True - and they keep calling Bernie a socialist (he's not) and significant part of the US populace is convinced that socialism is the ultimate evil.

How many of that part was ever going to vote for a Democrat is the issue.

There's a significant element of that - to that group it won't matter who the Dems ultimately put forward.

For many, it doesn't matter if he's a socialist or not. They oppose Warren, Biden and other Democrats.

I would say that certain people in the country - and this includes certain Democrats - are not afraid that Bernie can't beat Trump, they are afraid of him winning.

Seems the Dems vs Dems are becoming as polarised as Dems vs Repubs. If that's the case it's 4 more years of Trump.

Sanders is too far left to win the independents. Without the independents, Trump will win. Also, If Sanders is the candidate, Republicans will campaign against senate and house Democrat nominees by claiming they will carry out Sanders most liberal policies. The majority in the house was won by wooing suburban women. It won't play well with them, and the chances of taking the senate and keeping the house will be diminished, resulting in even more power for Trump. Sanders is a disaster for the Democrats, whether you support his policies or not. He will not win a general election. The black voters will stay home, the independent voters will stay home, the Republicans who don't like Trump will stay home.
It isn't so much polarized Democrats, it's getting a coalition of those who are not polarized Democrats to join them.

You better be right.
Funny thing though, is that German citizens already have those things that Bernie wants for USians.

There is a hell of a lot of conjecture in there it seems to me. The "middle of the road" isn't always the best place to be. How could you possibly explain Trump if it was?

The real question is whether or not you would vote for him if Sanders was the candidate.

Or not vote at all and have the same result as in 2016.

That's the question. Would the number who would not vote if Sanders was the candidate greater than the number who wouldn't vote if he isn't? Because they also lost the election for the Democrats in 2016.
It will be interesting to see how the vote will go now the field has been trimmed down so far.

I am wondering how solid the Forever Bernie's are.

This is exactly what I said above;


And let’s recognize that even a crazed TV character — like Network’s Howard Beale — is capable of blurting out an important truth once in a while. On the eve of the Nevada caucus, Matthews let the cat out of the bag about the true fears of many in the Democratic establishment:

“I’m wondering whether the Democratic moderates want Bernie Sanders to be President. Maybe that’s too exciting a question to raise — they don’t like Trump at all. Do they want Bernie Sanders to take over the Democratic Party in perpetuity? If he takes it over, he sets the direction of the future of the party. Maybe they’d rather wait four years and put in a Democrat that they like.”

Notice that the worry here is not that Sanders will lose, but that he will win. And proceed to transform the Democratic Party. And presumably the country.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/did-chris-matthews-reveal-what-the-democratic-establishment-really-fears/

It is absolutely conjecture- it's my read on the politics of the primary. I would vote for the democrat nominee no matter who it is. But many, many people will not. That happened in 2016 and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

But it was the "middle of the road" candidate they didn't vote for in 2016 …

In any case it all seems a bit of a moot point now.

I don't think that people refrained from voting for Hillary because she was "middle of the road". I think it was because she brought too much baggage to the table (and didn't exactly come across as likable). Add to that the fact that everyone thought Trump would lose by a huge margin and a lot of people just decided not to vote - after all, there was no need to vote because Trump couldn't win.

Then you cant make much of a prediction based on "past behaviour" in her case.

Cattleman wrote:

But it was the "middle of the road" candidate they didn't vote for in 2016 …

In any case it all seems a bit of a moot point now.

They didn't vote for Hillary because:

1. She is a woman;
2. She's got a history that's undeserved but very real in the minds of many Americans;
3. She had a couple of collapses during the campaign that made people wonder about her ability to stand the strain;
4. They felt she had cheated Bernie out of the nomination; and
5. She's just not very likeable.

A minority did vote for Grabem because:

1. The experts are still trying to figure that out.

With Bernie at the helm there will be another 2016:

1. He keeps claiming to be a socialist. In the majority of American minds he might as well just declare he's going to confiscate all their guns and bibles and slap them into Gulags.

2. He's old;

3. He has a heart condition;

4. His policies are both impractical and extremely expensive in American minds and

5. He's not very likeable.

A lot of people will vote for Trump because:

1. The experts will be trying to work that out for decades to come.

And your list of the reasons they wont vote for Biden is?

At the time I remember telling the people I knew who were open about not voting that if they felt that way they shouldn't think of it as voting for the "best" candidate but rather voting for the "least worst". Given the turnout it appears that much of the country didn't feel that way.

Why isn't Warren doing better? Is it because Americans still can't see being led by a woman?

And your list of the reasons they wont vote for Biden is?


He's not Bernie. Although he's got a couple of other drawbacks - age among them - he's probably the only one with some ability to beat Trump.

Just a "couple" of other drawbacks?

And I really don't see why you give so much credibility to Trump's re-election possibilities. I suspect there are a hell of a lot of people who are going to vote against Trump no matter who the candidate is.

And Warren just dropped out

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/politics ... index.html

And I really don't see why you give so much credibility to Trump's re-election possibilities.

I give credibility to his re-election chances because he's a force to be reckoned with. His lies, bullying tactics and overwhelming but misguided optimism play well with a lot of Americans and not just his base. What's more, his "base" doesn't seem to have shrunk one iota and especially in the states where he won in 2016. There's not much point in winning 100% of the vote in California but losing Wisconsin. You still wind-up with the same number of electors in the college.

I realize the Dems made some gains in the House in 2018 from previously red states. But they haven't exactly been a ball of fire in the past two years and there's a heck of a difference, even if you are a disaffected Republican, between giving the Dems the House and giving them the whole damn government.

The Dems can win this election but they are going to have to be a lot more organized and a lot less self-destructive than they have been.