• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If It's Trump vs Bernie, Who Will Win?

If It's Trump vs Bernie, Who Will Win?


  • Total voters
    74
Bernie plays in one theater, the socialist theater. Other than the hate Trump crowd he will garner no support. Muslims and Blacks will not vote for a Jew. He has promised to take healthcare benefits away from the blue collar workers. He has also promised that the Middle Class will be paying the largest chunk of his Medicare for all costs. His Medicare for all will destroy the existing Medicare. He has already alienated most of the voting population.

On top of that the guy is older than the dinosaurs and in bad health. With his foul disposition and my way or the highway attitude, does anyone thing he will now work himself into another heart attach.

I need to see proof blacks and Muslims never vote for Jews based on religion alone. Chances are many of them don't even know Sanders is Jewish anyway. Those two groups are the least likely to vote for Trump, along wiht Latinos, for obvious reasons.
 
I need to see proof blacks and Muslims never vote for Jews based on religion alone. Chances are many of them don't even know Sanders is Jewish anyway. Those two groups are the least likely to vote for Trump, along wiht Latinos, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately for Democrats; real Democrats; Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and the younger folks with leftist views are the least likely to vote, at all.

Miserable voting % of around 23% in 2010 and 2014 simply can’t be overcome at the state level in at least the 2020 decade.
 
Bernie Sanders is not "creming" anyone during the democratic primaries. He might be good on a debate stage, but he doesn't have the eloquence and charisma of Barack Obama. And he doesn't have a viscious repartee, the kind of thing that can stunt other people and put them on their heels. The best example of what I mean here was Tulsi Gabbard on Kamala Harris. That was exceptionally brutal. All Harris could do while Gabbard was after her was offer a smile, laugh and look at the ground. Hell, she couldn't come up with any suitable response. It was so bad, she went after Gabbard's low polling the next day. Regardless of what you think of both people involved, that was viscious and it completely destabilized Kamala Harris. Even conservartive commenters were impressed...

...You seem to confuse debating Trump with a polite discussion. It's more like wrestling with a pig in mud.

The thing is that Democrats have decided, with only very few exceptions, that they should be holding a pattycake primary; it's pretty much the only reason Biden is still frontrunner given the litany of ridiculous things he's said. While your point on Kamala is taken, Gabbard also ended up eating backlash, as did Castro when he went after Biden. Personally, I feel the primary should be a more vicious and unforgiving environment, and properly serve as the proving ground/winnowing field it was meant to be, but it would be a poor political strategy to go against this implicitly acceptable tone and these unwritten rules, especially when the powers that be in the party are looking for any and every excuse to come down on you, and Sanders is already branded as 'angry/curmudgeony' by such people and their allies in the media.

Having said that, Trump may be a pig in the mud, but he is also replete with vulnerabilities (frankly his governance didn't do him many favours), while few politicos are better at keeping on point than Bernie. 'Drain the swamp' may well go down in history as one of the most hilariously ironic slogans in American electoral history.

Thanks, but the question was about Independents not Republicans.

"Independents are 14 points more likely to back the system when told losing their private plan would not mean losing their doctor (42% to 56%)." That's a big qualification. Remember Obama's 2013 Lie of the Year?

The Hill link doesn't mention Independents at all.

The first link literally and explicitly featured independents. The second link was there to demonstrate that these polls were concerned with everyone, not merely Democrats, or Democrat leaning independents, and the universality of the idea. I can provide others:

70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal | TheHill

CNN Poll: Most think the government should provide a national health insurance program - CNNPolitics

Poll: 'Medicare for All' Support Is High -- But Complicated | RealClearPolitics

And yes, ensuring retention of providers is significant, but support is still strong and majoritarian even without that qualification. The point of the wording was to demonstrate as it did, that people don't really give a damn about private insurers existing by and large, so much as continuity of care.


A whole different issue, the failure of the democrats to field a real quality candidate. A real charismatic statesman or stateswoman. Young, fresh blood with no baggage and cool hair, a sense of humor.

Debate? The Bern explains his vision for the future, the viewing public uses the time to get more dip from the fridge and a fresh six pack. Trump responds "That's commie pinko trash talk. I'm brilliant and make deals!" The viewing public downs a beer to push those salty corn chips down their throats. Trump wins.

The vision of the most prominent conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, infamously derailed by overly ambitious first lady Hilary Clinton. Lest we forget!

And of course the Trump response, "Fire all the doctors first and hire only hot nurses." Trump wins.

I think you egregiously underestimate the intelligence of the American public, and the ability of Bernie to take Trump to task over appointments loaded with implicit corruption and nepotism, policy that overwhelmingly favours the wealthy, broken promises on infrastructure and the complete 180 on Donnie's now nakedly absurd pledge to 'drain the swamp'.

As to MFA, 2020 isn't the mid 90s.
 
Unfortunately for Democrats; real Democrats; Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and the younger folks with leftist views are the least likely to vote, at all.

Miserable voting % of around 23% in 2010 and 2014 simply can’t be overcome at the state level in at least the 2020 decade.

It makes no sense. You would think they came out in droves on Election Day, especially in 2016 when one candidate did everything to prove he hates racial minories and Muslims.

A funny tweet someone posted after the debate in Missouri, where one Middle Eastern student was dressed in religious clothing, was, "How can a Muslim be undecided?" (Only undecided students were allowed to attend.)
 
I need to see proof blacks and Muslims never vote for Jews based on religion alone. Chances are many of them don't even know Sanders is Jewish anyway. Those two groups are the least likely to vote for Trump, along wiht Latinos, for obvious reasons.

Why so you feel Blacks are too ignorant to know that Sanders is a Jew? Do you feel they are intellectually inferior like your fellow Democrats who imposed the Jim Crow Laws.
 
Why so you feel Blacks are too ignorant to know that Sanders is a Jew? Do you feel they are intellectually inferior like your fellow Democrats who imposed the Jim Crow Laws.

I personally did not know Bernie is Jewish when he decided to run against Hillary and several other Democrats. Anyone, whether black, white, Hispanic, or Asian, can possibly not know that about him.
 
And obviously you are mistaken. Try attending an evangelist meeting to see who is attending. You speak with no direct knowledge, just a partisan opinion.

I live in Queens County in NYC. I am not a christian. I thoroughly enjoy attending African American evangelist church services in south Jamaica for the beauty of the gospel music. When I attend, I am one of the few non black faces in the huge crowds. I have never been made to feel unwelcome. Albert Lomax, grandson of Alan, is continuing his grandfather's legacy of exploring and recording Americana music in communities like those of Appalachia, he consistently has turned to the enormous turnouts at evangelist meetings across the country for examples of Americana music that we call folk music. As he has pointed out, those meetings cross all strata of economic classes, most political leanings. I've learned that many Chinese immigrants are among the most religious Holy Rollers, yes evangelists. The same for Hispanic immigrants from South America. They are all here in a county among the most diverse ethnic identities in the nation.

As usual, your have no idea about what you are saying. I attend one or two evangelical meetings every quarter. The memberships are generally out of touch with real America, whether black or white evangelicals. Numbers have dropped in ten years from 23 to 16% and falling quickly. Real America opposes evangelicalism, as well it should.
 
The thing is that Democrats have decided, with only very few exceptions, that they should be holding a pattycake primary; it's pretty much the only reason Biden is still frontrunner given the litany of ridiculous things he's said. While your point on Kamala is taken, Gabbard also ended up eating backlash, as did Castro when he went after Biden. Personally, I feel the primary should be a more vicious and unforgiving environment, and properly serve as the proving ground/winnowing field it was meant to be, but it would be a poor political strategy to go against this implicitly acceptable tone and these unwritten rules, especially when the powers that be in the party are looking for any and every excuse to come down on you, and Sanders is already branded as 'angry/curmudgeony' by such people and their allies in the media.

Here, a fair warning is in order. I largely appreciate the efforts Tulsi Gabbard has made to engage meaningfully with moderates and conservatives, so I might view her actions in a better light than many other people. From my point of view, Tulsi Gabbard gets some flak because she is willing to stand on principle and that means sometimes the finger is pointed at your own party.

I agree with you that primaries should be more challenging, but I don't think the DNC is interested to play a fair game here. I don't like how they pick and choose surveys to manage who gets to talk on stage. They also pick and choose moderators for their political convenience, which isn't exactly smart given that the nominee's job is in part to convince people from the other side to vote for them. They like boring debates hosted in an echo chamber where only softball questions are acceptable. I firmly remember Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren reply a few times to more challenging questions "that's a Republican talking point." I also remember the wit of Warren regarding the opinion of economists that "they're wrong" -- you know, without explanation. That's not going to fly comes the real thing.

Having said that, Trump may be a pig in the mud, but he is also replete with vulnerabilities (frankly his governance didn't do him many favours), while few politicos are better at keeping on point than Bernie. 'Drain the swamp' may well go down in history as one of the most hilariously ironic slogans in American electoral history.

That will ring true to people far enough on the left.

To many people in middle America, Trump is some kind of small hero. He didn't do everything he said he would do, but he did a lot of the things he said he would do. One of his main talking point were trade agreements. Democrats could try to take some credit for sweetening the pot over the USMCA, but they cannot claim Donald Trump did not force Canada and Mexico to reconsider the terms of trade. He also went after China's advantageous position when trading with the United States. Try telling the people in Detroit he's a liar: what they see is Ford is planning to open a new car manufacture with 3000 jobs. He cut a lot of regulations, as expected, and although he did not get all of his wall, he did modernize some sections of the border and he did lower illegal immigration. Moreover, for many groups of people, including minorities, the economic conditions have never been this good.

You can dispute how much the Trump factor really is behind all of those changes, in part because some House Democrats have not been inactive. The point is that going after his governance is not going to be an easy sell. You're not trying to convince voters who always vote straight blue tickets no matter who is on the ballot. You have to convince people who might have had to dip into their kid's college funds over hardships in the last decade and now are finally getting some space to breathe. That's a hard sell. Saying the guy is a putty mouth is just plain stupid and calling him a racist a 1 000 000th time will accomplish nothing, except perhaps insult the voters you try to convince.


It is true that Sanders often gets right back on track when people try to steer the conversation. It is also true that Donald Trump is not without fault. But I think you're not paying enough attention to the other point of views on this issue. It's not easy to pin Donald Trump, especially not against the huge noise machine most Democrats with a TDS have produced over the last three years.
 
It makes no sense. You would think they came out in droves on Election Day, especially in 2016 when one candidate did everything to prove he hates racial minories and Muslims.

Have you given a thought about the possibility you might be equating disagreement over policy with failures of character?

The first point I'll make here is that Donald Trump never actually explicitly endorsed racism, but he explicitly attacked racism:


The only way you can convince yourself a guy who talks like that is a racist is if you make up some kind of excuse to put words he never said into his mouth. Every single Republican president going all the way back to Reagan have been called "racist" by people on the left. The same goes with the long-standing "dog whistle" argument. I have heard people make the claim that some words have a dual meaning. This implies that the same words should sometimes be used innocuously and sometimes be used as a sort of racist code. I have never heard anyone make those conditions explicit and I'm sure you can see the problem: if I don't tell you when I am allowed to assign hidden meaning to your words, I have the freedom to do it every time it suits me. In practice, without the restrictions people never put, this means people on the left allow each other to equate conservative policies and conservative arguments with moral failures.


Here is another story about what Donald Trump is doing that requires a lot less faith in your power to divine personal intentions. Every time you write something that violates the norms of political correctness online, you are almost guaranteed to generate a public scandal if you are a public figure. You can even get in trouble over using the wrong euphemism like Cumberbatch when he used the more British "colored people" instead of the more American "people of color" in an interview. What if Donald Trump says asinine things because he wants people like you drowning the news cycle and social media with outrage? I know for a fact that he made a few key policy changes, namely to immigration, during controversies he initiated. I also notice he seems to pick his time to force Democrats to rally behind radical members of their own party. Remember the Pelosi-Squad feud? It stopped when Trump said the Squad should "go back" to their countries and fix them. Pelosi was forced to align herself behind AOC, Omar and Tlaib, even if she wanted to attack them.


As for the policy positions, there are many ways to look at them. It is true that a xenophobic person would push for stricter immigration control. However, you can legitimately believe people should not break the law without being xenophobic. It is true that an islamophobic person cheered when Donald Trump restricted access to people from the Middle East. However, you can legitimately believe there were security concerns. As it happens, there are Muslim majority countries outside of the Arabic world -- and nobody in the Republican party has any problem with them. Have you heard a conservative rant about Indonesia or Malaysia? No.

The fact of the matter is that it's too easy to paint him as being supported by evil groups. The truth is rarely that convenient. As Tulsi Gabbard pointed out, a sizable chunk of his voters used to vote Democrat. Many of them were Obama supporters and some of them were disaffected Sanders voters. Assuming the guy is evil and everyone hates him obscures the fact he actually address real concerns real people have in their day-to-day life. It's a bad strategy -- and that might just cost Democrats in 2020 if they don't wake up.

A funny tweet someone posted after the debate in Missouri, where one Middle Eastern student was dressed in religious clothing, was, "How can a Muslim be undecided?" (Only undecided students were allowed to attend.)

That is the problem I am talking about: some Muslims were undecided and you cannot make sense of that. Not everyone who disagrees with you is bad, stupid or uninformed.
 
Last edited:
There is no confusion about his reaction to the father of an American Muslim soldier who died in combat lecturing him at the DNC. There is no confusion about name-calling a Mexican-American judge who was born in the United States.
 
I think Bernie would wipe the floor with trump. He would have killed him if he got the nomination in 2016 as well.

But Trump is more worried about Biden probably because he dismisses Sanders as a 'socialist' and believes right-wing claims that turnss ordinary people off.
 
Here, a fair warning is in order. I largely appreciate the efforts Tulsi Gabbard has made to engage meaningfully with moderates and conservatives, so I might view her actions in a better light than many other people. From my point of view, Tulsi Gabbard gets some flak because she is willing to stand on principle and that means sometimes the finger is pointed at your own party.

I agree with you that primaries should be more challenging, but I don't think the DNC is interested to play a fair game here. I don't like how they pick and choose surveys to manage who gets to talk on stage. They also pick and choose moderators for their political convenience, which isn't exactly smart given that the nominee's job is in part to convince people from the other side to vote for them. They like boring debates hosted in an echo chamber where only softball questions are acceptable. I firmly remember Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren reply a few times to more challenging questions "that's a Republican talking point." I also remember the wit of Warren regarding the opinion of economists that "they're wrong" -- you know, without explanation. That's not going to fly comes the real thing.

I agree with most of this; the primaries should indeed be more challenging as stated. Further, I appreciate where Tulsi does stand on principle, but that's not something exclusive to her. Where others have vacillated and flipflopped all over the place, Sanders has remained resolute and unchanging; whereas even Tulsi flopped over MFA.

As to hardball questions remember Sanders responding ardently and decisively to hard ball questions on health funding that taxes will indeed increase on the middle class, but the middle class will overall come out ahead due to improved quality and coverage of care, and reduced overall out of pocket expense (including the cost of additional taxes) on average, as well as reallocation of benefits from health insurance to wages; it was an excellent, honest answer, and this is how he deals with such queries as a matter of course; this is the rule, not the exception.


That will ring true to people far enough on the left.

To many people in middle America, Trump is some kind of small hero. He didn't do everything he said he would do, but he did a lot of the things he said he would do. One of his main talking point were trade agreements. Democrats could try to take some credit for sweetening the pot over the USMCA, but they cannot claim Donald Trump did not force Canada and Mexico to reconsider the terms of trade. He also went after China's advantageous position when trading with the United States. Try telling the people in Detroit he's a liar: what they see is Ford is planning to open a new car manufacture with 3000 jobs. He cut a lot of regulations, as expected, and although he did not get all of his wall, he did modernize some sections of the border and he did lower illegal immigration. Moreover, for many groups of people, including minorities, the economic conditions have never been this good...

It is true that Sanders often gets right back on track when people try to steer the conversation. It is also true that Donald Trump is not without fault. But I think you're not paying enough attention to the other point of views on this issue. It's not easy to pin Donald Trump, especially not against the huge noise machine most Democrats with a TDS have produced over the last three years.

Thing is Trump factually isn't popular or well liked. His own administration has historically high turn over for reasons directly related to his obviously toxic persona. Given the reins of power, we can see he revels in blatant nepotism, and seems to value personal loyalty over all other considerations, and it's easy to see that he has been egregiously self-serving. Even the economy, his supposed crown jewel is riddled with caveats. Real median wage growth after adjusting for inflation has been paltry, real unemployment is substantial (including people who have given up on work), and underemployment/trash and gig jobs significantly inflate the numbers on record. Keep in mind that this is merely and only in part the case against him. There is also the case _for_ Sanders which is substantial given popular support of his pillar polices; ideas to excite and galvanize people, along with being a unique politician who has thus far proven to be genuinely incorruptible.
 
As usual, your have no idea about what you are saying. I attend one or two evangelical meetings every quarter. The memberships are generally out of touch with real America, whether black or white evangelicals. Numbers have dropped in ten years from 23 to 16% and falling quickly. Real America opposes evangelicalism, as well it should.

You need to get out more.
 
jamesbyoung
As usual, your have no idea about what you are saying. I attend one or two evangelical meetings every quarter. The memberships are generally out of touch with real America, whether black or white evangelicals. Numbers have dropped in ten years from 23 to 16% and falling quickly. Real America opposes evangelicalism, as well it should.

You need to get out more.

You are describing yourself, I believe. May I ask where you live, generally: like Tucson or Louisiana Arcadia, etc.?
 
Thing is Trump factually isn't popular or well liked. His own administration has historically high turn over for reasons directly related to his obviously toxic persona.

He clearly is not popular everywhere and some of his behavior is off putting to many people. I simply have doubts that this will matter for people whose votes are up for grabs.

Even the economy, his supposed crown jewel is riddled with caveats. Real median wage growth after adjusting for inflation has been paltry, real unemployment is substantial (including people who have given up on work), and underemployment/trash and gig jobs significantly inflate the numbers on record.

All economic indicators suffer from measurement problems and I have not had the time to dig into the claims made at the moment in this regard.

However, unemployment rates probably understate the problem more during crises than during periods of expansion and that's precisely for the reason you mention. People stop looking for work when vacant positions are scarce and they are scarcer during recession periods than expansions. Since you're looking at the longest expansion period in US history, it's unreasonable to assume the measurement error here is larger than usual. It's probably smaller than usual. If you're going to make upward corrections, you have to make them everywhere in time to compare: this means you need big enough corrections today and small enough correction in the distant past to verify your claim. I didn't do it, so I don't know if it could work. On the other hand, I'm almost sure no one who points to measurement errors bothered doing that work either.

As for the comment on part-time work, that is another caveat with measures of unemployment. What we call unemployment in economics is any leisure you would wish to sell that you cannot sell. In this sense, it is true that some part-time workers who might want to be full-time workers are "partly" unemployed. That one is harder to address because we'd need to convert figures from the space of jobs to the space of hours worked. In both case, I doubt that we have the information to make the ideal corrections. However, I think you could do a partially acceptable job by filling in holes with assumptions. You can anchor the conclusion you want to reach (e.g., the numbers are bunk) and see how crazy you need to be with assumptions to make it work. Maybe you can do it without making crazy assumptions. Maybe you cannot. But until someone gets their hands dirty and do at least some back-of-the-enveloppe type calculations, the truth is that you have no clue. And again you'd have to back-fill information in the past too to make historical comparisons.

The problem at stake isn't "Is this an ideal situation?," but "Is it better than it has in a long time?" and "For whom is it better and for whom is it worse?" You can certainly make a case that figures makes things look too rosy, but they always makes things look too rosy. Again, in full disclosure, I am an economics PhD candidate, but this isn't my area of expertise and I have not dug into the issue, so I can only speculate based on my experience in research and what kind of questions I'd try to answer. All of it also sounds very convenient to me. I'm sure the same journalists and politicians who point at issues of measurement would be cheering if a Democrat was in the White House.
 
He clearly is not popular everywhere and some of his behavior is off putting to many people. I simply have doubts that this will matter for people whose votes are up for grabs.

I'm just going by the numbers as they are. His approval and popularity numbers just aren't good.

All economic indicators suffer from measurement problems and I have not had the time to dig into the claims made at the moment in this regard.

However, unemployment rates probably understate the problem more during crises than during periods of expansion and that's precisely for the reason you mention. People stop looking for work when vacant positions are scarce and they are scarcer during recession periods than expansions. Since you're looking at the longest expansion period in US history, it's unreasonable to assume the measurement error here is larger than usual. It's probably smaller than usual. If you're going to make upward corrections, you have to make them everywhere in time to compare: this means you need big enough corrections today and small enough correction in the distant past to verify your claim. I didn't do it, so I don't know if it could work. On the other hand, I'm almost sure no one who points to measurement errors bothered doing that work either.

As for the comment on part-time work, that is another caveat with measures of unemployment. What we call unemployment in economics is any leisure you would wish to sell that you cannot sell. In this sense, it is true that some part-time workers who might want to be full-time workers are "partly" unemployed. That one is harder to address because we'd need to convert figures from the space of jobs to the space of hours worked. In both case, I doubt that we have the information to make the ideal corrections. However, I think you could do a partially acceptable job by filling in holes with assumptions. You can anchor the conclusion you want to reach (e.g., the numbers are bunk) and see how crazy you need to be with assumptions to make it work. Maybe you can do it without making crazy assumptions. Maybe you cannot. But until someone gets their hands dirty and do at least some back-of-the-enveloppe type calculations, the truth is that you have no clue. And again you'd have to back-fill information in the past too to make historical comparisons.

The problem at stake isn't "Is this an ideal situation?," but "Is it better than it has in a long time?" and "For whom is it better and for whom is it worse?" You can certainly make a case that figures makes things look too rosy, but they always makes things look too rosy. Again, in full disclosure, I am an economics PhD candidate, but this isn't my area of expertise and I have not dug into the issue, so I can only speculate based on my experience in research and what kind of questions I'd try to answer. All of it also sounds very convenient to me. I'm sure the same journalists and politicians who point at issues of measurement would be cheering if a Democrat was in the White House.

A closer look at the numbers behind the Trump economy - The Boston Globe

This is a pretty good summation.

Also the measure you're looking for is U6 unemployment.

In general the economy under Trump has more or less featured a continuation of existing trends; certainly nothing unduly or disproportionately impressive. I think on the whole, one can argue that the economy is doing well, but there hasn't been some fantastical boom that has exceeded expectations or ongoing trends as Donnie often asserts. Overall, I wouldn't consider this a point of weakness, but I don't think it's a source of particular strength either, particularly as there's no clear before and after differential he can point at vis a vis his policies; at best, if he's being honest (lol), Trump can say he didn't **** things up, which for him is admittedly impressive.
 
I personally did not know Bernie is Jewish when he decided to run against Hillary and several other Democrats. Anyone, whether black, white, Hispanic, or Asian, can possibly not know that about him.

Uninformed people often toe the party line. That explains a lot.
 
May I ask where you live, generally: like Tucson or Louisiana Arcadia, etc.?

NYC, and I get out everyday the wife doesn't want to keep me busy at home. Of course I already state that in this thread that you haven't had the respect to read.
 
As usual, your have no idea about what you are saying. I attend one or two evangelical meetings every quarter. The memberships are generally out of touch with real America, whether black or white evangelicals. Numbers have dropped in ten years from 23 to 16% and falling quickly. Real America opposes evangelicalism, as well it should.

Since you attend these meetings, by your standard you must be out of touch too.
 
There is no confusion about his reaction to the father of an American Muslim soldier who died in combat lecturing him at the DNC. There is no confusion about name-calling a Mexican-American judge who was born in the United States.

First, do you understand that Muslims and Mexicans are not a race? Second, do you understand, insulting an individual is different that insulting a race? You seem to have a great deal of ignorance pertaining to what racism is.
 
I think Bernie takes it comfortably. Remember American Presidents are decided by a handful of states in the rust belt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those rust belt states went to Trump in 2016. Why do you think Bernie woudl get them?
 
He's been better than ever since his stents, physically and electorally. Personally I'm far less worried about Sanders' physical health than I am about Biden's mental/cognitive health should the latter win the primaries.

LOL I'm far more worried about Trumps mental health and cognitive ability. Presidents are not often called morons by his own cabinet members.
 
Sorry, but not good enough. The RWers will vote Trump, the LWers will vote whomever is last to leave the Democrat's Clown Car leaving the Independents to pick the winner.

How do most Independents feel about Lefty Loony Bernie?

Recent studies have shown that this is no longer true. There are actually only about .5% who actually switch parties based on issues and candidates. There was a time when this was true, there were Reagan Democrats, for instance.

Now what happens is there are independents who lean Democratic or who lean Republican. It boils down to who is voting. If the independents who lean Democratic stay home, like in 2016. Republicans win.

If Independents who lean Republican stay home, Democrats win. The question will be which candidate can convince the leaners to vote. Will those who voted Trump last time, come out and do it again? Or are they tired of the chaos. Can Bernie, excite the left leaners into coming out to vote?
 
LOL I'm far more worried about Trumps mental health and cognitive ability. Presidents are not often called morons by his own cabinet members.

I don't think Trump is in a good place cognitively either, but the man is made of teflon and Biden isn't unfortunately. Also in this specific case I'm speaking the differential between nominee options.
 
Back
Top Bottom