Will Bernie Sanders win the Democratic Nomination?
Now that Bernie has won both Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, there has never been a candidate in modern history to accomplish this, but ultimately lose the primary. Will Sanders become the first to win both but fail to win the nomination?
If he is the nominee, how do you think Bernie will do against Trump in a General Election?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
44 Answers
From an outsider looking in I hope Bernie really does pull it off, he truly is a leader for for the little guy, problem is I don’t think corporations or the wealthy will allow him to get the nomination.
But believe me I think he is great I would love Warren to be his running mate.
Oh and I think he would do fine against Trump in any kind of debate, problem Bernie is a thousand times more honest than Trump, it might hurt him not being such a liar.
No.
BTW, Bernie didn’t win Iowa, but he came close.
Who knows. Friend of mine in TN said Bloomberg is the only one mailing out flyers, and they are expensive very nice flyers/brochures. One of my friends who is more liberal than Bloomberg said she thinks he would have the best chance of beating Trump in her opinion, even though he is not her first choice.
It will be interesting to see who southern states vote for in the primaries, but in the end I think the southern states will all go red anyway, except FL (which I don’t consider southern, but is south) might squeak out blue, but doubtful. If Bernie is the guy Florida is red for sure.
@janbb is correct. It’s still much too early in the process.
I saw a Quinnipiac poll that said Bloomberg had the highest margin in beating Trump.
Who has a crystal ball could foresee the future and tell us who would actually get it.
I certainly hope not. But in the unlikely event that he does manage to pull it off, he will have my total and complete support. And in the general election I fear that he would be crushed like a bug.
Bernie won the popular vote in Iowa. I see Democrats will only recognize this as winning if it’s Hillary or any other moderate.
I’ve spent the past three years hearing Hillary won because of the popular vote. Doesn’t it count for Bernie as well? Or are Democrats just hypocrites.
@Jonsblond No, it’s just the antiquated Iowa Caucus system that needs to be dumped. They have arcane rules as to which delegates are assigned to whom.
Here is a map that shows why Pete did so well. The way delegates are allocated in Iowa depends on region as well as population. It’s the Iowa state Democratic party is organized.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa
Bernie took the two cities, no surprise, but Pete took the cornfields. This isn’t really a surprise since Pete is a relative local.
What Bernie should be worried about is that he should have CRUSHED Pete in New Hampshire, but he did not. It was almost even.
Four years ago, Idaho had a caucus. There must have been problems because they have gone to a primary type system now.
Yes, he will and should win both, as long as no cheating occurs… but there will be cheating, so we’ll have to see.
@Zaku So if Bernie loses then automatically is is certain that there is cheating?
My guess is that the DNC will use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie again. The DNC doesn’t want Bernie as the candidate. In the end, I don’t think any of the Dems stand a chance against Trump in a general election. I really believe, much to the dismay of many on these pages, that Trump is far more popular than any of the Dem candidates. You can tell it by the turn out at his rallies. I found this article that shows attendance at Bernie rallies last year. It points out he finally crossed the 100,000 attendees barrier but it took 38 rallies. When I looked at NH numbers, he didn’t even have 2000 attendees in two rallies. Meanwhile, Trump had over 11000 attendees at one single event in NH. This is really supposed to be Bernie territory since he is from Vermont, but the turnout for Trump is huge.
I suspect that there are going to be a lot of people turning out to vote. I also suspect that many of the moderate Dems and the Independents will end up either voting for Trump or not voting at all. That will make any Dem wins difficult.
Please not this is all my opinion…I’m not passing off anything as fact. but it seems to make a lot of sense to me.
People have been conditioned to be terrified of Barney, particularly those movers and shakers who steer the Democratic party. Therefore, if there is a plausible method for swindling him out of it, you can bet that it will happen. It will be tougher this time around because Biden doesn’t have the cachet of worthiness earned by Hillary and universally accepted in 2016. Unlike her, he cannot claim “it’s my turn” and cash in the marker. So Barney might make it. If Barney gets the nomination, rather than speculate on his chances against Trump, I’m much more interested with the quickly gathering consequences of Trump’s expanding legal difficulties. What do the Republicans do when Trump’s criminality costs him his job? Do they run the lukewarm Pence in his stead?
@seawulf575 heavy.com?? Gimme a break! That reads very much like that largest inaugural attendance in history” hoax that you turd lovers barked around. Find a CREDIBLE source.
Corporate media, the rich, and Democrats are in full panic mode. So, I’m not sure what the situation will look like come super Tuesday (current polls have him racking up a ton of delegates). But what I can say is if Bernie is not the nominee, or it’s s contested convention and the usual shenanigans go on, the Democratic party is done – and should be.
@stanleybmanly you are so predictable! Attack the source and not the substance. And you NEVER give a source for any of the tripe you spew. Tell you what, when you start actually using citations to support your diatribes, you can attack my sources. Until then, you have no leg to stand on since all you have is lies and opinions that can’t be supported by citations.
For someone that has so much logic @seawulf575 ,and it took me awhile to figure it out @stanleybmanly ,as well as your fright winger @yellowdog use their smart phones to play on Fluther and have been told it is really hard to post links with phones.
That is why they don’t or can’t post links most of the time.
@filmfann “Bernie didn’t win Iowa”
He won the popular vote and the SDE’s too if you adjust for the errors. There are all kinds of rounding errors and inaccurate totals that are still being included in Sander’s/Buttigieg’s totals.
“In the final results released by the IPD/DNC Buttigieg beat Bernie in SDEs by two SDEs. That is less than one tenth of one percent.”
“If the IDP/DNC had reported the results without error then Bernie would have ended up having more SDEs than Buttigieg.”
“According to this graph Bernie would have gained at least two SDEs and Buttigieg would have lost at least two SDEs. Which means that Bernie would have beat Buttigieg by at least two SDEs if the results had been correctly reported.”
I really hope Bernie gets it, the right would have total melt down if he did.
Bernie did not win Iowa, as it currently stands. In fact, he only came as close as he did over a coin toss. They aren’t done there yet he and Pete have called for some recounts.
New Hampshire put him first, but narrowly, and significantly lower in percentage than last time. Which demonstrates that last time people voted for him not because they supported him, but because they found him less distasteful than his opposition.
Biden said during rally, “We’re just getting started.,”
The man has been in Washington for decades, and now he is just getting started.
I had a bf like that once…
but not for long.
Response moderated (Writing Standards)
@Caravanfan No I mean it’s my opinion that Bernie has the most popular support. I’m not saying I absolutely know for certain that’s true, but it certainly looks that way to me, and it makes a lot of sense why to me too.
But it also seems like there’s already been a lot of foul play by the media, DNC and GOP and perhaps others to try to stack the odds against him. I don’t think it’s been fair so far, and I expect it to get even less fair, which to me amounts to cheating. We’ll just have to see what actually ends up happening.
@seawulf575 of course I’m predictable. If the source is bogus, there is no substance to attack. I can find some screwball site somewhere to agree to any drivel you can imagine. And I can and WILL attack your obscure survival bunker outlet sources without your permission or your rules. Why don’t you consider news from a “legitimate” news organization for a change? It is a losing proposition to subsist solely on whacko prattle clearly detached from reality. Your repetition of such drivel from these jerkwater outfits has reduced your assertions to little more than episodes of real world escapism.
@Zaku ”...it also seems like there’s already been a lot of foul play…”
Did you see that the Nevada Democratic Party just hired a Buttigieg staffer to be the Voter’s Protecton Director for the state? Apparently, she’s not supposed to have any involvement in the primary, but it certainly doesn’t look good. Especially with the history of the Iowa App, Buttigieg’s benefit from the existing errors, and the close ties to the makers of the app and his campaign.
For example, Michael Halle is a chief political strategist for Buttigieg. His wife, Tara McGowan, is The founder/CEO of Acronym, which is the parent company of Shadow that created the now infamous caucus app. Was it a nefarious plot? It’s kind of a stretch, but you’d think if the errors were truly random they wouldn’t favor Buttigieg and hurt Bernie so consistently. For most candidates the errors mostly cancel each other out. Not so for Buttigieg and Sanders.
We know the party cheated Bernie in 2016 in multiple ways. I don’t think it’s absurd to be suspicious of the process, when it’s been rigged in the past, and when it’s being managed largely by the kinds of people Bernie plans to put out of a job (the people who work the big money in politics).
Even if it’s not a coordinated effort, these conflicts of interest are gross, and should have been forbidden in the party.
@Jonsblond Bernie won more initial votes, but lost on the delegates, which is what they wanted.
Apparently Trump supporters did have a small involvement in the delayed results. Apparently several of them kept the lines tied up by calling repeatedly. Dirty pool a bit, but funny, since it was harmful only in delaying some mathematics. It was trial of a new practice, and it is to be expected that there would be bugs to work out.
I was not aware if Pete’s ties. That does put an interesting spin on things.
@SQUEEKY2 I might buy the old “I’m using my phone” bit as a reason for not posting citations, except @stanleybmanly has blatantly said (on several occasions) he doesn’t NEED to post any proof of anything….ever. No, in his case it’s just arrogance.
@stanleybmanly “Your repetition of such drivel from these jerkwater outfits has reduced your assertions to little more than episodes of real world escapism.” So when you arrogantly refuse to post any sources ever, what does that make your assertions? Oh yeah…hate-filled opinion and lies.
@Patty_Melt Are you sure about the lines? There’s history on that, I don’t remember which president, people went to jail if I remember correctly.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. My reference is to the Iowa caucus done a few days ago.
@seawulf575 it isn’t arrogance to call you on the strident disinformation you attempt to pass off as fact. And indeed my opinions are far preferable to any pretense that citations from jumped up and obscure conspiracy outlets somehow affords your fantastical views on reality the patina of validity. My opinions are preferable to accreditations from discernible lunatics and fraudulent dumbbells, and it is rather sad to see you so consistently attempt to pass garbage off as the basis of YOUR opinions.
With 25% of the vote in New Hampshire, Sanders may be the front runner, but he is clearly not an overwhelming favorite.
Things can change quickly. Who ever heard of Buttigieg a year ago? For a time Warren looked like a serious challenger for progressive votes, but has now fallen behind. Amy Kobuchar has suddenly made an appearance based largely on her last debate performance. Biden started off as the front runner, but now needs a victory is South Carolina to even be considered a serious contender.
I am making no predictions. I am just going to cast my single vote at the appropriate time and sit back and watch what happens.
If he does win the nomination I think he would be smart to choose a woman or minority as a running mate. Klobuchar would be a good choice. Just my two cents.
Well then @seawulf575 when your pal @yellowdog doesn’t post a link to one of his the right is all holy and the left is pure Satan why don’t you ask him to post a link?
But you won’t .
If I want to see a link, I ask for one. Without it, or without any hint as to where he got his information, I tend to not give it a lot of credence. Pretty much the same as anyone else. Another aspect you forget is that @yellowdog and I see much of the same things, so when he makes a statement, it is likely something I have already looked into, so I don’t need to ask for a source. However, feel free to ask for one any time you like.
One hint, though, I got into it with @dutchess one time because she was riding me for a source on everything. If I gave a viewpoint…an opinion…she would demand I give a source. How do you give a source for your opinion? She got almost militant about it. So I returned the favor. Every time she posted a statement, I asked her for a source. It got to be very annoying for her and she subsequently stopped being obnoxious herself. So if you really are curious where someone gets their information, ask. But don’t be obnoxious about it. And here’s another clue: when you ask for a source and it is given, don’t ignore the information by trying to damn the source. If someone gets information from a right wing website, it doesn’t automatically make it wrong. Just as something from a left-wing site isn’t automatically wrong. Read the citation. If you find it to be flawed because it is pushing innuendo or lacking in facts, then you can discuss the citation from the aspect of the substance, not ignore it because you don’t like the source.
If everything is biased and skewed one way or another how do we know what is fact or opinion?
As I said, try to get as close to the origin as you can. For example, take the Ukraine phone call. According to the Dems, the WB, and many of the “news” outlets, Trump had a conversation that sounded like he hounded and threatened Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Biden. That was the story and what started the entire impeachment inquiry. When Trump released the transcript of the phone call, suddenly we have a source document….the origin. We can now read the transcript and prove or disprove to ourselves the veracity of the Dems, the WB, and the liberal media. It was all lies. When asked, Zelenskyy said there was no pressure to do anything, that he didn’t even know aid had been held up at all. It absolutely upended everything that had been said. So when we get to the source…the origin…we can start sifting through what are lies and what aren’t.
And it turns out that he is impeached anyway?
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
