Posted on 01/08/2020 6:17:44 AM PST by Olog-hai
He’s the only genuine human in that race. He’s likeable and he deeply believes what he says and has said it all consistently his whole life.
No wonder they hate him and will stop at nothing to keep him from the nom.
Exactly this. Neither Trump nor Sanders pretends to anything. Neither is in this for money or perversions.
I’m sure that other tyrants with similar beliefs were perceived as “likable” as well, right up until they had real power in their laps.
The other Democrats have seen that being as open as “Bernard” has hurt them politically, anyhow. Even Obama a month or so ago was telling them to hide their true beliefs and intentions, in typical Fabian-socialist fashion.
BTW, having heard Sanders’ nauseating repetitive lies against Trump of late, I do not find him “likable” but despicable.
That would be hilarious if the Sanders crowd threw a hissy fit and mounted a third party bid against the awful "Official" RAT Party nominees, and the end election results were something like this:
Donald Trump / Mike Pence (Republican Party) - 54% popular vote, 301 electoral votes (carry most of the midwest and south)
Bernie Sanders / Tulsi Gabbard (Progressive Independents Party) - 27% popular vote, 222 electoral votes (carry the usual places: California, NY, Illinois, new england, NJ, Oregon, Washington DC, Washington state, etc.)
Joe Biden / Stacy Abrams (Democrat Party) - 19% popular vote, 15 electoral votes (carry 2 or 3 inconsequential states by a slim plurality, something like Delaware, Maine, Colorado?)
Using Dave Leip's calculator (with the non-media newspeak CORRECT Blue=GOP and Red=Communist Demonrat), I think it would look like this (mind you, I did not attempt to discern which states would break for the non-Trump leftist, only designating the RED ones would vote against him). I calculated 387 EVs for Trump (42 states) and the remainder of 151 for the nutters.
I’d love to get 54% but that’s more than Bush got in 1988 when there were fewer minorities.
I’d be happy to win pop vote at all, over 50% would be a thrill. Winning without it again would give the left an aneurysm, I could live with that.
Sanders (who has a good chance to be the nominee anyway) is not gonna go third party. And he would not place 2nd if he did (actually they would probably kill him), Biden would get all the Black and Latino votes.
Tulsi, maybe, she says no but I hope she’s lying. She would get less than 5% but help us.
If not, Jesse Ventura has mentioned maybe running as a Green.
If the nominee is not Bernie or Warren there is a good chance of third party leftists, whoever they may be, getting 2% or more.
As for States to take over
Tier 1 MN, NH
Tier 2 ME, CO,
Tier 3 VA, NM
Oregon would probably be next. I can’t imagine going beyond that.
He’s not. He’d give us back the suburbs as woke soccer moms realize their portfolios would disappear.
However, look at Corbyn in the UK. May ran a shitty race in 2017 and he nearly beat her.
2.5 years later Johnson ran a pretty good race and Corbyn was eviscerated.
If Bernie was running against someone like Jeb I’d be worried, but he can’t beat Trump. Bernie would (will, hopefully) be brutalized so badly it will seem like he was just hitting Hillary with a pillow.
Dementia or not, Biden is clearly their strongest candidate cause the others are worse.
You got My NY going Trump?
Whatever you’re drinking...send me a bottle :)
From my post:
Using Dave Leip’s calculator (with the non-media newspeak CORRECT Blue=GOP and Red=Communist Demonrat)
I don’t use the fake, phony, false and repugnant colors foisted on us by the lying leftist media starting Election Day 2000 (designed to separate their beloved Demonrat party from its true nature). Red is the historic color of leftist totalitarianism, that of the Communists (Red Soviet Russia, Red China, et al) and the Nazis. Blue is the historic color of Conservatism. Any other usage “Red State = Republican” makes neither any sense logically, ethically, historically, morally or literally.
I would LOVE to see NY go to Trump.
I would bet everything that it won’t.
“... woke soccer moms realize their portfolios would disappear...”
I have yet to meet a “woke soccer mom” who were cognizant enough on policy cause & effect on their stock portfolios to be capable of assigning blame. They either don’t have one or substitute “rightwing bogeyman of the week” to the reason for it going down.
I don’t think Bernie would win if present trends continue (meaning no black swans - unforeseen economic crash or boots-on-the-ground-war in the Middle East.) I do think Bernie is the best the Rats have appeal-wise plus he can credibly argue its “his turn!”. I just don’t underestimate the appeal of “free stuff” on people. I don’t think there are enough “safe-n-sane” Rats left to chose Biden on a straight up primary vote. If the DNC stack the deck for him then he gets the nomination. Bernie gets screwed again & his cliché walks. This time is larger then before.
Impy, I think given the gun stuff in VA I might move that up to tier 2 now.
DJ, here is the problem with CO:
First, it has been a haven for CA escapees, far worse than AZ or NV, but on a par with OR. This can be seen in the voter reg stats. Just six years ago, CO was R +5 (or very close to 5). It is today D+1. Now, McTurd and Minion both lost CO when it was moving from +5 to -1!!
Right now, CO Ds have about a 40k voter reg advantage, but of course in CO there is a HUGE base of independents (far more so than, say, in NV or NM). These are again largely Californians.
Second, there is the weed issue. That is going to be a problem, as those voters have already gravitated to the Ds or the D side of things.
I think ME, MN, NH, and possibly even NM (despite almost a 100k D advantage there) are more likely to fall to Trump than CO.
Given that neither Derp Staters McQueeg or Willard the Rat were even remotely attempting to win, I’d not bother using them as examples as for trends. It is, however, worth pointing out that after Shrub won there with 52% in 2004, flipping to Zero with 54% in 2008, that was the high water mark for the Dems. He slid to 51% in 2012 and Hillary pulled in a paltry 48.2%, barely above what Dole got as a plurality in 1996 (45.8%).
I did note something curious that Trump was putting together a coalition of counties (Dems won only 22 out of 64 counties) that could and should put him on course to win in 2020. He ran up gargantuan margins in the Plains Counties and even the Hispanic areas, which had generally been Democrat since 1932, were breaking his way. For the first time since 1972, he carried Pueblo and Las Animas Counties (and the latter county, which he won with 55%, was the highest % for a Republican since at least 1908, if not ever).
He drastically held or drove down margins won by Dems in those other counties, such as Denver’s suburban Adams — which had not gone Republican since 1984 and peeked with 58% for Zero in 2008, dropped to 49.9% for Hillary. Even this as California residents were coming in - perhaps not voting as some predicted. Short of 2016 being a one-time swing towards Trump and the GOP, these shifts indicate he should be in a position to win there in 2020. Indeed, there were only 2 counties (of the 22 they carried) that moved a point towards the Dems from 2012-16, Denver (which went from 73 to 74%) and the moonbat Aspen (Pitkin County) which moved 2% from 68 to 70% (but it’s not a very populous county). If the trends continue at the same pace, Trump should pick up 11 of those 22 Dem counties in 2020, which would assure he wins the state.
In any event, that chart I posted above was sheer speculation if the Dems were to split in two between the Corporate Communist wing (Bite Me) and the Stalinist Sanders wing, what the states would look like. Unlikely to happen, of course.
Sanders and his supporters shouldn’t think that he’ll win. Several Democrats ran for president, lost, and ran, later, thinking that their first campaign would help their later campaign. However, all of those people lost the second race. That happened to George Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton. Since all of them lost, Sanders should know his campaign probably won’t be better than his 2016 campaign. I hope his goal is to be VP or a cabinet member.
Why would Sanders want to be VP or some useless Cabinet flunky, either of which would force him to do the bidding of the President and not himself ? Unless you’re being made Sec of State or Attorney General, I wouldn’t give up a Senate seat for the other positions.
He does have a shot at the nomination, he just has to wait for Bite Me to die by a thousand cuts. If Sanders gets a plurality but not a majority and gets pushed aside at the convention, he could very well walk out and do that 3rd party thing. I mean, let’s remember, he’s not officially a Demonrat anyway. I’ve been surprised the Dems have let him participate in their primaries when he refuses their label.
He might want to be secretary of HHS or education, if he thinks that he can’t win the presidency and thinks that, if he has one of those cabinet jobs, he can help implement his liberal ideas.
For one thing Hillary isn’t running again.
Not betting the farm but her health is worse than four years ago and her doctors have probably told her another run might kill her.
She doesn’t have enough money to buy the DNC again. She and her rapist husband-in-name-only have millions of dollars but Chelsea is the big money maker now, not Bill or Hillary.
Billionaire Bloomberg has jumped into the race.he has more FU money than the Clinton Crime Family ever dreamt of.
The big money was put on Biden running away with the nomination. His name recognition and attachment to the Obama years was supposed to seal the deal. They had forgotten how stupid Joe really is.
I expect some were putting their money on Harris or some other minority candidate to catch fire. Not happening.
In all likelihood Bernie was probably hoping for a solid middle to upper middle of the pack positioning to grift some more campaign coin.
Bernie has proven he can be bought and that he stays bought.
Yeah, but as I’ve pointed out for a year, Sanders has three really big advantages:
1) $$. He can raise more than almost anyone.
2) An organization in place for the primaries from 2016.
3) A core of true believers that will put him at #2 in almost every race. This was KEY in Trump winning-—he always came in #2 when he didn’t win TX or MN or wherever. That gets you a constant buildup of delegates, whereas Biteme/Warren and maybe even Buttplugs will split the #2s in many states.
Trust me, if Sanders wins IA and NH and comes in #2 in SC, he’ll win NV, then the race is his to lose. Right now he’s #3 in SC, which is one of his worst states.
Sanders is raising more than Trump?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.