Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: ams288

You could be right...

But I’m leaning towards your distaste for Bernie clouding your judgement in this case.

I didn’t say it would happen. You asked what a landslide definition would be. If you made me guess , I’d guess Trump would win every state he won in 2016, and that would be enough to win. But not a landslide.

Remember, I’m NOT good at these predictions. Never thought Obama would win in 2008. And certainly thought Trump would lose BIG in 2016.

I would bet against BLOOMBERG though. The ads just using Democrats attacking him would be priceless.

It is now Bernie's nomination to lose. But looking deeper, is this the new Democrat Party for a generation or two or is Bernie just an elaborate practical joke that went totally out of control?

FDR sealed the Democrat Party as the party of "the working man" like no other pol sealed anything for anybody. That he made the Great Depression worse did not matter. He convinced the average Joe he was on his side. Even though FDR was a socialist at heart he did not go about trying to outright destroy the capitalists who made the wealth that made his programs possible. He even listened to his advisors and did not nationalize industry during WWII, letting those who knew how to run things run things.

The "for the working man" thing changed over time. In 1960 JFK won a near dead-heat. In 1964 LBJ won more because the public wanted stability than for his big government programs. JFK would be the last Democrat to embrace tax cuts to help the economy and call on a sense of duty instead of offering "free stuff" left and right. A look at the next 50 years shows the Democrat Party winning a few, but with total wipeouts in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988. Bill Clinton won without a majority in 1992 and 1996. Carter won by only a whisker in 1976. Both men got these narrow wins with help; Watergate and a third party candidate, though I will concede Clinton would have had a majority in 1996 without Perot.

The message is clear. The Democrats long ago lost the working class vote. It was made up with a near-lock on the Black vote, that vote making up almost 20% of Democrat votes. Put in simple terms, if Blacks voted in proportions of most every other group it is hard to see how any Democrat POTUS would have won at all, excepting Clinton might have pulled 1992 off in a 3 way race.

While it had been going on for years, after 2012 the Democrat Party decided they would officially unofficially write off the White vote. "Demographics is Destiny" was the mantra. The goal would be outsize support from "brown" voters and take whatever Liberal whites followed along. And now the crossroads has come.

The White Democrat vote seems divided in 2 parts. One is the working family, probably union or had union parents, who have just always voted Democrat and they are never going to vote for a wasclly wepublican no matter what. They are older and dying off. A very few keep getting bled off when they have explained what all that free stuff really costs.

The other part is the Bernie wing. Young. Over-educated in most cases. Many actually have good jobs. Concentrated geographically they live in their own mayonnaise jar of life. But they are now a plurality of the Democrat Party. They are in control. That they do not live in reality does not matter. What matters is that they are enough of the base they will largely pick the nominee.

So you have the Democrat Party divided between a plurality of socialist Whites and groups of minorities. We may be looking at several Bernies the next 20 years.

Quote: Evenbob

Over 40 states, nobody wants a
millionaire commie/socialist in
the WH.

Stolen from internet...

Quote:

Last time we had a Socialist Democrat in office it was so crazy it caused an amendment... because we voted him to 4 straight terms

Quote: rxwine

You put up the premise that if no votes were changed (Russian interference.) it was okay,

I put up the same premise you did, and supported that if no elections can be proved changed (voter fraud), it also doesn't matter.

Get it?

One does not equal the other...but we should do everything we can about BOTH of them.

Election Interference--it may not change actual votes (in the ballot box), but it can change how the voter decides to vote. Enough changes in how voters cast their ballots and you change elections. Outside government and business forces trying to this should be prevented from doing this type of interference. I think most of us agree on this but we tend to not want to blame "our guy" (or gal...) for it.

Voter fraud--just because it hasn't been proven to have "changed" an election, it is unacceptable and it does matter. Voter ID is simple, effective, and the right thing to do. We have already put up a myriad of ways we can be sure and not disenfranchise eligible voters. It is ridiculous to assume that Voter ID necessarily excludes voters. Any law that actually did that would likely end up overturned. The only reason for NOT wanting voter ID is because someone thinks that the illegal votes will all be on their side.

Quote: RonC

The only reason for NOT wanting voter ID is because someone thinks that the illegal votes will all be on their side.

Ay, man, some of us still believe in integrity. Im against it because it's unconstitutional (24th).

Pay for it and im on board. Otherwise we're no better than the grabbers

Quote: Face

Ay, man, some of us still believe in integrity. Im against it because it's unconstitutional (24th).

Pay for it and im on board. Otherwise we're no better than the grabbers

OF COURSE pay for it. I have NO problem with that.

So if the Democrats are afraid of foreign influence in the elections... I’d like to hear ONE Democrat say the 11 million ILLEGALS in the US should not be allowed to post about the election on Twitter, Facebook, WoV, etc.... The Democrats are comfortable with THOSE foreigners interfering in the election.

(I’m expecting a BIG thank you from Shrek!)

Quote: Face

Ay, man, some of us still believe in integrity. Im against it because it's unconstitutional (24th).

Pay for it and im on board. Otherwise we're no better than the grabbers

Not unconstitutional at all. Everyone has an ID just to get by at life. To call it a "poll tax" is to say requiring someone to wear pants at the polls is a poll tax.

Quote: ams288

Quote: fleaswatter

I have heard stories that the democrats/DNC will be unable to provide the voting results of the Nevada caucus on Saturday but possibly Sunday at the earliest.

Good grief, and this is the party the libbies here want to control the government, economy, military, foreign policy, education etc etc etc

Still Saturday here in NV and we know the results. Care to retract this BS?

I doubt it.

A good example why you shouldn’t believe everything right wing media crams down your throat...

It is Sunday now and I just checked the results and ONLY 50% of the vote has yet to be tabulated. WOW great job Nevada democrats!! You only had 4 years to prepare. Why are you having soooooooo much trouble counting less that a couple hundred thousand votes??

Yes, crazy Bernie was "projected" to be the winner when about 4% of the votes were counted and will end up being the candidate with the most votes when all the votes are fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinally counted.

Yep, I want the party that can't even count votes in a timely manner to be in charge the government.

LOL LOL LOL

P.S. How about you providing me a tabulation of the FINAL results.

Have the Democrats completed their recount in Iowa yet???? LOL

Quote: Face

Stolen from internet...

"Last time we had a Socialist Democrat in office it was so crazy it caused an amendment... because we voted him to 4 straight terms"

The last two were during a
world war in Europe, and then
with us involved. Not really
a surprise to reelect.

Quote: RonC

One does not equal the other...but we should do everything we can about BOTH of the them.

Not equal? Sure...sure, if socialist Bernie really did win the election because of Russia you guys would be so butt hurt, the screaming would go on for 4 years.