Bernie could be 46!

[Deleted User 12047]

People can say whatever they want about Trump; one thing they can't say is that he hasn't acted as an effective firewall against a hard turn towards socialism.

1) Social Security, Federal Freeways, Food Stamps, the Military - America has already taken a turn toward socialism.
2) (Definitions from Merriam Webster)
Socialism: - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Social Democracy: : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means.
3) Socialism failures (Venezuela etc.) are more about totalitarian governments and elite classes rather than the actual idea of "shared means of production and distribution of goods and services." Imagine a National Health Care system where Congress, the Supreme Court and the President are treated the same way as the homeless guy panhandling in downtown Detroit.
4) And to be completely fair, Bernie at the top of the ticket will guarantee a Republican Senate. So nothing will get passed.
5) My concern is President Trump's hard turn toward authoritarianism. Dismissing all those that disagree with him - now there is a head of presidential personnel that reports directly to the President . Characterizing the political opposition as "evil" and "treasonous". Using his Constitutional powers to pardon prisoners but declaring other Constitutional options as impeachment as "Unconstitutional". Much of this behavior will spur that ABT vote a lot.

Thanks for your reasoned and polite discourse, by the way. Enjoy debating with you.

[MWmetalhead]

I agree that Sanders would lose in a general contest, however, I don't think it'd be the popular vote landslide in Trump's favor some of you are suggesting.

I think once the uninformed mushy middle learns more about Sanders' history as well as the implications of some his policy proposals, some of the independents who lean in Sanders favor in national polling would ultimately vote for Trump.

In the electoral college, Trump would clean up. However, in the popular vote, I bet Sanders would command at least 46 percent.

If anybody else wins the nomination - especially as a result of a brokered convention - Bernie's supporters will stay home.

I agree with your point regarding a fractured party, bmw.

Cannot help but wonder if Sanders would run as an independent in a general election contest if he gains a plurality of Democratic delegates but loses the nomination at the convention.

This is why I postulated that someone such as Elizabeth Warren would be an effective consensus nominee for the Dems. One - she would be able to effectively counterpunch Trump on the debate stage. Two - she's far enough left where the chances of Bernie running as an Independent would be nearly zero. Three - her resume is strong with regard to experience at the federal government level. Four - she's female.

Her messaging has been weak for much of the past 60 days, she's had trouble in recent weeks raising money (Bernie and Buttigieg have been far more effective in that area), and Warren appeals to many of the same middle/upper income college educated Dem voters for whom Bloomberg holds appeal. Can she overcome all of those obstacles? At this point, I doubt it - UNLESS there is a brokered convention.

One thing Warren needs to do a much better job at is touting her leadership in creating the CFPB. Some of the fear mongering that was prevalent when the CFPB was created has been disproven via economic data. One could make a cogent argument that in some areas, CFPB has been very effective in its mission.

[bmw]

My stance on Warren's potential viability (in a general election) has changed somewhat after her very strong debate performance. She is to Bernie as Rand Paul is to Ron Paul; basically, she's 90% politically identical but perhaps slightly more palatable to those not as far left as Bernie is. She could probably go toe-to-toe with Trump on a debate stage, and being a woman would make it a little more difficult for Trump to counter-punch her as opposed to counter-punching Bernie.

And it wasn't all that long ago that she was the front-runner for the nomination (right after Bernie had his heart attack). But after that, she had back-to-back poor debate performances, along with some media attention focused on a lot of her lying about her own background, which all but finished her off. I think what she's doing now is too little, too late as far as getting the nomination.

[bmw]

5) My concern is President Trump's hard turn toward authoritarianism. Dismissing all those that disagree with him - now there is a head of presidential personnel that reports directly to the President . Characterizing the political opposition as "evil" and "treasonous". Using his Constitutional powers to pardon prisoners but declaring other Constitutional options as impeachment as "Unconstitutional". Much of this behavior will spur that ABT vote a lot.

The other side of that is the people in that group who say "As much as I hate Trump, I sure as hell ain't going to vote for someone who will result in an immediate tanking of the stock market and the loss of tens of thousands of dollars of 401k wealth overnight." Roughly 53% of Americans own stock in one form or another. I have to believe that most of those people will vote with their pocketbook.

[MWmetalhead]

The other side of that is the people in that group who say "As much as I hate Trump, I sure as hell ain't going to vote for someone who will result in an immediate tanking of the stock market and the loss of tens of thousands of dollars of 401k wealth overnight."

That almost sums up my opinion perfectly.

I don't "hate" Trump, but I think he is a sleazy and dishonest person.

[Deleted User 14896]

And let me go WAY out on a limb: No matter who the Democratic nominee is, if Stacey Abrams is the VP candidate, Melania and Barron will be moving back to NYC.

I see her name mentioned as VP in a few places.

What I'm pondering is how much mud she could be dragged into over legal problems at a non-profit she heads.
The Georgia Department of Labor has issued seven tax liens worth $16,500 against Third Sector Development citing unpaid employment contributions.

From what I read of it, it's a bit petty.
But I would wager a few pennies that our illustrious president will mention it a time or two if she gets the VP nomination.

[Rate This]

And let me go WAY out on a limb: No matter who the Democratic nominee is, if Stacey Abrams is the VP candidate, Melania and Barron will be moving back to NYC.

I see her name mentioned as VP in a few places.

What I'm pondering is how much mud she could be dragged into over legal problems at a non-profit she heads.
The Georgia Department of Labor has issued seven tax liens worth $16,500 against Third Sector Development citing unpaid employment contributions.

From what I read of it, it's a bit petty.
But I would wager a few pennies that our illustrious president will mention it a time or two if she gets the VP nomination.

A tax cheat getting political mileage out of a tax cheat?

[Deleted User 12047]

I see her <Stacey Abrams> name mentioned as VP in a few places.

What I'm pondering is how much mud she could be dragged into over legal problems at a non-profit she heads.
The Georgia Department of Labor has issued seven tax liens worth $16,500 against Third Sector Development citing unpaid employment contributions.

From what I read of it, it's a bit petty.
But I would wager a few pennies that our illustrious president will mention it a time or two if she gets the VP nomination.

Interesting story, looks like somewhat of a non-starter. If a third party vendor made the mistake, and the non-profit can show that they made the payments, I don't see how you can make this a story. Unless of course, you are good at telling lies...
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regiona ... KuLonyrXJ/