Sanders - Trump
- Thread starter laguna1
- Start date
30 percent.
I doubt Bernie beats Hillary but it's not inconceivable either. I doubt Trump ultimately wins enough to avoid a brokered convention and there's no way TPTB go with him in a brokered convention. I actually think the Trump side is much less likely. I think he can end up with the most delegates, but I don't think he can get enough to actually win.
I doubt Bernie beats Hillary but it's not inconceivable either. I doubt Trump ultimately wins enough to avoid a brokered convention and there's no way TPTB go with him in a brokered convention. I actually think the Trump side is much less likely. I think he can end up with the most delegates, but I don't think he can get enough to actually win.
Pretty low. I'd say even 10% or less. There might be a chance for a third-party to come in and make a mess of things at that point.
Yup Bloomberg is already hinting at it. I still like the 30% number better. I still don't think America is ready for that much change yet.
I think Bloomberg is only going to do it if Trump and/or Sanders are the candidates...if it's Hillary versus an establishment-acceptable candidate he probably doesn't.
I'm not trying to downplay at as it was still a big win, but Sanders has been leading polls in NH for much longer than he's been "hyped up" as Iowa approached. Sanders had double-digit leads in NH polls going back to September.
I think a lot of people are portraying it as he came out of nowhere to win this state, when in fact he's been pretty solid there all along.
But he should still get credit for the margin of victory, absolutely.
That being said, this was one of his "friendly" states - the question is can it work in the bigger, more-diverse states.
This all boils down to people of color. Either he makes inroads there or he doesn't, and the answer to that question tells us whether Hillary or Bernie is the nominee because people of color make up almost half if not in some case more of most of the remaining primaries and caucuses.
If Bloomberg gets in the race, he will take a bunch of votes from Bernie and the Dems will have no chance.
This would ultimately boil down to an election between two candidates with unachievable aims.
Picture the debate on domestic policy:
"I'd build a wall, and then I'd make Mexico pay for the wall and the wall would be constructed out of the bodies of immigrants, women, and minorities."
vs.
"I'm going to close a loophole in the tax code that will raise the Government $10 per year, and with that $10, free college for everyone!! Also, health care!! And better roads!!"
Picture the debate on domestic policy:
"I'd build a wall, and then I'd make Mexico pay for the wall and the wall would be constructed out of the bodies of immigrants, women, and minorities."
vs.
"I'm going to close a loophole in the tax code that will raise the Government $10 per year, and with that $10, free college for everyone!! Also, health care!! And better roads!!"
Not really because I think it ends up just like Perot. The Republicans who can't stand Trump or Cruz are as prone to vote Bloomberg as stay home...all dems will vote for Sanders. It will certainly lessen the mandate though.
I think that's a pretty optimistic view. I think a third-party candidate would take from both sides in the extreme case (Sanders vs. Trump/Cruz), and I certainly think Bloomberg would appeal to some center-left voters.
I'd call him right of center on economics and trade (for sure, pretty far right), education, entitlements, religion. (On economics, he's strongly in favor of central bank controls and economic stimulus, which isn't exactly "right").
I'd call him left of center on most social issues and many domestic issues: gun control ("common sense controls"); abortion (pro-choice); marriage equality and gender/racial issues (AA); immigration (favored normalization of law-abiding illegals); health care (pro-Obamacare); taxation of wealthy; environmental issues...
I don't see how "all dems" would vote for Sanders over that.
Take this FWIW: http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm
This is very optimistic. If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, I think a majority of the Sanders crowd are likely to stay at home, unless of course Sanders decides to run as a third party candidate himself. I wouldn't put it past him to do just that.
Real Republicans would not vote for Bloomberg, who has views much more akin to Clinton and Sanders than any Republican still in the race. Bloomberg is not a Republican, even though he has claimed to be from time-to-time in order to get elected in NYC.
1. If Hillary wins the nomination then Bloomberg ain't running.
2. Yes all dems would...now will some dem leaning independents vote for Bloomberg? Sure but again every study shows Perot took roughly equal votes from both sides and mostly among independents...same with Bloomberg. And democrats have an added focus that Republicans have both houses of Congress.
2. Yes all dems would...now will some dem leaning independents vote for Bloomberg? Sure but again every study shows Perot took roughly equal votes from both sides and mostly among independents...same with Bloomberg. And democrats have an added focus that Republicans have both houses of Congress.
Does not follow. No, not all Democrats would vote for Sanders for exactly the reason you pointed out.
And it doesn't matter one bit that they have the added incentive to get the R out of Congress. Not everyone just pulls the R or D lever. Some will vote for Bloomberg and then their D congressman to the same effect.
"Objection your honor, calls for speculation. Qazplm cannot possibly know the voting intentions of every one of 72 million registered Democrats in the event of a hypothetical run by a left-libertarian candidate."
If Sanders can't win the democratic nomination, he stands no chance in the general election as an independent, and I'm pretty sure he knows that. He's given no indication that he would do that, thus I think this is just a BS statement.
Actually most people do end up pulling the lever for one side or the other most every time and the same side each time. Folks who are independents still end up lining up on one side or the other. And yes having one party in control of all three parts is yet another reason why folks will vote to avoid that outcome particularly when your side is the one that's on the outside if you throw your vote away on a third party. But feel free Nov of next year to gloat if Bloomberg runs and the Republican wins...I don't see it happening because dems aren't going to vote for him. Most reps won't either, but a few will and some independents will otherwise he will fall somewhere between Nader and Perot in percentages with no real harm to Sanders. If Sanders loses it will be because of his inability to get folks past his socialism or atheism or foreign policy weaknesses not because of Bloomberg
You don't know what would happen if Bloomberg ran. You have an opinion. I don't know, but at least I'm willing to admit it, and I'm smart enough not to say something as ridiculous as "all Democrats would vote for Sanders." "Most people" and "most" is not what you said. You said "all" and doubled down on it. That's absurd. Choose your words better. Otherwise, I haven't mentioned anything else you're trying to argue here. Take it up with SD.
He ran in VT as an "I" when he didn't get nominated originally. He still caucused with the Ds.
Yawn, if you want to focus on the word all feel free. How about this the vast vast vast majority of actual registered democrats would vote for Sanders vice bloomberg. The tiny percentage of folks who would not is small enough that yes all is a fine word that describes the magnitude of the current environment in the Dem party. Now would some dem leaning independents vote for Bloomberg? Sure. But since you are so focused on precision today they aren't Democrats.
You need to look at the demographics in VT vs those in the country. There's a greater volume of overall blue votes to spread and a whole lot of white folks in VT and not much else. He'd have no chance of an independent victory nationally. I think you're hoping it happens, but it won't.
This thread is funny. On one hand, a staunch Republican thinks Sanders would run as an independent because that would be a good thing for his team. A staunch progressive democrat thinks all democrats would vote for Sanders in the event a left libertarian candidate ran because that would be a good thing for his team.
It's an interesting human characteristic. I did it too when standing up for Rubio and how I thought things would go for him with the attacks by the governors. It's so hard to discuss politics because people don't even recognize their own biases and how they affect their commentary.
Go team!!
It's an interesting human characteristic. I did it too when standing up for Rubio and how I thought things would go for him with the attacks by the governors. It's so hard to discuss politics because people don't even recognize their own biases and how they affect their commentary.
Go team!!
when I get into a snit I will til then I will laugh at the attempt to focus on picking nits instead of actual points.
You said it twice, and once after already being called on it. It appears to be what you think. Either that or your ego is so big you can't even admit poor choice of words. We all know which is true here. You've never been wrong in your life, at least not that you'll admit.
I think Bloomberg would take a non-trivial amount of votes from both sides if Sanders wins the nomination, and I believe it would impact the outcome of the election. It stands to reason that the Democrats would win in that case, since there are more of them.
But at no point would "all" Democrats vote for Sanders.
Choose your words properly and you wouldn't have one bit of an argument from me.
feel better? Ya got to play the ego know it all card while simultaneously playing the I'm above it all card. If you'd mentioned Hitler you could have the internet trifecta.
In other non-insufferable internet news, Donald Trump is actively trying to sabotage his campaign tonight, I think.
The Republican debates are way more entertaining, thanks to Donald and Tedward, I gotta say. I laughed a few times.
No thanks, done wallowing in your mud. I should've learned after so long that the big one will happen before you ever demonstrate even the slightest bit of humility.
Moving on. Did I characterize your sentiment properly? Thoughts on the R debate?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Sometimes the Communists tell you what's really going on
- Latest: Boilermaker03
-
-
-