President Donald Trump

[Hornsby]

Well, whether you like it or not, he is probably going to run. And that will lead to a lot of posts about him and his campaign.
PS- Hillary was the biggest factor in her own loss. Not Jill Stein

He can run, and almost certainly will. However, he is NOT a viable candidate to be elected in my mind. And I'm probably as centrist a Democrat as there is at this point.

And yes, HRC's mistakes sunk her, but so did Stein, Bernie, and a dozen other factors.

[nots]

What wouldn’t make him viable?
He can fund raise.
He has a brand.
He has key personnel in place from last time.
He is currently polling well (as meaningless as that currently is 23 months prior to the election).
Outside of hard feelings by Clinton acolytes, what leads you to say he isn’t viable? He may not win the nomination, but he is certainly viable IMO.

[B-Fly]

What wouldn’t make him viable?
He can fund raise.
He has a brand.
He has key personnel in place from last time.
He is currently polling well (as meaningless as that currently is 23 months prior to the election).
Outside of hard feelings by Clinton acolytes, what leads you to say he isn’t viable? He may not win the nomination, but he is certainly viable IMO.

1) Age
2) A Jew and an atheist
3) A self-described "socialist"

I just don't think that he'd have a chance in America with that combination. But he's certainly "earned" the right to run again.

[Hornsby]

What wouldn’t make him viable?
He can fund raise.
He has a brand.
He has key personnel in place from last time.
He is currently polling well (as meaningless as that currently is 23 months prior to the election).
Outside of hard feelings by Clinton acolytes, what leads you to say he isn’t viable? He may not win the nomination, but he is certainly viable IMO.

Viable to me means able to win the nomination, and from there, the Presidency. I don't think that he has a chance in hell of getting the nomination, so therefore he's not a viable candidate in my book.

I'm no Clinton acolyte, even though I believed, and still do believe, that she would have been a very good technical President. Bernie has done nothing in his Senate career to distinguish himself...why should I think that he'd be able to take on the highest office in the land and do better?

Just not my candidate, nor, I believe, would he be for a majority of centrist democrats.

BTW, just for curiosity's sake, you say he's polling well...I'd be curious to see the figures.

[nots]

1) Age
2) A Jew and an atheist
3) A self-described "socialist"

I just don't think that he'd have a chance in America with that combination. But he's certainly "earned" the right to run again.

I don’t think any of those things hurt him last time (I.e. were the reason he didn’t win the nomination)though the age is concerning

[nots]

Viable to me means able to win the nomination, and from there, the Presidency. I don't think that he has a chance in hell of getting the nomination, so therefore he's not a viable candidate in my book.

I'm no Clinton acolyte, even though I believed, and still do believe, that she would have been a very good technical President. Bernie has done nothing in his Senate career to distinguish himself...why should I think that he'd be able to take on the highest office in the land and do better?

Just not my candidate, nor, I believe, would he be for a majority of centrist democrats.

BTW, just for curiosity's sake, you say he's polling well...I'd be curious to see the figures.

He is second here, but as I said mostly meaningless at this point. More name recognition than anything else.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/14/17975486/2020-democrats-poll-joe-biden-donald-trump

[baldgriff]

He can run, and almost certainly will. However, he is NOT a viable candidate to be elected in my mind. And I'm probably as centrist a Democrat as there is at this point.

And yes, HRC's mistakes sunk her, but so did Stein, Bernie, and a dozen other factors.

Yet most in hindsight agree that Bernie would have most likely beaten Trump.

[Bernie Brewer]

1) Age
2) A Jew and an atheist
3) A self-described "socialist"

I just don't think that he'd have a chance in America with that combination. But he's certainly "earned" the right to run again.

Didn't the DNC just vote to pass a rule that anyone vying for the nomination must declare as a Democrat? I thought I heard that a few months back.

[swampdragon]

Yet most in hindsight agree that Bernie would have most likely beaten Trump.

Sounds interesting but I don't agree that Bernie would have beaten Trump

[baldgriff]

Sounds interesting but I don't agree that Bernie would have beaten Trump

Interesting - I honestly believe the young voter turn out for Bernie would have been amazing. Wasnt there a great deal of snarling and gnashing of teeth as it pertained to the millenial voters that either didnt vote or even protest voted for Trump? Didnt the Dems do so well in the latest blue wave due in large part to the millenial vote being cast for the Democrat candidates over the R's? If those kids had voted that way 2 years ago -

nah Bernie couldnt have been elected.

[Teenwolf]

Didn't the DNC just vote to pass a rule that anyone vying for the nomination must declare as a Democrat? I thought I heard that a few months back.

Yeah, something like "must be a Democrat in good standing with the party." It's thought to be a way of the DNC denying Bernie Sanders being allowed to run on the Democratic ticket. If they try to screw over Bernie from even being allowed into the Dem primary, do you think that would be a good way to reach out to the millenial vote? If they try it, they deserve to suffer 4 years of Pence to really hammer the message home. I trust that's not what anybody sane here wants, but it could easily come to be.

[baldgriff]

Can we put the Bernie for Prez mantra to bed now? Again, to state facts, he's not even a true Democrat, so that's a huge strike against him....

So I asked about this a long time ago in the 2018 election thread, I think.

Before the primaries happened, the knock against Bernie was exactly what you are stating above "He's not even a true Democrat". In fact, he likely is a Socialist just by another name, but Socialist nonetheless. After the primaries happened and during the HRC run, the knock was that he was an "opportunist" and the whole "not a true Dem" disappeared.

My question then was, why the change is how he was being sold/viewed? I asked it multiple times and never got a response from anyone on the left here.

Is it possible that the Dem party has actually moved further left and more into the socialist camp than they ever were? Is it possible that they are moving away from their old core and adopting a younger seemingly much more progressive platform to placate and attract the millenial voters? If so, doesnt that make the DNC the "opportunists?

[Redbirds Fan]

Didn't the DNC just vote to pass a rule that anyone vying for the nomination must declare as a Democrat? I thought I heard that a few months back.

There are states in which you have to declare as a Democrat to run in the state's Democratic primary. If you think about it a moment, it doesn't sound like an unreasonable requirement that you belong to the party under whose banner you choose to run.

Some people forget that Bernie signed a declaration that he was a Democrat and stated that he would remain a Democrat after the election. (Update: He did not remain a Democrat after the election.)

[Teenwolf]

Bernie proposed Medicare for All, something which has since grown to 70% support nationally, again, including 52% of Republicans. He would have performed substantially better than HRC did if this were made a regular campaign issue. Bernie proposed a $15/hr minimum wage... maybe that scares away some wealthy Dems afraid of tax increases (though I suspect with 60% of the country vulnerable to financial hardship on a $400 hit... I guarantee he would have gained more than lost. There's WAY more dirt poor folks than rich ones)... Would any of the moderate Democrats on this board have actually voted for Trump over Sanders? I highly doubt it.

Seems like no question to me that Bernie would have beaten Trump by some margin, the campaigns would have been drastically different than how '16 turned out, so it's difficult to assess exactly which way things would go... but it wouldn't have been "lock him up"... no "emails"... no "deplorables"... much more policy-focused, where Trump suffered from lack of detail... I honestly think Bernie's political instincts are much smarter than HRC's, but I loathe talking about Hillary in general, so let's just look ahead.

[Teenwolf]

There are states in which you have to declare as a Democrat to run in the state's Democratic primary. If you think about it a moment, it doesn't sound like an unreasonable requirement that you belong to the party under whose banner you choose to run.

Some people forget that Bernie signed a declaration that he was a Democrat and stated that he would remain a Democrat after the election. (Update: He did not remain a Democrat after the election.)

So do you think he deserves a chance on the Democratic ticket or not?

I think if he's disallowed from the primary ticket, then you'll REALLY piss off progressives. Might see a 3rd party tank 2020. That sure would be an unfortunate consequence of the DNC's corruption.