American Politics

[DiamondGooner]

I honestly don't think America would actually let Sanders become president.

They fear him more than Trump.

Pushing for Free Healthcare, Firearms limitaitons, better public services. holding company's to account for the services they sell.

Yeah, they'd never let Bernie in the White House.

[LMAO]

It's 2020, not 1920 or 1870.

Ask the KKK and other custodians of the Confederate flag which party they support today in 2020.

Imo the Confederate flag is a symbol of treason and losers. Don't the sOuTh WiLl RiSe AgAiN folk shout at people to get over 2016 because Hillary lost? Well, maybe they should get over that dumbass flag and what it represents. The CSA lost ffs

Can't believe there are actually statues of Confederate leaders still up in public. Imagine people in Europe erecting statues of Hitler, Rommel, and Goering in public squares, and flying Nazi flags on the backs of their vehicles and outside their homes smh

Also, Hoover was a lifelong Republican.

I know all about Hoover.

Could you put me in contact with a KKK member to ask then? Seems there are only about 2000 left and I don't know any...very few people do.

Statues, if you ever get to London you will find plenty of them. Mostly Empire builders and slave traders. History is to be learned from not denied.

If you know all about Hoover, why did you say the Democrats were the party of him?

Yes, we should learn from history. That's why the statues belong in museums, not in public squares.

Because it was under Kennedy that he pulled his most egregious activities such as trying to set MLK up. That and he was first appointed by Woodrow Wilson a Democrat prior to the formation of the FBI. FDR gave him blanket authority to conduct surveillance of political foes.

Trump has no control over the likes of Duke just as Bernie has no control of ANTIFA. Bernie does have control over who he hires and has speak on his behalf at rallies.

Which statues in London should we have removed in your view? Or Boston for that matter?

Now mention how Truman didn't like Hoover and saw the FBI in a negative light. Or Eisenhower who expanded the FBI's surveillance. Or how JFK didn't have a close relationship with Hoover.

That's moving the goalposts. You said the KKK origin's are associated with the Democrats (which I'm not denying), and I said that it doesn't matter in 2020 because members of the KKK and other Confederate flag custodians support the GOP in the present day.

And since you want to bring Bernie into this, Trump also has control over who he hires. Stephen Miller, who holds white nationalist views, is one of Trump's senior advisors. And a further 7 of Trump's associates have gone to prison for various crimes relating from fraud to lying to Congress and the FBI. So if you're going to criticize Bernie, then you should also take a look into Trump's camp. Unless you're okay with it?

That's adding extra details. I compared the Confederacy and Nazi Germany. But, removing all statues of 'national heroes' who lost their major, country-defining war and subjected a significant portion of their people to captivity would be a start.

[LMAO]

Holy f**k, Bloomberg was bad in that debate. Did he not have prep? He was completely incapable of dealing with the pressure. I expected him to have rough moments but not a roast session that he barely stumbled and stuttered through.

He can't be the nominee, Trump would baptize him in a debate.

Right now my preference is:
1) Warren
2) Sanders
3) Pete
4) Biden
5) Klobuchar
6) Bloomberg

1. Sanders
2. Warren
.
.
.
3. Biden
.
.
4. Klobuchar
.
.
.
.
.
5. Buttigieg
.
.
.
6. Bloomberg

Pour one out for my boy Yang

Also, I never wanna hear that MSNBC and CNN are left-wing again. Both networks (save for a couple people) are firmly on the stop Bernie train and are clutching their pearls harder the higher he rises in the polls.

Well they are left leaning, just that they are wings of the Dem Party and Bernie is not. The Dem Party will do anything to stop Bernie not because they do not agree with his policies but rather because they know if he is nominated he takes the House away from them and secondly if he were to be elected he would never get his policies through any Congress, Dem or GOP. The third thing is that they have pandered to the socialist block (which is really quite small but very vocal) and now it is coming back to bite them. They are in very real danger of losing that part of the base to a third party and just as that sort of movement within the GOP gave us the likes of Perot and thus the Clintons, the Dem Party is very against the likes of the Green Party or DSA. For instance here in MT the Dems actually sued to keep the Green candidate off the ballot in 2016. The GOP has the Libertarians to deal with, and that tiny 2-3% makes a huge difference in Senate and House races. When the Dems decided to make their whole agenda about opposing Trump, even on issues they agreed with him on, they lost their soul and their chances.

What I do not get about your politics is how you can be a Yang guy (who was fairly coherent and then fall back to Bernie?

Then you don't understand a good number of Americans. There's a lot of overlapping support between Yang and Sanders.

Also, I know you're out of touch with the Democratic base and Independents (even though most aren't elastic tbh) when you say Sanders being at the top of the ticket guarantees the Democrats will lose the House. Do you know which candidate is the second choice for Biden supporters? Is it Buttigieg? Maybe Klobuchar? How about Bloomberg? Okay, she's not a moderate, corporate Democrat like Biden, but could it be Warren? Nope, it's Bernie Sanders by 9 points.

2nd choice for non-Sanders candidates:
• Biden: Sanders (33%), Bloomberg (24%), Warren (14%)
• Bloomberg: Biden (28%), Sanders/Buttigieg (20%)
• Buttigieg: Bloomberg/Klobuchar (22%), Sanders (20%)
• Warren: Sanders (38%), Klobuchar (16%)

So yeah, if Sanders wins the nomination, then you may very well be in for a rude awakening. Democrats will rally around him like the GOP did with Trump. Don't let your arrogance make the same mistake the rest of us did in 2016.

[Yago]

Sanders won't lose dems the house (I believe the House is relatively safe). Regaining the senate is another thing, though.

My preference (with the disclaimer I'm not American):
1) Warren because she's f***ing great


2) Biden as I believe he'd help with the Senate, as well as being safer in swing states.
3) Sanders, should still have a good shot based on h2h, fracking ban puts PA in danger though (but still quite doable), FL is immediately off the table and AZ/NC are a bit more difficult than with Biden, I expect.
4/5) Klobuchar and Buttigieg would still be decent but are a little more risky in the GE.



6) Bloomberg sucks (can add Gabbard here too if she were at all relevant)

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

Holy f**k, Bloomberg was bad in that debate. Did he not have prep? He was completely incapable of dealing with the pressure. I expected him to have rough moments but not a roast session that he barely stumbled and stuttered through.

He can't be the nominee, Trump would baptize him in a debate.

Right now my preference is:
1) Warren
2) Sanders
3) Pete
4) Biden
5) Klobuchar
6) Bloomberg

1. Sanders
2. Warren
.
.
.
3. Biden
.
.
4. Klobuchar
.
.
.
.
.
5. Buttigieg
.
.
.
6. Bloomberg

Pour one out for my boy Yang

Also, I never wanna hear that MSNBC and CNN are left-wing again. Both networks (save for a couple people) are firmly on the stop Bernie train and are clutching their pearls harder the higher he rises in the polls.

Well they are left leaning, just that they are wings of the Dem Party and Bernie is not. The Dem Party will do anything to stop Bernie not because they do not agree with his policies but rather because they know if he is nominated he takes the House away from them and secondly if he were to be elected he would never get his policies through any Congress, Dem or GOP. The third thing is that they have pandered to the socialist block (which is really quite small but very vocal) and now it is coming back to bite them. They are in very real danger of losing that part of the base to a third party and just as that sort of movement within the GOP gave us the likes of Perot and thus the Clintons, the Dem Party is very against the likes of the Green Party or DSA. For instance here in MT the Dems actually sued to keep the Green candidate off the ballot in 2016. The GOP has the Libertarians to deal with, and that tiny 2-3% makes a huge difference in Senate and House races. When the Dems decided to make their whole agenda about opposing Trump, even on issues they agreed with him on, they lost their soul and their chances.

What I do not get about your politics is how you can be a Yang guy (who was fairly coherent and then fall back to Bernie?

Then you don't understand a good number of Americans. There's a lot of overlapping support between Yang and Sanders.

Also, I know you're out of touch with the Democratic base and Independents (even though most aren't elastic tbh) when you say Sanders being at the top of the ticket guarantees the Democrats will lose the House. Do you know which candidate is the second choice for Biden supporters? Is it Buttigieg? Maybe Klobuchar? How about Bloomberg? Okay, she's not a moderate, corporate Democrat like Biden, but could it be Warren? Nope, it's Bernie Sanders by 9 points.

2nd choice for non-Sanders candidates:
• Biden: Sanders (33%), Bloomberg (24%), Warren (14%)
• Bloomberg: Biden (28%), Sanders/Buttigieg (20%)
• Buttigieg: Bloomberg/Klobuchar (22%), Sanders (20%)
• Warren: Sanders (38%), Klobuchar (16%)

So yeah, if Sanders wins the nomination, then you may very well be in for a rude awakening. Democrats will rally around him like the GOP did with Trump. Don't let your arrogance make the same mistake the rest of us did in 2016.

My point and why I asked is that Yang and Sanders are poles apart on policy. You seemed not to want to explain the WHY anyone could be dedicated to both. Yang was the reasonable one, the rest pandering flame throwers.

I am not out of touch with liberal/socialist politics, I understand it completely and thus oppose it. I have understood and followed the DSA platform for years. This is not new stuff.

I am not being arrogant when I point out that even the Dem Party is anti Sanders for reason. They are the ones that are warning your lot that Sanders is considered such a threat to the party that they are pulling out their media hacks at CNN and MSNBC to stop him now. If he were to get the nomination he loses and the down ballot effect would be disastrous for them.

Look, Sanders and his pap of free everything, collectivism etc might be an exciting prospect for young voters but the vast majority of voters know all about Bernie as I do. I would suggest that your voter block would be shocked when they fully understand the impact on your lives should he or any of his DSA dupes ever get into power and actually implement those policies. But that will not happen, and I am rooting hard for old Bernie because no matter how counter intuitive it might seem, his nomination would be the best possible result for the nation. About time the DSA Bernie Bro clowns be exposed.

Sanders is a Ron Paul, a guy who who's true party can not get elected in any meaningful way so they hitchhike on an established party. The Obama/Clinton establishment never lets that happen without a fight. At least you are seeing the corruption and media control that the Dem Party uses to maintain power first hand.

So you have jumped from Hillary in 2016, to Yang and then to Bernie...what exactly are your core political views based on in that case? You seem a serious man, but that sort of disparate ideological bloom hopping that your generation engages in is quite bizarre... as is the rejection of the current best of times for most Americans because they find a politician appealing even if the results of his policies have worked wonders. And please spare us the "Obama economy" BS. Obama never believed in his economic plans himself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevor ... 2c596e20a6


And please stop with the "white nationalist" BS. Steven Miller is actually right in line (minus the union goons at the border beating up illegals) with Cesar Chavez.

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

Sanders won't lose dems the house (I believe the House is relatively safe). Regaining the senate is another thing, though.

My preference (with the disclaimer I'm not American):
1) Warren because she's f***ing great


2) Biden as I believe he'd help with the Senate, as well as being safer in swing states.
3) Sanders, should still have a good shot based on h2h, fracking ban puts PA in danger though (but still quite doable), FL is immediately off the table and AZ/NC are a bit more difficult than with Biden, I expect.
4/5) Klobuchar and Buttigieg would still be decent but are a little more risky in the GE.



6) Bloomberg sucks (can add Gabbard here too if she were at all relevant)

Hmmm...what is so great about her? She has abused racial hiring preferences, has no real base of support and is irritating as hell. The fact that she lost NH so badly tells the story.

The fracking ban...so firstly that is number on Putin's list as it puts billions in his pocket. Secondly it would greatly raise fuel prices, especially NG and LNG which is vital to heating our homes and generating electricity and is much less harmful than coal. Any such ban would cost the country millions of jobs. And now, when the third world is finally making a vital switch from burning wood (and denuding the land, causing catastrophic erosion and habit loss) to LNG and propane you wish to reverse all that based on what exactly? Utterly insane proposition which even Warren knows is never going to happen, she is simply pandering.

Biden is no longer in the picture. He has no money and is up to neck in Ukraine, besides he is sharp as a boulder.

In truth Klobuchar would have the best chance for the Dems simply because she would hold Minnesota and take Wisconsin simply on name recognition. She would also get support from all of the traditional liberal strongholds on either coast. But at this point the Dems are focused more on holding the House than any realistic chance of running against Trump and a 90% satisfaction rate, more jobs than workers to fill them and a thriving economy.

[Yago]

Christ, I'm not interested in responding to that drivel.

[LMAO]

Holy f**k, Bloomberg was bad in that debate. Did he not have prep? He was completely incapable of dealing with the pressure. I expected him to have rough moments but not a roast session that he barely stumbled and stuttered through.

He can't be the nominee, Trump would baptize him in a debate.

Right now my preference is:
1) Warren
2) Sanders
3) Pete
4) Biden
5) Klobuchar
6) Bloomberg

1. Sanders
2. Warren
.
.
.
3. Biden
.
.
4. Klobuchar
.
.
.
.
.
5. Buttigieg
.
.
.
6. Bloomberg

Pour one out for my boy Yang

Also, I never wanna hear that MSNBC and CNN are left-wing again. Both networks (save for a couple people) are firmly on the stop Bernie train and are clutching their pearls harder the higher he rises in the polls.

Well they are left leaning, just that they are wings of the Dem Party and Bernie is not. The Dem Party will do anything to stop Bernie not because they do not agree with his policies but rather because they know if he is nominated he takes the House away from them and secondly if he were to be elected he would never get his policies through any Congress, Dem or GOP. The third thing is that they have pandered to the socialist block (which is really quite small but very vocal) and now it is coming back to bite them. They are in very real danger of losing that part of the base to a third party and just as that sort of movement within the GOP gave us the likes of Perot and thus the Clintons, the Dem Party is very against the likes of the Green Party or DSA. For instance here in MT the Dems actually sued to keep the Green candidate off the ballot in 2016. The GOP has the Libertarians to deal with, and that tiny 2-3% makes a huge difference in Senate and House races. When the Dems decided to make their whole agenda about opposing Trump, even on issues they agreed with him on, they lost their soul and their chances.

What I do not get about your politics is how you can be a Yang guy (who was fairly coherent and then fall back to Bernie?

Then you don't understand a good number of Americans. There's a lot of overlapping support between Yang and Sanders.

Also, I know you're out of touch with the Democratic base and Independents (even though most aren't elastic tbh) when you say Sanders being at the top of the ticket guarantees the Democrats will lose the House. Do you know which candidate is the second choice for Biden supporters? Is it Buttigieg? Maybe Klobuchar? How about Bloomberg? Okay, she's not a moderate, corporate Democrat like Biden, but could it be Warren? Nope, it's Bernie Sanders by 9 points.

2nd choice for non-Sanders candidates:
• Biden: Sanders (33%), Bloomberg (24%), Warren (14%)
• Bloomberg: Biden (28%), Sanders/Buttigieg (20%)
• Buttigieg: Bloomberg/Klobuchar (22%), Sanders (20%)
• Warren: Sanders (38%), Klobuchar (16%)

So yeah, if Sanders wins the nomination, then you may very well be in for a rude awakening. Democrats will rally around him like the GOP did with Trump. Don't let your arrogance make the same mistake the rest of us did in 2016.

My point and why I asked is that Yang and Sanders are poles apart on policy. You seemed not to want to explain the WHY anyone could be dedicated to both. Yang was the reasonable one, the rest pandering flame throwers.

I am not out of touch with liberal/socialist politics, I understand it completely and thus oppose it. I have understood and followed the DSA platform for years. This is not new stuff.

I am not being arrogant when I point out that even the Dem Party is anti Sanders for reason. They are the ones that are warning your lot that Sanders is considered such a threat to the party that they are pulling out their media hacks at CNN and MSNBC to stop him now. If he were to get the nomination he loses and the down ballot effect would be disastrous for them.

Look, Sanders and his pap of free everything, collectivism etc might be an exciting prospect for young voters but the vast majority of voters know all about Bernie as I do. I would suggest that your voter block would be shocked when they fully understand the impact on your lives should he or any of his DSA dupes ever get into power and actually implement those policies. But that will not happen, and I am rooting hard for old Bernie because no matter how counter intuitive it might seem, his nomination would be the best possible result for the nation. About time the DSA Bernie Bro clowns be exposed.

Sanders is a Ron Paul, a guy who who's true party can not get elected in any meaningful way so they hitchhike on an established party. The Obama/Clinton establishment never lets that happen without a fight. At least you are seeing the corruption and media control that the Dem Party uses to maintain power first hand.

So you have jumped from Hillary in 2016, to Yang and then to Bernie...what exactly are your core political views based on in that case? You seem a serious man, but that sort of disparate ideological bloom hopping that your generation engages in is quite bizarre... as is the rejection of the current best of times for most Americans because they find a politician appealing even if the results of his policies have worked wonders. And please spare us the "Obama economy" BS. Obama never believed in his economic plans himself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevor ... 2c596e20a6


And please stop with the "white nationalist" BS. Steven Miller is actually right in line (minus the union goons at the border beating up illegals) with Cesar Chavez.

I'll stop with the "white nationalist BS" when you stop with the DSA BS.

In 2016, I was fine with a continuation of Obama, but I've seen since then that that wouldn't be enough to move the country forward. We need revolutionary vision for that, hence Yang and Sanders in simple terms.

You keep bringing up young voters for Sanders, but you're completely wrong about him only getting support from young voters. Here's the Nevada entrance polls from the WaPo:


Bernie has a 9+ point lead in every age demographic but 65+. So, please stop with the nonsense that young people are ignorant and only voting for Bernie because we don't know better. Seems like older people are fond of him too.

Bernie has a double digit lead in union and non-union households. Double digit lead with Independents.

You can keep sticking your head in the sand and shout socialism all you want, but you should listen to what UFGN said on the previous page:

If Bernie becomes president the American Right can have nothing to say about it. They’ve cried wolf over and over again over "socialism" and "communism". They cried wolf over Obama and Clinton, neither of whom would even be elected as Labour party MPs, let alone Labour leader in Britain, with their manifestos as they were.

A lesson in not using hyperbolic language! When a real socialist comes along they've got no bigger words to use and nobody is listening anymore

So if Sanders gets sworn in on January 20 next year with a blue House and a blue Senate, I hope you're able to figure out where you went wrong in assessing the electorate because Bernie is killing it among basically every demographic for Democrats and Independents.

[LMAO]

Sanders won't lose dems the house (I believe the House is relatively safe). Regaining the senate is another thing, though.

My preference (with the disclaimer I'm not American):
1) Warren because she's f***ing great


2) Biden as I believe he'd help with the Senate, as well as being safer in swing states.
3) Sanders, should still have a good shot based on h2h, fracking ban puts PA in danger though (but still quite doable), FL is immediately off the table and AZ/NC are a bit more difficult than with Biden, I expect.
4/5) Klobuchar and Buttigieg would still be decent but are a little more risky in the GE.



6) Bloomberg sucks (can add Gabbard here too if she were at all relevant)

I'd expect Arizona to be in major play with Bernie because he's massively popular in the Latino community (and Scott Kelly may carry Bernie in AZ instead of the other way around). Florida is tricky because of the Cuban population, but Florida is close every time, so it could go either way. But, the biggest potential flip with Bernie's Latino popularity is Texas. If he can get Latinos to show up, then Texas will finally turn blue.

And from the Nevada entrance polls, Bernie is the most popular of the Democratic candidates with union members, so that swings Michigan and Pennsylvania back (Wisconsin is a toss-up because it's been getting redder) and puts Ohio in play.

For the Senate, I think Democrats need one more win to flip the chamber (assuming Jones doesn't get reelected in Alabama). Colorado is gone for Republicans, Arizona is looking good with Kelly, and Collins isn't looking too hot in Maine. That leaves North Carolina, Iowa, either of the Georgia seats, and Kansas. But if Bernie manages to flip Texas, then Cornyn may be waving bye-bye. I feel better about the Senate map in 2020 than I did in 2018.

Agree with the House. It should remain blue.

[UFGN]

I think you misunderstood my point there Brandon. I was commenting on the Republicans repeatedly calling all Dem candidates "socialist" when by any reasonable measure, they're not..... except Bernie really is.... and because they've wheeled out the same tired accusations so many times, its like the boy who cried wolf

Bernie the Wolf is going to eat their sheep if he becomes Prez and theres nothing the Republicans can say, because their rhetoric has been used so much and so often it no longer has much impact

In any case, Bernie's choice of running mate / VP will be vital. They have to be seen to be a President in waiting, ready to stand instead of Sanders in 2024, because he would surely be too old.

[LMAO]

I think you misunderstood my point there Brandon. I was commenting on the Republicans repeatedly calling all Dem candidates "socialist" when by any reasonable measure, they're not..... except Bernie really is.... and because they've wheeled out the same tired accusations so many times, its like the boy who cried wolf

Bernie the Wolf is going to eat their sheep if he becomes Prez and theres nothing the Republicans can say, because their rhetoric has been used so much and so often it no longer has much impact

In any case, Bernie's choice of running mate / VP will be vital. They have to be seen to be a President in waiting, ready to stand instead of Sanders in 2024, because he would surely be too old.

I was agreeing with you and meant PRISS should find a different angle to attack Sanders from because the socialist slur has lost its luster from overuse, especially when it wasn't relevant before (even though Bernie's platform is an FDR update tbh). It's what I meant in the next paragraph when I said maybe he'll figure out where he went wrong in assessing the electorate. I guess I could've been more expressive though.

There are rumors that Nina Turner will be Bernie's pick for VP should he secure the nomination. If you need a quick introduction into her:

[UFGN]

I think you misunderstood my point there Brandon. I was commenting on the Republicans repeatedly calling all Dem candidates "socialist" when by any reasonable measure, they're not..... except Bernie really is.... and because they've wheeled out the same tired accusations so many times, its like the boy who cried wolf

Bernie the Wolf is going to eat their sheep if he becomes Prez and theres nothing the Republicans can say, because their rhetoric has been used so much and so often it no longer has much impact

In any case, Bernie's choice of running mate / VP will be vital. They have to be seen to be a President in waiting, ready to stand instead of Sanders in 2024, because he would surely be too old.

I was agreeing with you and meant PRISS should find a different angle to attack Sanders from because the socialist slur has lost its luster from overuse, especially when it wasn't relevant before (even though Bernie's platform is an FDR update tbh). It's what I meant in the next paragraph when I said maybe he'll figure out where he went wrong in assessing the electorate. I guess I could've been more expressive though.

There are rumors that Nina Turner will be Bernie's pick for VP should he secure the nomination. If you need a quick introduction into her:

My bad, I misread your post

Does this Nina Turner woman have the name recognition to be VP? Could she plausibley run for Prez in 2024?

More importantly, who would win in a mud wrestling fight between her and Tina Turner?

[Yago]

Nina Turner is terrible, and would be an awful vp pick.

[Yago]

Sanders won't lose dems the house (I believe the House is relatively safe). Regaining the senate is another thing, though.

My preference (with the disclaimer I'm not American):
1) Warren because she's f***ing great


2) Biden as I believe he'd help with the Senate, as well as being safer in swing states.
3) Sanders, should still have a good shot based on h2h, fracking ban puts PA in danger though (but still quite doable), FL is immediately off the table and AZ/NC are a bit more difficult than with Biden, I expect.
4/5) Klobuchar and Buttigieg would still be decent but are a little more risky in the GE.



6) Bloomberg sucks (can add Gabbard here too if she were at all relevant)

I'd expect Arizona to be in major play with Bernie because he's massively popular in the Latino community (and Scott Kelly may carry Bernie in AZ instead of the other way around). Florida is tricky because of the Cuban population, but Florida is close every time, so it could go either way. But, the biggest potential flip with Bernie's Latino popularity is Texas. If he can get Latinos to show up, then Texas will finally turn blue.

And from the Nevada entrance polls, Bernie is the most popular of the Democratic candidates with union members, so that swings Michigan and Pennsylvania back (Wisconsin is a toss-up because it's been getting redder) and puts Ohio in play.

For the Senate, I think Democrats need one more win to flip the chamber (assuming Jones doesn't get reelected in Alabama). Colorado is gone for Republicans, Arizona is looking good with Kelly, and Collins isn't looking too hot in Maine. That leaves North Carolina, Iowa, either of the Georgia seats, and Kansas. But if Bernie manages to flip Texas, then Cornyn may be waving bye-bye. I feel better about the Senate map in 2020 than I did in 2018.

Agree with the House. It should remain blue.

Also just reacting to this:

1) I'm assuming you mean Mark Kelly, who I agree is great and will help in AZ. Bernie's popularity with latinos is a good sign, but AZ is oooold. It has been moving towards democrats for a while though, and I think it's a safer bet than Wisconsin at this point.
2) Michigan is indeed swinging back. We saw a similar thing in PA, it's just that backing a fracking ban will definitely make things harder there - and that includes the unions, who will (as reported in the media) see this as a reason not to back Sanders there.
3) Ohio is not in play. Loool. You mention Wisconsin getting redder, but Ohio is that x10. I'd expect Democrats to win AZ, NC, FL, GA, WI, IA and even TX before Ohio ever comes into play. That state is gone, man.
4) Speaking of... He's not winning Texas. Beto didn't manage in 2018, and Bernie is not going to come close to his performance there (it's a presidential year, too...). It's moving towards dems, but isn't there yet. Cornyn is also safe, as none of the potential senate candidates there are impressive, and he still has good favourables.
5) CO is a safe D pickup by now, and things are looking very good for Kelly. Collins is in trouble, although that one isn't decided quite yet. The best hope for the crucial 50th seat would then be NC, where Cunningham has been doing really well. Cooper is a popular governor and will help there (and should also help on the presidential level). If not NC, it's gonna be difficult. An outside shot at Kansas if Kobach wins the republican primary (but still a very slim one), either of the 2 GA seats (the special election probably slightly more likely) or IA which isn't looking hot.

[DiamondGooner]

I think you misunderstood my point there Brandon. I was commenting on the Republicans repeatedly calling all Dem candidates "socialist" when by any reasonable measure, they're not..... except Bernie really is.... and because they've wheeled out the same tired accusations so many times, its like the boy who cried wolf

Bernie the Wolf is going to eat their sheep if he becomes Prez and theres nothing the Republicans can say, because their rhetoric has been used so much and so often it no longer has much impact

In any case, Bernie's choice of running mate / VP will be vital. They have to be seen to be a President in waiting, ready to stand instead of Sanders in 2024, because he would surely be too old.

I was agreeing with you and meant PRISS should find a different angle to attack Sanders from because the socialist slur has lost its luster from overuse, especially when it wasn't relevant before (even though Bernie's platform is an FDR update tbh). It's what I meant in the next paragraph when I said maybe he'll figure out where he went wrong in assessing the electorate. I guess I could've been more expressive though.

There are rumors that Nina Turner will be Bernie's pick for VP should he secure the nomination. If you need a quick introduction into her:

Shes not wrong though, those people saying baby steps are the people who don't want you to get there at all and are just trying to derail and slow up progress.

Did Trump ask for baby steps in his campaign? did Brexiteers ask for baby steps about getting out of Europe? no they didn't and they won.

Today's politics aren't won by middle of the road, people have wised up to know that middle of the road is just code for "Nothing will change".