The Democrats need to wake up! Update: And near the last second, THEY HAVE (4 Viewers)

[zftcg]

Dancing around the 270 to win EC map and some polls....

What the hell happened to MO?  Wasn't that a "purplish" state within the past 20 years?  That thing is redder than an Irishman on the equator at noon.  

Obama came very close in '08, which was obviously a Dem high-water mark. He narrowly won Indiana the same year.

I think the Midwest overall has shifted. The purplish states like MO and OH have become red. The blue states, infamously, have become purple. Iowa had something like a 19-point swing from 2008 to 2016.

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that the Rust Belt areas have become more amenable to a populist message, while the southern-ish parts of states like MO and IN have just become more straight-up conservative.

 

[cubd8]

Obama came very close in '08, which was obviously a Dem high-water mark. He narrowly won Indiana the same year.

I think the Midwest overall has shifted. The purplish states like MO and OH have become red. The blue states, infamously, have become purple. Iowa had something like a 19-point swing from 2008 to 2016.

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that the Rust Belt areas have become more amenable to a populist message, while the southern-ish parts of states like MO and IN have just become more straight-up conservative.

It'll be interesting if WI/PA/MI are one-time results in favor of Republicans or if that is the start of any shifting. Ohio/Florida stand out to me as a place that has shifted more in the last 10 years from a complete toss-up to tilting Republican.

 

[PhantomJB]

If he doesn't have the votes (which in all likelihood he won't), what choice does he have?  Of course he'll compromise if he can move things in the right direction without preventing some future administration from passing single payer.  Something like lowering the Medicare age to 50 that someone mentioned above seems like a compromise he would sign on to.  What makes you think he wouldn't?

A) When has Sanders even hinted publicly at merely coming close to compromising? "I wrote the damn bill!!!" was his response to Klobuchar when it came up in a recent debate and she suggested a public option/building on Obamacare

B) There's this from the "Democratic Socialists of America"

• Sanders, on the other hand, will not compromise on Medicare for All. His fight for single-payer will begin on his first day in office, and it will not conclude until we win. During this historic election, we need all hands on deck for a true Medicare for All system—nothing less.
  
• https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/11/19/debate-night-bernie-only-medicare-all-candidate
  

C) Do you really believe 80-year old career politician...who has spent his entire life fighting for an idea...is all of a sudden going to accept anything short of full manifestation that idea? That's not how humans work.

 

[timschochet]

If he doesn't have the votes (which in all likelihood he won't), what choice does he have?  Of course he'll compromise if he can move things in the right direction without preventing some future administration from passing single payer.  Something like lowering the Medicare age to 50 that someone mentioned above seems like a compromise he would sign on to.  What makes you think he wouldn't?

I agree with this. I actually think Bernie will be an excellent domestic President, because most of his ideas I don’t like will never happen, and he’ll be forced to govern as a liberal centrist, which is great with me. Foreign policy makes me a little nervous but I’ll take it over what we have now. I’ll be very happy with President Sanders. 

I just don’t think he can win. 

 

[zftcg]

It'll be interesting if WI/PA/MI are one-time results in favor of Republicans or if that is the start of any shifting. Ohio/Florida stand out to me as a place that has shifted more in the last 10 years from a complete toss-up to tilting Republican.

I think the overall demographic trend clearly shows those Midwest states will grow more conservative (just as Georgia, Texas and Arizona will probably grow more liberal). How that will play out electorally is anyone's guess.

I don't know what to make of Florida (and I live here!) I do think the steady influx of retirees (and Democrats' inability to unlock the Latino vote) probably forestalls the kind of demographic trends we're seeing across the aforementioned Sunbelt states. Politically, I can't say for sure that it's gotten redder, since the elections remain as close as ever. But the Dems continually manage to come out on the short end of nearly every 50.1/49.9 race.

 

[timschochet]

If the candidates are either un-electable, likely to create internal division, not likely to get enough key support from specific geographic/demoographic, mistake prone or unable to garner attention how do you suggest that they get their act together?

More than one person has asked me this question. The answer is pretty simple: let’s pick one of the centrist candidates left: Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg or Klobuchar- and all get behind that person before it’s too late to stop the Bernie train. I don’t care which one. I don’t dislike Biden as much as many of you but if you can’t stomach him fine let’s take one of the others. But we’d better choose and choose fast. Because otherwise we’re heading into an avalanche here. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

A) When has Sanders even hinted publicly at merely coming close to compromising? "I wrote the damn bill!!!" was his response to Klobuchar when it came up in a recent debate and she suggested a public option/building on Obamacare

B) There's this from the "Democratic Socialists of America"

• Sanders, on the other hand, will not compromise on Medicare for All. His fight for single-payer will begin on his first day in office, and it will not conclude until we win. During this historic election, we need all hands on deck for a true Medicare for All system—nothing less.
  
• https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/11/19/debate-night-bernie-only-medicare-all-candidate
  

C) Do you really believe 80-year old career politician...who has spent his entire life fighting for an idea...is all of a sudden going to accept anything short of full manifestation that idea? That's not how humans work.

This seems on point:  Bernie Sanders, The Wide Eyed Pragmatist.  

 

[Navin Johnson]

I just don’t think he can win. 

This is great news actually.  You seem to be the George Costanza of politics.

 

[timschochet]

This is great news actually.  You seem to be the George Costanza of politics.

I know I know. It’s fun to mock my record and it’s a lot easier than coming up with reasons to dispute my arguments. 

 

[Navin Johnson]

A) When has Sanders even hinted publicly at merely coming close to compromising? "I wrote the damn bill!!!" was his response to Klobuchar when it came up in a recent debate and she suggested a public option/building on Obamacare

Do you have a link to this?  I know he said it to Tim Ryan in the July debate but it wasn't even close to the context you are describing.

 

[PhantomJB]

This seems on point:  Bernie Sanders, The Wide Eyed Pragmatist.  

From your own article...

The tougher criticism comes from those who argue that Sanders’ victories aren’t nearly as impressive as he wants voters to believe. Despite the praise from McCain and Miller, others ask how the VA was allowed to deteriorate so badly with him chairing the veterans’ affairs committee.

“I think he is an ideologue and had a very difficult time getting anything done for vets,” said Paul Rieckhoff, the founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “Oftentimes he just viewed the criticism of the VA as an attack on the VA … Saying he reached a compromise with John McCain after the whole world saw what happened is not a win.”

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

From your own article...

The tougher criticism comes from those who argue that Sanders’ victories aren’t nearly as impressive as he wants voters to believe. Despite the praise from McCain and Miller, others ask how the VA was allowed to deteriorate so badly with him chairing the veterans’ affairs committee.

“I think he is an ideologue and had a very difficult time getting anything done for vets,” said Paul Rieckhoff, the founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “Oftentimes he just viewed the criticism of the VA as an attack on the VA … Saying he reached a compromise with John McCain after the whole world saw what happened is not a win.”

I don't even understand what Rieckhoff means there.  Sanders and McCain compromised on the VA bill.  The fact that Rieckhoff has some other axe to grind with Sanders seems unrelated.  

 

[Thunderlips]

I know I know. It’s fun to mock my record and it’s a lot easier than coming up with reasons to dispute my arguments. 

He's a joke maker.  Tell him, Jerry. 

 

[unckeyherb]

I know I know. It’s fun to mock my record and it’s a lot easier than coming up with reasons to dispute my arguments. 

You are quite...prolific Tim, so apologies if I missed it, but what specifically is your argument against Bernie being able to defeat Trump?  He's got higher favorability than just about anyone out there, he's an economic populist much like Trump (minus you know, the xenophobia part), support from minorities (the Biden-firewall you've spoken about in the past) is very high as is his support with women.  He's got funding and infrastructure that are up to the challenge and frankly, the biggest reason I think he's a near-lock to beat Trump is his ability to win back the blue wall.  

I'm not the first to say that whoever wins PA wins the presidency, but I believe it.  Bernie shocked Hillary in WI primary (by 13 points), won in MI but lost in PA (by about 10 points) and OH (by about 12 points).  Trump obviously won the above states as the foundation to his victory, but as has been stated in the PSF about 500,000 times, he did so by the absolute narrowest of margins- 8% in OH, .3% in MI, .7% in WI and .7% in PA.  If he can bridge the gap in WI-something he most likely would have done easily in 2016 based on his overwhelming primary win-and in PA-where Trump barely won-he's our next President.

I'm interested to know where you see chinks in the armor if he's the nominee. 

 

[PhantomJB]

I agree with this. I actually think Bernie will be an excellent domestic President, because most of his ideas I don’t like will never happen, and he’ll be forced to govern as a liberal centrist, which is great with me. Foreign policy makes me a little nervous but I’ll take it over what we have now. I’ll be very happy with President Sanders. 

"Let's elect a far left Democratic Socialist President, ride a wave of AOC-wannabes into Congress, and usher in a New Era of Pragmatism, Compromise and Bi-partisanship!"

Keep saying that and I'm sure even the Trump supporters will start believing you.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

"Let's elect a far left Democratic Socialist President, ride a wave of AOC-wannabes into Congress, and usher in a New Era of Pragmatism, Compromise and Bi-partisanship!"

Be sure to include that he said AOC would play a very impt. role in his administration.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

"Let's elect a far left Democratic Socialist President, ride a wave of AOC-wannabes into Congress, and usher in a New Era of Pragmatism, Compromise and Bi-partisanship!"

Keep saying that and I'm sure even the Trump supporters will start believing you.

Ideally the compromises will be between the progressive Democrats and the more moderate Democrats.  Nobody is expecting Democrats and Republicans to compromise anymore.

 

[PhantomJB]

Ideally the compromises will be between the progressive Democrats and the more moderate Democrats.  Nobody is expecting Democrats and Republicans to compromise anymore.

Ah. Only compromise with people you like. The key to high-quality governing. My bad.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Ah. Only compromise with people you like. The key to high-quality governing. My bad.

I don't like the moderate Dems that much.

 

[The Commish]

A) When has Sanders even hinted publicly at merely coming close to compromising? "I wrote the damn bill!!!" was his response to Klobuchar when it came up in a recent debate and she suggested a public option/building on Obamacare

B) There's this from the "Democratic Socialists of America"

• Sanders, on the other hand, will not compromise on Medicare for All. His fight for single-payer will begin on his first day in office, and it will not conclude until we win. During this historic election, we need all hands on deck for a true Medicare for All system—nothing less.
  
• https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/11/19/debate-night-bernie-only-medicare-all-candidate
  

C) Do you really believe 80-year old career politician...who has spent his entire life fighting for an idea...is all of a sudden going to accept anything short of full manifestation that idea? That's not how humans work.

The knock on Bernie is that he doesn't get major deals passed AND that he compromises too much....at least that was the narrative 3 years ago.

 

[Skoo]

"Let's elect a far left Democratic Socialist President, ride a wave of AOC-wannabes into Congress, and usher in a New Era of Pragmatism, Compromise and Bi-partisanship!"

Sounds pretty great to me, where do I sign?

 

[timschochet]

You are quite...prolific Tim, so apologies if I missed it, but what specifically is your argument against Bernie being able to defeat Trump?  He's got higher favorability than just about anyone out there, he's an economic populist much like Trump (minus you know, the xenophobia part), support from minorities (the Biden-firewall you've spoken about in the past) is very high as is his support with women.  He's got funding and infrastructure that are up to the challenge and frankly, the biggest reason I think he's a near-lock to beat Trump is his ability to win back the blue wall.  

I'm not the first to say that whoever wins PA wins the presidency, but I believe it.  Bernie shocked Hillary in WI primary (by 13 points), won in MI but lost in PA (by about 10 points) and OH (by about 12 points).  Trump obviously won the above states as the foundation to his victory, but as has been stated in the PSF about 500,000 times, he did so by the absolute narrowest of margins- 8% in OH, .3% in MI, .7% in WI and .7% in PA.  If he can bridge the gap in WI-something he most likely would have done easily in 2016 based on his overwhelming primary win-and in PA-where Trump barely won-he's our next President.

I'm interested to know where you see chinks in the armor if he's the nominee. 

Sure. First off, we agree that Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are the keys to the election. 

The ***** in the armor is Medicare for All. You got white Union workers, traditional Democrats, but they went for Trump in 2016. For the Democrat to win they have to come back. But they negotiated their healthcare deals with their employers. They’re not coming back for Medicare for All. Protecting Obamacare yes, Medicare 4 All no. 

There’s other reasons as well but this is the main one. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Sure. First off, we agree that Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are the keys to the election. 

The ***** in the armor is Medicare for All. You got white Union workers, traditional Democrats, but they went for Trump in 2016. For the Democrat to win they have to come back. But they negotiated their healthcare deals with their employers. They’re not coming back for Medicare for All. Protecting Obamacare yes, Medicare 4 All no. 

There’s other reasons as well but this is the main one. 

Gotcha.  You may be right that healthcare will be a big enough single-issue block, but I'm not sure it is.  Hell, Trump won those states that you are talking about while actively campaigning on blowing up Obamacare.  

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Tim, just because you believe a thing does not make it so.

Polling data can be spun lots of ways, you've misread Bernie's appeal in the midwest in particular, and your insistence that the southern Black vote means everything is questionable at this point. I don't think you have any firm ground to stand on when making these absolute type of forecast statements. Posting them incessantly doesn't make them any more valid either.

The conclusion I've come to is that the Democrats are too disorganized and shoddily run to win. If they committed to being as cynical, unprincipled and uncompromising as Republican leadership to achieve their end goals, along with vastly improving their ability to execute any sort of organized approach to controlling a national narrative, and how to win a national election, they could push whatever agenda down the throats of the citizenry they want, they just have to pander effectively and mercilessly.

But they don't, so they won't win.

I think it just requires them to show some actual, you know, fight.

They continually act as if they think they are showing up to a parlor debate, only to find out the Republicans intend to make it a knife fight. The two situations require different tactics. Why they haven't figured this out by now is baffling. And infinitely frustrating.

 

[KPD]

I think it just requires them to show some actual, you know, fight.

They continually act as if they think they are showing up to a parlor debate, only to find out the Republicans intend to make it a knife fight. The two situations require different tactics. Why they haven't figured this out by now is baffling. And infinitely frustrating.

Well, she didn't have a knife (or scissors), but ripping up the speech showed some of joining Trump at his level.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Well, she didn't have a knife (or scissors), but ripping up the speech showed some of joining Trump at his level.

But sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate after McConnell clearly stated on TV that he was going to act in bad faith, leading the rest of the GOP to do the same thing (though, by now they all have pretty strong muscle-memory for that) was another Lucy and the football example of the Dems playing by the rules, while the Republicans flout them openly.

It would be funny, if the net result wasn't so horrible on multiple levels.

 

[KPD]

But sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate after McConnell clearly stated on TV that he was going to act in bad faith, leading the rest of the GOP to do the same thing (though, by now they all have pretty strong muscle-memory for that) was another Lucy and the football example of the Dems playing by the rules, while the Republicans flout them openly.

It would be funny, if the net result wasn't so horrible on multiple levels.

So what dastardly bad faith action were they supposed to take to stick it to Trump?  Shutdown the government until he resigns?

 

[matuski]

The left/democrats needed to wake up 3 years ago when people were warning you not to make asses of yourselves with Mueller and more recently this impeachment nonsense.

Too late.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

The left/democrats needed to wake up 3 years ago when people were warning you not to make asses of yourselves with Mueller and more recently this impeachment nonsense.

Too late.

Totally misreading what the facts of both the Mueller investigation and the Impeachment investigations showed. 

The Democrats can be criticized for not utilizing the information gleaned in those investigations for their maximum benefit. Suggesting that they shouldn't have done them, because the GOP stonewalled on everything, is laughable.

 

[matuski]

Totally misreading what the facts of both the Mueller investigation and the Impeachment investigations showed. 

The Democrats can be criticized for not utilizing the information gleaned in those investigations for their maximum benefit. Suggesting that they shouldn't have done them, because the GOP stonewalled on everything, is laughable.

Maximum benefit?  Ha.  The left could not have done worse.  Two hay makers thrown while blindfolded by partisanship, denial, and desperation.

Anyone with a non biased bone in their body could (and did) see this train wreck coming years ago.  

Now this jerk gets to high step into a second term.

 

[Mile High]

Maximum benefit?  Ha. How about ANY benefit?  The left could not have done worse.  Two hay makers thrown while blindfolded by partisanship, denial, and desperation.

Anyone with a non biased bone in their body could (and did) see this train wreck coming years ago.  

 Two haymakers? You do realize the Democrats didn't appoint Mueller to investigate.

 

[matuski]

 Two haymakers? You do realize the Democrats didn't appoint Mueller to investigate.

Right, right.. this is where you distance yourself.

Good call, I'd probably do the same.

 

[Mile High]

Right, right.. this is where you distance yourself.

Good call, I'd probably do the same.

Just the facts.  

 

[matuski]

Just the facts.  

I get it. I do.

We didn't do it, they did.  Nothing to do with it, we swear. There wasn't an ounce of partisanship involved. 

I got your back man.  I didn't see a thing.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Maximum benefit?  Ha.  The left could not have done worse.  Two hay makers thrown while blindfolded by partisanship, denial, and desperation.

Anyone with a non biased bone in their body could (and did) see this train wreck coming years ago.  

Now this jerk gets to high step into a second term.

The facts revealed in both investigations should have been more than sufficient to lead EVERYBODY to come to the obvious conclusions. The fact they didn’t is more a comment on the willingness of the GOP at large to whitewash anything, so long as they get to retain power and influence. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

So in summary:

Hillary, a centrist who no one was excited about lost to Trump in 2016.

And the way to defeat Trump in 2020?

Biden, a centrist who no one is excited about.

Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I agree however maybe Biden, or whomever the nominee is, will get the votes of the people who were too embarrassed to say they were going to vote for Trump last time.

 

[toshiba]

I agree however maybe Biden, or whomever the nominee is, will get the votes of the people who were too embarrassed to say they were going to vote for Trump last time.

Odds are with Sanders 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Odds are with Sanders 

I wouldn't be surprised but as @fatguyinalittlecoat has stated they could still make Bloomberg the nominee. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Bloomberg getting  the Dem nomination would actually be more shocking to me than when Trump got the GOP nod.

eta: I think it would lead to flat our riots.

 

[matuski]

The facts revealed in both investigations should have been more than sufficient to lead EVERYBODY to come to the obvious conclusions. The fact they didn’t is more a comment on the willingness of the GOP at large to whitewash anything, so long as they get to retain power and influence. 

The most obvious conclusion was that this was a fool's errand from the get go.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

The most obvious conclusion was that this was a fool's errand from the get go.

I mean, sure. But the fact GOP pols are all intransigent and amoral reptiles isn’t a reason for Democrats not to do their jobs. 
 

The Democrats just need to realize they have to do so more aggressively.

 

[matuski]

I mean, sure. But the fact GOP pols are all intransigent and amoral reptiles isn’t a reason for Democrats not to do their jobs. 
 

The Democrats just need to realize they have to do so more aggressively.

And there you go.  You would repeat the same mistake over and over for this inability to get past lowest level partisan garbage.

Any ounce of practical thought would have allowed the left to cruise to victory by simply staying above it. 

Instead you dove headfirst into it.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

And there you go.  You would repeat the same mistake over and over for this inability to get past lowest level partisan garbage.

Any ounce of practical thought would have allowed the left to cruise to victory by simply staying above it. 

Instead you dove headfirst into it.

The problem isn’t that the Democrats chose to do their jobs. The problem is that they never actually go hard at the Republicans. They never actually shape the message or frame the discussion in the right way.

they let the Republicans accuse them of made up stuff, while they leave most (if not all) of their own legitimate ammo unfired.

 

[matuski]

The problem isn’t that the Democrats chose to do their jobs. The problem is that they never actually go hard at the Republicans. They never actually shape the message or frame the discussion in the right way.

they let the Republicans accuse them of made up stuff, while they leave most (if not all) of their own legitimate ammo unfired.

This was the trap laid out before them imo.  It wasn't subtle, it wasn't disguised... it was baited by kindergarten name calling.

They stepped right in.

They did not ever have the goods, they felt bolstered by their self righteousness.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

This was the trap laid out before them imo.  It wasn't subtle, it wasn't disguised... it was baited by kindergarten name calling.

They stepped right in.

They did not ever have the goods, they felt bolstered by their self righteousness.

What we know about the Ukraine scandal would be more than enough if the GOP wasn’t willing to excuse literally anything from Trump. And there is certainly more.
 

the House Democrats should have kept pulling on strings, kept investigating additional angles (there are plenty more crimes), and kept stacking Articles of Impeachment. 
 

At the same time, they should have been doing an aggressive media blitz to lay it All out for voters and to highlight the complicity of McConnell and all the other forking traitors who are all too willing to betray their paths of office and sell out our country for power and personal gain.

 

[FBG Moderator]

I mean, sure. But the fact GOP pols are all intransigent and amoral reptiles isn’t a reason for Democrats not to do their jobs. 
 

Don't

 

[matuski]

What we know about the Ukraine scandal would be more than enough if the GOP wasn’t willing to excuse literally anything from Trump. And there is certainly more.
 

the House Democrats should have kept pulling on strings, kept investigating additional angles (there are plenty more crimes), and kept stacking Articles of Impeachment. 
 

At the same time, they should have been doing an aggressive media blitz to lay it All out for voters and to highlight the complicity of McConnell and all the other forking traitors who are all too willing to betray their paths of office and sell out our country for power and personal gain.

We just went through all of this.

1) Beforehand the "obvious" conclusion (your words) was... bad idea, the Left doesn't have it, this won't work.  Please see my posts leading up to both events.  I like your exact words - OBVIOUS.

2) If what I witnessed over the last couple years wasn't (isn't) an all out media blitz, I don't know what is.  It is and has been plastered all over the non FOX channels and sites.  I had to stop going to CNN because its top 10 stories were Trump.

3) The underlying reason you (the left/democrats) are WHIFFING so bad is this continued narrative that you are on the "right" side.  "Traitors"?  Take a deep breath my friend.  They are politicians.  This is a game.   This is the game.  And right now you are several steps behind, getting played.

 

[matuski]

To put this political game into real world game terms:

The Democrats just lost the lead, from up 10 to down 10, they are in-fighting, getting emotional.  Meta World Peace just went into the crowd to fight the heckler.  Pelosi is going mental.  Showing weakness.

The Republicans are loving it, poking the left, flexing.  Terrell Owens just spiked on the Star.  Trump is a front runner, all is good, he is a peacock... strutting.  This is his world.  He is strong.

The Left needs a leader to bring some composure back.  The current squad wants to spiral further downward.  Chill.  Here is the plan - execute.  Who is this figure?  I don't see him/her yet.

 

[Juxtatarot]

To put this political game into real world game terms:

The Democrats just lost the lead, from up 10 to down 10, they are in-fighting, getting emotional.  Meta World Peace just went into the crowd to fight the heckler.  Pelosi is going mental.  Showing weakness.

The Republicans are loving it, poking the left, flexing.  Terrell Owens just spiked on the Star.  Trump is a front runner, all is good, he is a peacock... strutting.  This is his world.  He is strong.

The Left needs a leader to bring some composure back.  The current squad wants to spiral further downward.  Chill.  Here is the plan - execute.  Who is this figure?  I don't see him/her yet.

It’s a weird take.  Do you know that there are more Democrats than Republicans?

 

[shader]

All right I’m a very optimistic person and I’ve tried to maintain that optimism throughout this election cycle but I’m finally fed up. I’ve said many times that Donald Trump should not be difficult to defeat, and I still tend to believe that, but the Democrats have made it much more difficult due to unforced errors. 

The Iowa mess is only the tip of the iceberg. In one sense I don’t really care; screwups in counting votes in February is not going to kill us in November. But in another sense it’s emblematic of an overall incompetence and poor thinking that is going to lead to Trump’s re-election. Let’s go over this again: 

1. Bernie Sanders is not going to beat Donald Trump. Full stop. It’s not going to happen. A few days ago I wrote that if he’s the nominee he might have a 40-50% chance but that was being very generous. Bernie will lose because his biggest support largely comes from states that are already in the blue column: New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The “coasts”. In the states that matter, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, he won’t win, because those voters don’t want Medicare 4 All and they don’t want socialism. 

2. Liz Warren is Bernie lite. She can’t win either for most of the same reasons. 

3. Buttigieg can’t get enough black votes to win the nomination. All he can do is take away votes from the other moderate candidates which makes a Bernie candidacy more easy. 

4. As much as I have tried to prop Joe Biden up he’s made one bonehead move after another. Why did he stay silent so long on the Hunter accusation. Why doesn’t he explain himself? Worst of all is the lack of energy he displays. We’re not even at our first primary yet and he’s so wounded I no longer have any idea what he’ll be like as the nominee. 

5. Amy Klobuchar says all the right things but has no traction whatsoever. If she comes in 4th in Iowa where is she expected to make her move? She’s almost a non entity at this point. 

6 Bloomberg’s plan appears to be working, but will he destroy the Democrats by winning it? He’s come in late and if he succeeds the narrative is going to be that a billionaire bought himself a nomination. Are progressives like AOc going to be able to put aside their resentment and vote for Mike Bloomberg? I have my doubts. 

No idea how this all plays out but we’re not off to a great start. Get it together! Time is a wasting. 

The Democrats spent the last four years battling Trump on Russia and a strange Ukraine impeachment trial.  They totally lost those battles.  Therefore there’s a real good shot that they are going to lose in the fall. 

It’s been 100% negativity for four years from them and in an economy where things are going great, I’m afraid that’s not gonna work.

The dems didn’t come up with a good candidate, and the dems didn’t attack Trump where they should have.  The dems were in the middle of the Me Too movement and they had a sitting president with 10+ sexual misconduct allegations and somehow decided it would be smarter to focus on a shady dossier and a lunatic Russian Manchurian candidate conspiracy theory.