terrestrial broadcasters.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
Why not? He came pretty close to the nomination four years ago, and it was widely accepted at the time that the DNC was doing everything they could to help his opponent.
How is it that there is much left to come out into the public domain? Seems more likely to me at this stage that there isn't much?
I don't mean a grab em by the pussy tape. I mean that the vast majority of the public don't get engaged with the process until the last month or two of the GE. At the moment, many will still see him as the old bloke promising healthcare for all, a bit like Jezza had the magic grandpa tag until the media really got stuck into his previous.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
You're identifying stuff that would stop you from voting for him, I thought (cf Trump) Brits doing that was a bad or at least foolish thing.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
That's my point. The likes of CNN hate Trump, but you see it in the coverage of these primaries they are desperate for somebody like them e.g. Mayor Pete to win.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
Why not? He came pretty close to the nomination four years ago, and it was widely accepted at the time that the DNC was doing everything they could to help his opponent.
How is it that there is much left to come out into the public domain? Seems more likely to me at this stage that there isn't much?
I don't mean a grab em by the pussy tape. I mean that the vast majority of the public don't get engaged with the process until the last month or two of the GE. At the moment, many will still see him as the old bloke promising healthcare for all, a bit like Jezza had the magic grandpa tag until the media really got stuck into his previous.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
It always has been. Don’t forget Sanders started this process with similar name recognition to Biden. The electorate already have an image of him.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
That's my point. The likes of CNN hate Trump, but you see it in the coverage of these primaries they are desperate for somebody like them e.g. Mayor Pete to win.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
Plus if Trump wins then he's a lame duck and in 2024 the Democrats will be strong favourites with hopefully someone sane - and certainly not the same crowd of geriatrics.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
And that will just be the stuff that is factual or at least debatable. You can expect Trump and the GOP, as well as all the lobbyists and PACs, to be pushing all kinds of crazy nonsense with the assurance that DOJ won't act, the FEC won't act, the Senate will shield them, and that places like Facebook have already decided to not intervene. I expect it to be the dirtiest Presidential election in living memory.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
That was discussed on Marr this morning and Marr himself said it was a good idea
That the security services do not trust the Home Sec?
I suspect not the only one at the heart of government who cannot be trusted with official intelligence.
Dominic Cummings was never entrusted with intelligence either, right from birth.
I have an organ to play with. Have a good morning.
So anyway, I was playing with my organ, thinking no evil of anybody, when suddenly there’s a loud pinging noise. I look down, and there at my feet is the knob you push to inflate the bellows.
Clearly I had been pressing too hard somewhere, so I lost my beautiful horn.
And what’s even more exasperating is, somebody who knew what they were doing took only seconds to put he knob back so I could achieve full swell again - after I had finished playing.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
The line on Trump this time (which has the benefit of being true) is that he is deeply corrupt, and a threat to US democracy.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
And that will just be the stuff that is factual or at least debatable. You can expect Trump and the GOP, as well as all the lobbyists and PACs, to be pushing all kinds of crazy nonsense with the assurance that DOJ won't act, the FEC won't act, the Senate will shield them, and that places like Facebook have already decided to not intervene. I expect it to be the dirtiest Presidential election in living memory.
Anyone any idea what proportion of the money going onto the US GE on Betfair is from UK punters?
I have a feeling that the Sanders=Corbyn assumption is distorting the market. I think Sanders for President is a value bet.
I watched a young Latino in Nevada say "We are family and Bernie is our father".
Haven't you lost enough money convincing yourself that backing the candidate you wanted to win was an impartial rational decision?
I'm substantially ahead on my political betting overall.
But you are right to make the point. It is too easy to post rationalise an emotional position. You have to guard against it all the time.
There are other guidelines I think.
Avoid false analogies.
Avoid believing the worst will happen (so you are never disappointed and sometimes pleasantly surprised).
Perhaps someone could come up with a list of guidelines to successful betting?
Numbers 1, 2 and 3: Make sure you distinguish between what you want to happen and what you think will happen. Bet only on the second and not on the first, most betting mistakes come from being insufficiently detached from your personal preference of outcome.
At least, that's my excuse for laying Boris Johnson as next PM for three years, up until about a fortnight before he got elected!
One of my big wins was betting on Boris Johnson as next PM. I was onto him very early - and welcomed the widespread nay-saying on here that lengthened his odds.
On Bernie I 'm taking into account polling in swing states, enthusiasm for turnout, possible black swans like the virus. Overall I don't think he will win. But I think his chances are perhaps 1 in 3 rather than the 1 in 4 implied by Betfair. So it's a value bet that I'll probably lose but I won't blame anyone, not even myself.
If you keep placing value bets, you'll lose plenty but overall you'll be ahead.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
The line on Trump this time (which has the benefit of being true) is that he is deeply corrupt, and a threat to US democracy.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
That's my point. The likes of CNN hate Trump, but you see it in the coverage of these primaries they are desperate for somebody like them e.g. Mayor Pete to win.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
I agree, though it's pretty much baked into polling now. They already have dragged up Sanders' baggage, again and again and again. It's probably not going to have any more impact than it has already.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I am not sure there is "a media" in the US in the way that there is here. There are many medias in many states and in a couple of languages (at least). There are also far looser impartiality rules for non-terrestrial broadcasters.
Yes that is a fair point. What I meant was in 2016, all bar Fox where supporting Clinton and concentrating their fire on pussy grabber stuff.
You watch any coverage now of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc, they aren't going to give the same air support to Sanders. So it will be just the twitter and the left YouTube lot, up against Trump's online base, Fox and all the other major players at best saying they are both dangerous.
Anyone any idea what proportion of the money going onto the US GE on Betfair is from UK punters?
I have a feeling that the Sanders=Corbyn assumption is distorting the market. I think Sanders for President is a value bet.
I watched a young Latino in Nevada say "We are family and Bernie is our father".
Haven't you lost enough money convincing yourself that backing the candidate you wanted to win was an impartial rational decision?
I'm substantially ahead on my political betting overall.
But you are right to make the point. It is too easy to post rationalise an emotional position. You have to guard against it all the time.
There are other guidelines I think.
Avoid false analogies.
Avoid believing the worst will happen (so you are never disappointed and sometimes pleasantly surprised).
Perhaps someone could come up with a list of guidelines to successful betting?
Numbers 1, 2 and 3: Make sure you distinguish between what you want to happen and what you think will happen. Bet only on the second and not on the first, most betting mistakes come from being insufficiently detached from your personal preference of outcome.
At least, that's my excuse for laying Boris Johnson as next PM for three years, up until about a fortnight before he got elected!
One of my big wins was betting on Boris Johnson as next PM. I was onto him very early - and welcomed the widespread nay-saying on here that lengthened his odds.
On Bernie I 'm taking into account polling in swing states, enthusiasm for turnout, possible black swans like the virus. Overall I don't think he will win. But I think his chances are perhaps 1 in 3 rather than the 1 in 4 implied by Betfair. So it's a value bet that I'll probably lose but I won't blame anyone, not even myself.
If you keep placing value bets, you'll lose plenty but overall you'll be ahead.
That’s why I tend to bet on US rather than UK politics. I won money on Johnson for mayor, but just could not bring myself to bet on the last election.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
describing Trump's baggage as "a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women" is fake news
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
* Sanders didn't win the first round by quite the landslide that the early results suggested.
* On the other hand, he seems to have been more transfer-friendly than anyone else. This is presumably partly because in some areas other candidates didn't make the 15% cut, but it does suggest that he's not as moderate-repellent as some comments suggest.
In reply to the question downthread, I don't think he'd beat Trump, but it's of course possible. I'd give him a 30% shot. Warren, Biden, Klobouchar, maybe 40%; Buttigeg as low as 25% (lack of minority appeal, lack of experience, lack of sheer savage punch).
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
describing Trump's baggage as "a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women" is fake news
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
Kennedy got away with that. But then, he was up against Nixon so it was kind of negated...
Both Sanders and Trump are the kind of politicians built for the kind of limited powers republican system that the United States has. Neither can, in practice, do all that much that would be considered 'revolutionary'. Under a powerful parliamentary system that the UK has they would both struggle.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
That's my point. The likes of CNN hate Trump, but you see it in the coverage of these primaries they are desperate for somebody like them e.g. Mayor Pete to win.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
I agree, though it's pretty much baked into polling now. They already have dragged up Sanders' baggage, again and again and again. It's probably not going to have any more impact than it has already.
I wouldn't over-estimate how much people in many parts of America actually know about candidates. Here most people thought Jezza was a decent kinda of guy from a surface glance and public here are much more switched on.
Given the long election cycle, the media will have months of time to fire the incoming at Sanders, day in day out.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
And that will just be the stuff that is factual or at least debatable. You can expect Trump and the GOP, as well as all the lobbyists and PACs, to be pushing all kinds of crazy nonsense with the assurance that DOJ won't act, the FEC won't act, the Senate will shield them, and that places like Facebook have already decided to not intervene. I expect it to be the dirtiest Presidential election in living memory.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
describing Trump's baggage as "a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women" is fake news
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
No, you are missing my point. The focus was overwhelmingly on that stuff. If you ask people what they remember from that campaign it would be grab'em by the pussy, not the tales of how he built his property empire in New York at a time when the mob were powerful there.
My point was among all those factory workers in the mid-west, hearing that he spoke a lot like them and it was an outrage according to the West Coast media elite, didn't harm him.
If you are asking me what worries me about Trump, top of the list isn't some old tape about his saying crude stuff. There are far bigger issues, but that isn't what the media in 2016 went big on.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
describing Trump's baggage as "a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women" is fake news
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
Trump's baggage that he was a billionaire boasting he bangs a lot of women is precisely how the media (and his opponents and critics) mostly went with. In one way it acted as a smokescreen drawing his opponents ire away from more serious criticism.
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I am not sure there is "a media" in the US in the way that there is here. There are many medias in many states and in a couple of languages (at least). There are also far looser impartiality rules for non-terrestrial broadcasters.
Yes that is a fair point. What I meant was in 2016, all bar Fox where supporting Clinton and concentrating their fire on pussy grabber stuff.
You watch any coverage now of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc, they aren't going to give the same air support to Sanders. So it will be just the twitter and the left YouTube lot, up against Trump's online base, Fox and all the other major players at best saying they are both dangerous.
* Sanders didn't win the first round by quite the landslide that the early results suggested.
* On the other hand, he seems to have been more transfer-friendly than anyone else. This is presumably partly because in some areas other candidates didn't make the 15% cut, but it does suggest that he's not as moderate-repellent as some comments suggest.
In reply to the question downthread, I don't think he'd beat Trump, but it's of course possible. I'd give him a 30% shot. Warren, Biden, Klobouchar, maybe 40%; Buttigeg as low as 25% (lack of minority appeal, lack of experience, lack of sheer savage punch).
I think you seriously underestimate Buttigieg’s chances - but the again, we’ll probably never know. And I’d put Sanders’ chances a bit higher, too (assuming he stays healthy, which is of course another uncertainty).
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
describing Trump's baggage as "a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women" is fake news
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
Trump's baggage that he was a billionaire boasting he bangs a lot of women is precisely how the media (and his opponents and critics) mostly went with. In one way it acted as a smokescreen drawing his opponents ire away from more serious criticism.
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
But not as unpatriotic as the guy who puts loyalty to himself over both country and constitution.
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
If you think concerns about being unpatriotic go down bad among the Red Wall voters in the UK, it is utterly toxic to most Americans (especially in middle America).
And despite the media bashing Trump for all his America First rhetoric, it is actually what a lot of mid America want to here. So it enables him to again play the card of being a massive patriot, even if the truth is far less clear.
Many more will be joining him soon. Please everyone keep an eye out for the most hilarious or cringeworthy about faces, like Ted Cruz re Trump last time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/23/italy-draconian-measures-effort-halt-coronavirus-outbreak-spread Hundreds of colleagues who worked with the first infected man, a researcher at Unilever, are being tested but it is still unclear who he contracted the illness from. The man, who is in intensive care, was initially thought to have caught the virus after meeting a colleague who had recently returned from China, but the colleague tested negative.
“Unfortunately, the person who was considered to be ‘patient zero’ was not,” said Fontana. “We need to look elsewhere. We are following two hypotheses, and we will try to understand if one of the two is correct.”
A keen runner, the 38-year-old recently took part in a number of races. His pregnant wife is also infected, as is a person who went running with the man. Three other cases in Lombardy are elderly people who frequented a bar in the town of Codogno, near Lodi, that is owned by the father of the man who went running with the 38-year-old.
The man who died in Veneto was diagnosed with pneumonia a few weeks ago but had not travelled to China nor come into contact with anyone who had.
“Unfortunately, we haven’t managed to limit the spread of the virus,” Roberto Burioni, a professor of microbiology and virology at the Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan, which has also closed, told the Guardian.
“And we need to face the fact that it is spreading quickly. At first, we thought that the virus was only abroad, but now it is also in Italy. People should try not to panic but limiting the spread is, in part, down to our behaviour...
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
That's my point. The likes of CNN hate Trump, but you see it in the coverage of these primaries they are desperate for somebody like them e.g. Mayor Pete to win.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
I agree, though it's pretty much baked into polling now. They already have dragged up Sanders' baggage, again and again and again. It's probably not going to have any more impact than it has already.
I wouldn't over-estimate how much people in many parts of America actually know about candidates. Here most people thought Jezza was a decent kinda of guy from a surface glance and public here are much more switched on.
Given the long election cycle, the media will have months of time to fire the incoming at Sanders, day in day out.
Sanders is waaaay better known in the US than Corbyn was over here. Don't forget he's already been through this in the 2016 primaries. Any mud that hasn't stuck already is unlikely to now.
Public here more switched on than in the US? You only need to look at the polls of people who can name any of the Labour leadership candidates.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
describing Trump's baggage as "a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women" is fake news
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
Trump's baggage that he was a billionaire boasting he bangs a lot of women is precisely how the media (and his opponents and critics) mostly went with. In one way it acted as a smokescreen drawing his opponents ire away from more serious criticism.
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
But not as unpatriotic as the guy who puts loyalty to himself over both country and constitution.
This isn't an intellectual exercise to be won.
Rightly or wrongly (and I'd say wrongly) Trump is not viewed as unAmerican. Tragically.
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
If you think concerns about being unpatriotic go down bad among the Red Wall voters in the UK, it is utterly toxic to most Americans (especially in middle America).
And despite the media bashing Trump for all his America First rhetoric, it is actually what a lot of mid America want to here. So it enables him to again play the card of being a massive patriot, even if the truth is far less clear.
Precisely. Trump is a scoundrel but voters want and expect patriotism. Historically in America both parties have wrapped themselves in the flag so it was moot but not right now.
Americans will forgive many sins but not a lack of patriotism.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
and yet baggage might not matter if the Story resonates with enough people. look at all Trump's baggage (or Johnson's for that matter)
Its different baggage. The focus on Trump was he is a bragger, he is a womanizer and said a load of un-pc stuff. That doesn't hurt him as much as the West Coast Woke elite think it does e.g. like here with Boris. It dominated the coverage above perhaps other things that would have hurt him among mid-west man.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
describing Trump's baggage as "a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women" is fake news
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
No, you are missing my point. The focus was overwhelmingly on that stuff. If you ask people what they remember from that campaign it would be grab'em by the pussy, not the tales of how he built his property empire in New York at a time when the mob were powerful there.
My point was among all those factory workers in the mid-west, hearing that he spoke a lot like them and it was an outrage according to the West Coast media elite, didn't harm him.
If you are asking me what worries me about Trump, top of the list isn't some old tape about his saying crude stuff. There are far bigger issues, but that isn't what the media in 2016 went big on.
and the issue about any candidate that got by far the most attention from the US media in 2016 was Clinton's emails, which I would also put way down the list on what I don't like about Clinton...
As a general rule, flat-earthers whose nickname is "Mad" do not the best of rocket scientists make.....
I’m pretty sure there’s a theory out there that NASA sabotaged his launch to keep the secret secret.
It's quite a thing, imagining how a flat-earther rocket scientist explains, oh I don't know - satellites? Do they think the Earth is flat like a map? If so, is there a Dark Side of the Earth? Or is it two sided, like a coin, so there's maybe somewhere in the Amazon say, where you have to make a perilous 180 degree stride out into the void to get onto the Other Side?
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
If you think concerns about being unpatriotic go down bad among the Red Wall voters in the UK, it is utterly toxic to most Americans (especially in middle America).
And despite the media bashing Trump for all his America First rhetoric, it is actually what a lot of mid America want to here. So it enables him to again play the card of being a massive patriot, even if the truth is far less clear.
Precisely. Trump is a scoundrel but voters want and expect patriotism. Historically in America both parties have wrapped themselves in the flag so it was moot but not right now.
Americans will forgive many sins but not a lack of patriotism.
Only if you define Americans as Republicans,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/03/how-views-patriotism-vary-by-party/ ... Democrats have driven this drop: The percentage of Democrats saying they’re extremely proud to be American has sunk from 56 percent in 2013 to 22 percent this year. There was a drop among independents as well over that period, from 50 to 41 percent. Among Republicans, though, pride has risen since 2015, from 68 to 76 percent. The Trump effect. The 54-point spread between the parties among those who say they’re extremely proud to be American is the widest on record....
As a general rule, flat-earthers whose nickname is "Mad" do not the best of rocket scientists make.....
I’m pretty sure there’s a theory out there that NASA sabotaged his launch to keep the secret secret.
It's quite a thing, imagining how a flat-earther rocket scientist explains, oh I don't know - satellites? Do they think the Earth is flat like a map? If so, is there a Dark Side of the Earth? Or is it two sided, like a coin, so there's maybe somewhere in the Amazon say, where you have to make a perilous 180 degree stride out into the void to get onto the Other Side?
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
That's my point. The likes of CNN hate Trump, but you see it in the coverage of these primaries they are desperate for somebody like them e.g. Mayor Pete to win.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
I agree, though it's pretty much baked into polling now. They already have dragged up Sanders' baggage, again and again and again. It's probably not going to have any more impact than it has already.
I wouldn't over-estimate how much people in many parts of America actually know about candidates. Here most people thought Jezza was a decent kinda of guy from a surface glance and public here are much more switched on.
Given the long election cycle, the media will have months of time to fire the incoming at Sanders, day in day out.
Sanders is waaaay better known in the US than Corbyn was over here. Don't forget he's already been through this in the 2016 primaries. Any mud that hasn't stuck already is unlikely to now.
I agree with you to a point, although some idiots (like me) assumed that mud that didn't stick to Corbyn in 2017 would not stick in 2019 either, so its not impossible.
As a general rule, flat-earthers whose nickname is "Mad" do not the best of rocket scientists make.....
I’m pretty sure there’s a theory out there that NASA sabotaged his launch to keep the secret secret.
It's quite a thing, imagining how a flat-earther rocket scientist explains, oh I don't know - satellites? Do they think the Earth is flat like a map? If so, is there a Dark Side of the Earth? Or is it two sided, like a coin, so there's maybe somewhere in the Amazon say, where you have to make a perilous 180 degree stride out into the void to get onto the Other Side?
See, you’re just a NASA shill...
Things You Never Thought You'd Be Accused Of, #386
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
I'm no Bernie fan but the mainstream media despise him and do not even try to hide it. Apparently his victory last night was akin to the fall of France. In Iowa the hacks were trying to claim he didn't win the personal vote.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
That's my point. The likes of CNN hate Trump, but you see it in the coverage of these primaries they are desperate for somebody like them e.g. Mayor Pete to win.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
I agree, though it's pretty much baked into polling now. They already have dragged up Sanders' baggage, again and again and again. It's probably not going to have any more impact than it has already.
I wouldn't over-estimate how much people in many parts of America actually know about candidates. Here most people thought Jezza was a decent kinda of guy from a surface glance and public here are much more switched on.
Given the long election cycle, the media will have months of time to fire the incoming at Sanders, day in day out.
Sanders is waaaay better known in the US than Corbyn was over here. Don't forget he's already been through this in the 2016 primaries. Any mud that hasn't stuck already is unlikely to now.
I agree with you to a point, although some idiots (like me) assumed that mud that didn't stick to Corbyn in 2017 would not stick in 2019 either, so its not impossible.
Sanders learned a lot from his loss first time around (notably his subsequent outreach to Hispanic and African Americans).
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Both billionaire egotists have declared there sticking around for Super Tuesday, so I think that’s it. Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
I think that's excellent analysis.
The only way Sanders does not end up nominee is if Obama and Pelosi and Schumer and the Clintons get on the phone this weekend and essentially force two of Buttigieg, Biden and Baemy to quit the race and endorse the other.
I don't understand why you still seem to think that Joe is fishing in the same pool as Amy and Pete. They're all moderates but Joe is counting on black voters whereas they're Pete and Amy's weakness.
Buttigeig or Klobuchar dropping out would hurt Sanders but Biden dropping probably wouldn't. It might even help him- see South Carolina for an immediate example of why.
Many more will be joining him soon. Please everyone keep an eye out for the most hilarious or cringeworthy about faces, like Ted Cruz re Trump last time.
They could spend their time trying to make sure only one moderate goes forward now before it is too late.
Does anyone think Bernie could beat Trump in November?
Very, very, highly unlikely.
I think Sanders would struggle even if it was a fair fight, and it will not be a fair fight.
The media haven't even got started on Sanders and all his baggage.
Why not? He came pretty close to the nomination four years ago, and it was widely accepted at the time that the DNC was doing everything they could to help his opponent.
How is it that there is much left to come out into the public domain? Seems more likely to me at this stage that there isn't much?
I don't mean a grab em by the pussy tape. I mean that the vast majority of the public don't get engaged with the process until the last month or two of the GE. At the moment, many will still see him as the old bloke promising healthcare for all, a bit like Jezza had the magic grandpa tag until the media really got stuck into his previous.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
In a recent poll, 20% said Sanders was too conservative for them
As a general rule, flat-earthers whose nickname is "Mad" do not the best of rocket scientists make.....
I’m pretty sure there’s a theory out there that NASA sabotaged his launch to keep the secret secret.
It's quite a thing, imagining how a flat-earther rocket scientist explains, oh I don't know - satellites? Do they think the Earth is flat like a map? If so, is there a Dark Side of the Earth? Or is it two sided, like a coin, so there's maybe somewhere in the Amazon say, where you have to make a perilous 180 degree stride out into the void to get onto the Other Side?
They see the Discworld as an atlas and not fiction?
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
If you think concerns about being unpatriotic go down bad among the Red Wall voters in the UK, it is utterly toxic to most Americans (especially in middle America).
Except that doesn't actually match reality. Evangelicals were utterly opposed to a man who had affairs being president right up until the point where Trump became the nominee at which point having affairs was fine.
Likewise being unpatriotic is a condition that only Democrats can have. You can literally collude with a foreign power and boast about doing so and not be unpatriotic if you are a Republican. You can sell missiles to Iran and still be a patriot and on and on.
It's all just excuses for not voting for the Democrat. And the real reason for not voting for the Democrat is...
When Sanders goes down to defeat and drags many down-ticket Dems with him, will the GOP be remotely able to take enough to get 2/3 majority in both houses?
If so, then America better be very scared because the two terms limit amendment will be finished.
Many more will be joining him soon. Please everyone keep an eye out for the most hilarious or cringeworthy about faces, like Ted Cruz re Trump last time.
They could spend their time trying to make sure only one moderate goes forward now before it is too late.
Well they have about a week, perhaps. Doesn't seem likely.
When Sanders goes down to defeat and drags many down-ticket Dems with him, will the GOP be remotely able to take enough to get 2/3 majority in both houses?
If so, then America better be very scared because the two terms limit amendment will be finished.
You also need 3/4 of states to ratify, some also by supermajorities. I don’t think that will happen.
I'm in the process of moving the bulk of my savings from a cash ISA into a stocks and shares ISA (including the maximum possible in a LISA, due to a naive ambition to own my own home in the distant future). The plan isn't to actively manage the investments, but to put money in a few share indices etc. and hope for growth in the long term.
Given the volatility around coronavirus, it seems this might be poor timing. My money is still all in cash (in the stocks and shares ISA), and I'm wondering if it's best to leave it like that for now - do any wiser heads have strong feelings about the likelihood of a major stock market crash? I'd rather not see too much of the fruits of my labour wiped out. Then again maybe the risk of a seriously damaging pandemic is vastly overstated and I should just get on with it. Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
That was discussed on Marr this morning and Marr himself said it was a good idea
That the security services do not trust the Home Sec?
I suspect not the only one at the heart of government who cannot be trusted with official intelligence.
They pass it to Boris, knowing full well Boris shares with Cabinet. But they get to claim "nothing to do with me, Guv....."
Limiting memos to 2 sides & focusing on the critical topics for the PM seems very good governance. Why should the civil service be allowed to load him down with bumpf?
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
If you think concerns about being unpatriotic go down bad among the Red Wall voters in the UK, it is utterly toxic to most Americans (especially in middle America).
And despite the media bashing Trump for all his America First rhetoric, it is actually what a lot of mid America want to here. So it enables him to again play the card of being a massive patriot, even if the truth is far less clear.
Precisely. Trump is a scoundrel but voters want and expect patriotism. Historically in America both parties have wrapped themselves in the flag so it was moot but not right now.
Americans will forgive many sins but not a lack of patriotism.
Only if you define Americans as Republicans,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/03/how-views-patriotism-vary-by-party/ ... Democrats have driven this drop: The percentage of Democrats saying they’re extremely proud to be American has sunk from 56 percent in 2013 to 22 percent this year. There was a drop among independents as well over that period, from 50 to 41 percent. Among Republicans, though, pride has risen since 2015, from 68 to 76 percent. The Trump effect. The 54-point spread between the parties among those who say they’re extremely proud to be American is the widest on record....
That's the problem. From that link over 70% of independents are very or extremely proud to be American. You're drawing a false distinction between very and extremely.
The Democrats need a candidate who is unabashedly proud to be American as was Obama. Obama's most famous line while campaigning was "no red states or blue states just the United States".
Being patriotic is pretty much a prerequisite to be successful.
What I get from that article is that the best analogy is between Bernie and Trump. Both are insurgents, despised and feared by their Party management, who will then row in behind them when the time comes. It will be a fascinating battle, with Bloomberg throwing punches at Trump from the side.
When Sanders goes down to defeat and drags many down-ticket Dems with him, will the GOP be remotely able to take enough to get 2/3 majority in both houses?
If so, then America better be very scared because the two terms limit amendment will be finished.
The block to constitutional amendments is more the 3/4 of states requirement than just the two thirds of Congress requirement. No chance that will go.
A bigger concern is the tightening grip on SCOTUS that will be possible.
I'm in the process of moving the bulk of my savings from a cash ISA into a stocks and shares ISA (including the maximum possible in a LISA, due to a naive ambition to own my own home in the distant future). The plan isn't to actively manage the investments, but to put money in a few share indices etc. and hope for growth in the long term.
Given the volatility around coronavirus, it seems this might be poor timing. My money is still all in cash (in the stocks and shares ISA), and I'm wondering if it's best to leave it like that for now - do any wiser heads have strong feelings about the likelihood of a major stock market crash? I'd rather not see too much of the fruits of my labour wiped out. Then again maybe the risk of a seriously damaging pandemic is vastly overstated and I should just get on with it. Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.
I think that even with containment, there is likely to be a Covid 19 related economic slowdown spreading from China across the rest of the world. The Chinese haven't closed down their cities for no reason.
Of course much of this may be priced in already, and there will be a recovery bounce afterwards, but the downside risk is substantial. Government QE and negative interest rates may push up equities as a reaction.
Personally I have moved to a substantially cash position, with some defensive equities in utilities, consumer goods etc
I'm in the process of moving the bulk of my savings from a cash ISA into a stocks and shares ISA (including the maximum possible in a LISA, due to a naive ambition to own my own home in the distant future). The plan isn't to actively manage the investments, but to put money in a few share indices etc. and hope for growth in the long term.
Given the volatility around coronavirus, it seems this might be poor timing. My money is still all in cash (in the stocks and shares ISA), and I'm wondering if it's best to leave it like that for now - do any wiser heads have strong feelings about the likelihood of a major stock market crash? I'd rather not see too much of the fruits of my labour wiped out. Then again maybe the risk of a seriously damaging pandemic is vastly overstated and I should just get on with it. Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.
Why not wait a month? We will know more by then surely?
What I get from that article is that the best analogy is between Bernie and Trump. Both are insurgents, despised and feared by their Party management, who will then row in behind them when the time comes. It will be a fascinating battle, with Bloomberg throwing punches at Trump from the side.
Assuming that bloomberg hates Trump more than he does Sanders.
When Sanders goes down to defeat and drags many down-ticket Dems with him, will the GOP be remotely able to take enough to get 2/3 majority in both houses?
If so, then America better be very scared because the two terms limit amendment will be finished.
What I get from that article is that the best analogy is between Bernie and Trump. Both are insurgents, despised and feared by their Party management, who will then row in behind them when the time comes. It will be a fascinating battle, with Bloomberg throwing punches at Trump from the side.
They need to run the Primaries by the Alternative Vote. Unwanted outcomes supported by a minority are happening all over the place because the alternatives are split.
What I get from that article is that the best analogy is between Bernie and Trump. Both are insurgents, despised and feared by their Party management, who will then row in behind them when the time comes. It will be a fascinating battle, with Bloomberg throwing punches at Trump from the side.
They need to run the Primaries by the Alternative Vote. Unwanted outcomes supported by a minority are happening all over the place because the alternatives are split.
I suspect that Bernie would have still won Nevada even under AV. He would have got most of Warren's and some of the rest. Enough to get over 50%.
What I get from that article is that the best analogy is between Bernie and Trump. Both are insurgents, despised and feared by their Party management, who will then row in behind them when the time comes. It will be a fascinating battle, with Bloomberg throwing punches at Trump from the side.
Assuming that bloomberg hates Trump more than he does Sanders.
I think hate is the wrong word for Sanders.
I imagine that there will be a not insubstantial portion of America that hate Trump but fear Sanders.
I'm in the process of moving the bulk of my savings from a cash ISA into a stocks and shares ISA (including the maximum possible in a LISA, due to a naive ambition to own my own home in the distant future). The plan isn't to actively manage the investments, but to put money in a few share indices etc. and hope for growth in the long term.
Given the volatility around coronavirus, it seems this might be poor timing. My money is still all in cash (in the stocks and shares ISA), and I'm wondering if it's best to leave it like that for now - do any wiser heads have strong feelings about the likelihood of a major stock market crash? I'd rather not see too much of the fruits of my labour wiped out. Then again maybe the risk of a seriously damaging pandemic is vastly overstated and I should just get on with it. Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.
Why not wait a month? We will know more by then surely?
I've just sold all my equities in my stocks and shares ISA and plan to leave it there as cash for a couple of months to see how things develop.
Seems safest at the moment. Risk is I lose out on a couple of months of growth and divis. DYOR
When Sanders goes down to defeat and drags many down-ticket Dems with him, will the GOP be remotely able to take enough to get 2/3 majority in both houses?
What I get from that article is that the best analogy is between Bernie and Trump. Both are insurgents, despised and feared by their Party management, who will then row in behind them when the time comes. It will be a fascinating battle, with Bloomberg throwing punches at Trump from the side.
They need to run the Primaries by the Alternative Vote. Unwanted outcomes supported by a minority are happening all over the place because the alternatives are split.
A contested convention is like an alternative vote, albeit the second choice is chosen by the defeated candidates or their delegates. The delegate allocation is roughly proportional after the 15% threshold has been applied. It is this threshold that is hurting the other candidates.
I'm in the process of moving the bulk of my savings from a cash ISA into a stocks and shares ISA (including the maximum possible in a LISA, due to a naive ambition to own my own home in the distant future). The plan isn't to actively manage the investments, but to put money in a few share indices etc. and hope for growth in the long term.
Given the volatility around coronavirus, it seems this might be poor timing. My money is still all in cash (in the stocks and shares ISA), and I'm wondering if it's best to leave it like that for now - do any wiser heads have strong feelings about the likelihood of a major stock market crash? I'd rather not see too much of the fruits of my labour wiped out. Then again maybe the risk of a seriously damaging pandemic is vastly overstated and I should just get on with it. Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.
Why not wait a month? We will know more by then surely?
I've just sold all my equities in my stocks and shares ISA and plan to leave it there as cash for a couple of months to see how things develop.
Seems safest at the moment. Risk is I lose out on a couple of months of growth and divis. DYOR
Thanks both, and Foxy. I'll probably do what I was leaning towards anyway, and leave it as it is for now. I could live with missing out on a couple of months' worth of growth. Will DMOR of course.
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
If you think concerns about being unpatriotic go down bad among the Red Wall voters in the UK, it is utterly toxic to most Americans (especially in middle America).
And despite the media bashing Trump for all his America First rhetoric, it is actually what a lot of mid America want to here. So it enables him to again play the card of being a massive patriot, even if the truth is far less clear.
Precisely. Trump is a scoundrel but voters want and expect patriotism. Historically in America both parties have wrapped themselves in the flag so it was moot but not right now.
Americans will forgive many sins but not a lack of patriotism.
Only if you define Americans as Republicans,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/03/how-views-patriotism-vary-by-party/ ... Democrats have driven this drop: The percentage of Democrats saying they’re extremely proud to be American has sunk from 56 percent in 2013 to 22 percent this year. There was a drop among independents as well over that period, from 50 to 41 percent. Among Republicans, though, pride has risen since 2015, from 68 to 76 percent. The Trump effect. The 54-point spread between the parties among those who say they’re extremely proud to be American is the widest on record....
That's the problem. From that link over 70% of independents are very or extremely proud to be American. You're drawing a false distinction between very and extremely.
The Democrats need a candidate who is unabashedly proud to be American as was Obama. Obama's most famous line while campaigning was "no red states or blue states just the United States".
Being patriotic is pretty much a prerequisite to be successful.
Obama was relentlessly attacked for being unpatriotic.
Is the thinking on Mayor Mike that he’s gonna run in the general whether he gets the nomination or otherwise, just for shits and giggles?
I’d say under electoral college, Sanders vs Trump vs Bloomberg would not be as predictable as assumed
My assumption is it would be predictable. It would be a Trump landslide.
Even without an Independent Bloomberg, against Bernie we are looking at a massive Trump victory.
That‘s popular wisdom of course. But Bloomberg was a Republican mayor of New York that endorsed George W. And Trump is also no ordinary Republican President. I can envisage quite a lot of Trump to Bloomberg switchers, on top of motivating the 2016 stay at homes to turn out for him.
And given Sanders is also no ordinary Democrat, there would no doubt be potentially as many Democrat to Bloomberg switchers also, especially given he has most recently called himself a Democrat.
Lastly Bloomberg would be no ordinary third party candidate, with both an established political record and a financial war chest that could outspend both parties out together.
Let’s face it, none of these three have any party name tattooed to their political heart, which is what I think would make a threeway so interesting.
Comments
It is possible for Bernie to have lost in 2016 if he was the candidate, but still win in 2020 if he is the candidate, for a number of reasons.
First and most obvious is incumbency, the Dems held the presidency for eight years so voters may have felt it was time for a change.
The second is time. Sanders has had an additional four years to campaign and build his base and convince wavering voters.
The third is changing conditions. Rising wealth inequality since 2016 may mean Sanders' message resonates with more people now than it did then.
The final reason is Trump himself. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and it is perfectly possible that the last four years of Trump have galvanised the left and shifted the overton window to a point where Bernie is able to win, in a way he would not have in 2016.
I suspect, but don't know, that he is not best placed of the current contenders to try. I think, given sufficient time and exposure, he would be miles behind Klobuchar, and probably Warren, in electability. Buttigieg I can see being eaten alive by Trump. Biden barely seems alive as it is.
One thing I am fairly sure of, however, is that Trump is just about the only Republican from the 2016 primary field whom I could see losing to Sanders as an incumbent.
For a start, he has real executive experience, and has proved able to learn from his losing campaign the first time round.
And while there are very large numbers of Democrats who do not like him in the slightest, they will still vote for him. As will some Republicans.
The number of traditional Tories who voted for Corbyn (in the general election ...
Many light leaning democrats assumed in 2016 that Trump could not win, and would not win, and so did not vote. There is not really any evidence to assume this would have been different in 2016 if Sanders was the Dem Candidate. Not all of the Clinton stay-at-homers would have been the same people as the Sanders-stay-at-homers but in both cases it was enough to have made the difference in the WiMiPa states.
This time round every democrat leaning voter knows that Trump could win again.
Trump might be able to in over some swing voter or some centre Democrats but there will be very few "can't be arsed to vote" voters this time round.
How is it that there is much left to come out into the public domain? Seems more likely to me at this stage that there isn't much?
But wise heads knew then that Corbyn was unelectable whatever the polls said.
Parroting just opinion polls shows no wisdom. Knowing when the polls are wrong is more impressive.
it's possible for Sanders to lose in 2020 when he would have won in 2016:
The economy is doing pretty well with Trump as president - far from the doom predicted by some Trump opponents before he became president (tho they may well prove to be right eventually...)
Sanders is old and has recently had a heart attack.
The Republican party is now united behind Trump.
Trump is the incumbent.
Without President Trump, there would be no President Sanders.
If he gets the nomination, it will be wall to wall he is a socialist, he is a communist, look he supported this, that and the other crazy thing.
Clearly I had been pressing too hard somewhere, so I lost my beautiful horn.
And what’s even more exasperating is, somebody who knew what they were doing took only seconds to put he knob back so I could achieve full swell again - after I had finished playing.
I sympathise with the Bernie Bros feeling the machine is against them, it is. Same as the ridiculous stuff from the media here over Brexit.
They aren't going to give Bernie positive coverage come the GE, and secretly in a weird way Trump is good for business for them.
Don’t forget Sanders started this process with similar name recognition to Biden. The electorate already have an image of him.
It will be all about the campaign.
There are lots of things about Sanders past support and his current policies that can be used to scare the horses in a different way to a billionaire boasting he bangs lots of women.
On Bernie I 'm taking into account polling in swing states, enthusiasm for turnout, possible black swans like the virus. Overall I don't think he will win. But I think his chances are perhaps 1 in 3 rather than the 1 in 4 implied by Betfair. So it's a value bet that I'll probably lose but I won't blame anyone, not even myself.
If you keep placing value bets, you'll lose plenty but overall you'll be ahead.
You watch any coverage now of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc, they aren't going to give the same air support to Sanders. So it will be just the twitter and the left YouTube lot, up against Trump's online base, Fox and all the other major players at best saying they are both dangerous.
I won money on Johnson for mayor, but just could not bring myself to bet on the last election.
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1231544636667285510?s=20
I was expecting the history of fraud, racism, multiple bankruptcies, and mob connections to hurt him
* Sanders didn't win the first round by quite the landslide that the early results suggested.
* On the other hand, he seems to have been more transfer-friendly than anyone else. This is presumably partly because in some areas other candidates didn't make the 15% cut, but it does suggest that he's not as moderate-repellent as some comments suggest.
In reply to the question downthread, I don't think he'd beat Trump, but it's of course possible. I'd give him a 30% shot. Warren, Biden, Klobouchar, maybe 40%; Buttigeg as low as 25% (lack of minority appeal, lack of experience, lack of sheer savage punch).
Given the long election cycle, the media will have months of time to fire the incoming at Sanders, day in day out.
My point was among all those factory workers in the mid-west, hearing that he spoke a lot like them and it was an outrage according to the West Coast media elite, didn't harm him.
If you are asking me what worries me about Trump, top of the list isn't some old tape about his saying crude stuff. There are far bigger issues, but that isn't what the media in 2016 went big on.
Sanders baggage is that he will be portrayed as being unAmerican, just like Corbyn was portrayed as being antiBritish.
Being unpatriotic will hurt more than being a womaniser. Though to many on the far left patriotism is viewed as a dirty word or "last refuge of a scoundrel."
And I’d put Sanders’ chances a bit higher, too (assuming he stays healthy, which is of course another uncertainty).
And despite the media bashing Trump for all his America First rhetoric, it is actually what a lot of mid America want to here. So it enables him to again play the card of being a massive patriot, even if the truth is far less clear.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/23/italy-draconian-measures-effort-halt-coronavirus-outbreak-spread
Hundreds of colleagues who worked with the first infected man, a researcher at Unilever, are being tested but it is still unclear who he contracted the illness from. The man, who is in intensive care, was initially thought to have caught the virus after meeting a colleague who had recently returned from China, but the colleague tested negative.
“Unfortunately, the person who was considered to be ‘patient zero’ was not,” said Fontana. “We need to look elsewhere. We are following two hypotheses, and we will try to understand if one of the two is correct.”
A keen runner, the 38-year-old recently took part in a number of races. His pregnant wife is also infected, as is a person who went running with the man. Three other cases in Lombardy are elderly people who frequented a bar in the town of Codogno, near Lodi, that is owned by the father of the man who went running with the 38-year-old.
The man who died in Veneto was diagnosed with pneumonia a few weeks ago but had not travelled to China nor come into contact with anyone who had.
“Unfortunately, we haven’t managed to limit the spread of the virus,” Roberto Burioni, a professor of microbiology and virology at the Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan, which has also closed, told the Guardian.
“And we need to face the fact that it is spreading quickly. At first, we thought that the virus was only abroad, but now it is also in Italy. People should try not to panic but limiting the spread is, in part, down to our behaviour...
Public here more switched on than in the US? You only need to look at the polls of people who can name any of the Labour leadership candidates.
https://twitter.com/MarcoGBiagi/status/1231306846939557889?s=20
Rightly or wrongly (and I'd say wrongly) Trump is not viewed as unAmerican. Tragically.
Americans will forgive many sins but not a lack of patriotism.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1231551504953286658?s=20
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/03/how-views-patriotism-vary-by-party/
... Democrats have driven this drop: The percentage of Democrats saying they’re extremely proud to be American has sunk from 56 percent in 2013 to 22 percent this year. There was a drop among independents as well over that period, from 50 to 41 percent. Among Republicans, though, pride has risen since 2015, from 68 to 76 percent. The Trump effect.
The 54-point spread between the parties among those who say they’re extremely proud to be American is the widest on record....
Corbyn, not so much.
https://twitter.com/BBCLBicker/status/1231558747715014656?s=20
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
Likewise being unpatriotic is a condition that only Democrats can have. You can literally collude with a foreign power and boast about doing so and not be unpatriotic if you are a Republican. You can sell missiles to Iran and still be a patriot and on and on.
It's all just excuses for not voting for the Democrat. And the real reason for not voting for the Democrat is...
If so, then America better be very scared because the two terms limit amendment will be finished.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/opinion/sunday/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I'm in the process of moving the bulk of my savings from a cash ISA into a stocks and shares ISA (including the maximum possible in a LISA, due to a naive ambition to own my own home in the distant future). The plan isn't to actively manage the investments, but to put money in a few share indices etc. and hope for growth in the long term.
Given the volatility around coronavirus, it seems this might be poor timing. My money is still all in cash (in the stocks and shares ISA), and I'm wondering if it's best to leave it like that for now - do any wiser heads have strong feelings about the likelihood of a major stock market crash? I'd rather not see too much of the fruits of my labour wiped out. Then again maybe the risk of a seriously damaging pandemic is vastly overstated and I should just get on with it. Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.
If he wants to ask for more detail he can
https://twitter.com/IainConnell/status/1231564322893111298?s=20
The Democrats need a candidate who is unabashedly proud to be American as was Obama. Obama's most famous line while campaigning was "no red states or blue states just the United States".
Being patriotic is pretty much a prerequisite to be successful.
A bigger concern is the tightening grip on SCOTUS that will be possible.
Of course much of this may be priced in already, and there will be a recovery bounce afterwards, but the downside risk is substantial. Government QE and negative interest rates may push up equities as a reaction.
Personally I have moved to a substantially cash position, with some defensive equities in utilities, consumer goods etc
Unwanted outcomes supported by a minority are happening all over the place because the alternatives are split.
First preference for Dr Rosena.
Rayner can't have it all her own way.
I imagine that there will be a not insubstantial portion of America that hate Trump but fear Sanders.
Which will win out, fear or loathing in America?
Seems safest at the moment. Risk is I lose out on a couple of months of growth and divis. DYOR