Haven't seen a thread on this so far so thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Seems like Bernie Sanders has established himself as the front-runner in the Democrat primaries and the others need to move fast to chase him down.

Big problem for the others is that there are basically 4 chasing the same 'lane' (centre-left Democrat 'establishment') - Biden, Buttegieg, Kloubachar and now Bloomberg. In 2016, Hilary had that lane to herself as the Democrats kind of accepted it was her 'turn' (although Bernie pushed her harder than expected back then).

Personally my favourite is Elizabeth Warren. I think she's the most intelligent of the contenders and I'm familiar with some of her work on competition policy and she's very good. I think she suffers from being perceived as too left leaning for the establishment Democrats to like, but she's not got the track record or campaigning infrastructure behind her as Bernie who has been around a while as the leader of the American left.

Bloomberg I think is throwing away his money in this campaign. I think he is just trying to test the theory that money buys elections as he's richer than anyone and doesn't need to suck up to donors so can self-finance. It will buy him a lot of coverage but it's hard to see where his core vote will be. Trump at least appealed to a 'base', but the people that don't like Trump will not warm to Bloomberg, other than the fact he insults Trump on twitter.

Buttegieg, Kloubachar - a bit lightweight. They are struggling to get heard.

Biden is probably the only one who could beat Bernie but I think Biden's time is gone, he should have been the front runner with his name recognition and being the 'safe' choice for people who don't want to see much change, but have a President who is more of a "uniting" figure rather than divisive like Trump. Biden has built his reputation on being bipartisan and working with Republicans. He's probably struggling because the country is so divided, you're either for Trump or you hate him, and the Trump haters want to rally round an obvious anti-Trump like Bernie more than Biden.

If Bernie gets the nomination, as seems likely at the moment, it will be like a mirror image of Trump. He would start the Presidential campaign as the big underdog with people predicting that nobody 'like him' could actually become President and once the establishment media flings mud at him saying he's unelectable/a disgrace to America he will get smashed. Which is what they said about Trump. In 2016 people underestimated how strong and loyal Trump's 'base' was, and they might underestimate Bernie's base too. Back then a lot of Republicans who found Trump odious held their nose and voted for him anyway, because they wanted to get Republican things done (judicial appointments, tax cuts etc). Bernie's route to the White House requires the same kind of effect where moderate Democrats hold their nose and vote for him to get Trump out and end the Republican control of the ability to rig the system, figuring that a largely moderate Congress would act as sufficient constraint on him. Add enough of those to his hard core base and he'll be the Trump of 2020.

Last time a lot of traditional democrat voters went with Trump because they didn’t want Clinton.
Whoever the Dems do pick (or buy) it will need to be someone who can mobilise and get the Dem vote out, Sanders has the best machinery for that, but is categorised a “communist” by the Republicans lol.

Also last election Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, but the corrupt electoral college gave him the Presidency, the swing rust belt states will all important.

I’m also waiting to see if Mitt Romney puts up against Trump for the Republican nomination.

The Republicans called Obama a "communist", its just their code for Democrat, which makes it hard to differentiate between how far left their opponent is. I remember Sarah Palin trying to say Obamacare would involve "death panels".

I think its too late for any other Republican to challenge Trump now in the primaries. The last sitting President who was "primaried" was the elder George Bush who got "primaried" by Pat Buchanan in 1992 who ran a "culture war" campaign not dissimilar to the one Trump has used now. It didn't have the same traction with the public then but it created an ugly split in Republicans and probably damaged their appeal ahead of the challenge against Clinton. It was a forerunner of the Conservatives in the UK looking like the old "nasty party" and out of touch in the face of the rising young liberal Tony Blair.

Saunders is like Corbyn an unelectable ideologue - if the Democrats choose him they are certain to give Trump 4 more years.

Like Corbyn he is an easy target - his views are the complete opposite to culture in the US - its suicide.

Bloomberg is just a very nasty piece of work who will be found out.

I'd be wary of these certain narratives.

In 2008 people said the US would never elect a black President.

The "very nasty piece of work who will be found out" was basically what was said about Trump.

Sanders' support base is a bit different from Corbyn's. He polls better with voters who don't have a college degree than those who do, which is the opposite of Corbyn whose support was largely metropolitan university-educated types. He has a white working-class support base which Corbyn doesn't. So he has the potential to disrupt Trump in rust belt areas, which the centrist Democrats don't.

A year or two ago I remember people thinking Bernie would struggle to do as well as he did in 2016, because his Democrat opponents had caricatured his support base as 'Bernie bros', mostly white/male activist types who hadn't moved with the times on #MeToo or other elements of the socially progressive woke agenda. I think they thought Biden would wrap up the workers and black vote (due to his connections with Obama) and that the female vote, especially the young female vote, would rally around a female candidate. But the youth vote including the women, is breaking for Bernie and he's also taken Biden's natural support base as well, although Biden is likely to do better in the states with high black populations so the race isn't over.

I think Biden is the only one who could catch him now but Trump will be able to use the playbook he did against Hilary if he's running against Biden: part of the establishment, corrupt, swamp etc.

Latest Fox News poll has Bernie 49% Trump 42% if the Presidential election was now https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-ne ... trump-wins

Latest Fox News poll has Bernie 49% Trump 42% if the Presidential election was now https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-ne ... trump-wins

Aye, it’s scary that it might be true, innit?

That people might judge all black candidates based on Obama’s record because of a similar skin tone, and even then that they’d look at 21st century presidents so far and prefer the white one or the orange one as a template.

Idiots and bigots have a lot to answer for all over the globe.

True but if the people [iFox News[/i poll are 49% for Bernie now, while the economy is doing well, it's not a good sign for Trump if there's an economic slowdown or other associated disruption falling out of coronavirus.

The bank failures in 2008 happened over the summer before the 2008 election, and that really did George W Bush and the Republicans damage, which meant Obama was in a good position to attack their record (even though he was running against McCain).

You would expect Trump to start from a position of strength against Bernie, and then Bernie close the gap during the campaign. If Fox News - which is Trump's propaganda channel, has Bernie 7 points ahead now, it's not a good sign for Trump.

Of course Trump can win again through the electoral college whilst being down on the overall vote, but if the gap becomes too big even the college looks dicey. I remember after the 2018 mid terms following the analysis from the stats site fivethirtyeight, their main takeaway was basically that if that pattern repeated in the Presidential elections, Trump would be beaten badly, and he needed to recapture a fair amount of Democrat voters from 2018 in order to win in 2020. Those 2018 mid terms were also the election that brought in all the Sanders-esque lefties in to the House of Representatives, so its not like it was a revival of the centrists.

I agree with that analysis I think the mid terms are a bit like our bi-elections often they are a protest vote but when it really matters they usually revert back. These left leaning senators like Cortez made a huge noise when they first went in but seem to have lost their voice now?

Time will tell - the sitting president seems to have an unfair advantage in the US only Bush snr in recent years hasn't managed to get re-elected.

I suppose if you watch Fox News that would explain so much about your rather distorted world view.
In reality supporting and defending Obamacare was what won the Democrats the house in 2018; it is not an ideal law as it panders a bit too much to the insurance industry but it was the best which could be done to advance healthcare to poorer Americans at the time. It has stablised price increases, crucially introduced the pre-existing condition law and is now consistently popular with a majority of the country. The Republican threat to destroy it was the key Dem message behind their success in the mid-terms.

The Iran deal is so misrepresented by far right wingers it's hard to know what to do with them. It was, of course, jointly negotiated and signed up to by your Tory government and the only reason Trump doesn't like it was because the black man negotiated it and that's never acceptable for him. Again, a large majority of Americans in polling opposed Trump pulling out of the deal.

As for Obama himself, he was a good upper-tier ranked, very hard working, almost entirely scandal-free President who bequethed to his successor a strong economy and reducing deficit. He was elected twice by a majority of American voters and is, by some distance, the most popular living American President.

This is utterly untrue. The "lefties" who get Fox News attention won in safe Democrat seats, sometimes by toppling more centrist sitting congressmen in primaries. The people who flipped the House by winning seats from Republicans were, and are, very centrist (probably something similar to Ken Clarke Tories in the UK).


They aren't Senators they are congresswomen, the four which Fox News obsesses with are four backbenchers out of 435 in the House. They have a role and are in safe districts where their views represent their constituents. But they aren't leadership and they have very quickly acknowledged that Pelosi is the brains of the Democrat operation there and aren't particularly rocking the boat.

You have and always have had a very distorted view on matters. Obama by his own admission couldn't get a policy through the congress/senate which was dominated by Republicans - he was scandal free mainly because of his own political impotence. The Iran deal should never have been in the format that it was but there you go. He repeatedly promised to get rid of Guantanamo its still there, his record on expelling illegals was extreme - made Donald look soft. The economy grew - difficult to avoid that given the state it was in when he took over - given his inability to get anything done it is difficult to correlate the two.

So what you are saying with no actual evidence is that Obama was only scandal free because of the republicans. I suppose you have examples of where they blocked scandalous actions unlike Trump who appears to create one every day.
What would normally be a major news story under Trump it is just a Thursday.

No I'm not saying that - he was a very good man very human being - sadly largely ineffective as a president. I agree about Donald - he thinks he is running his own company and he say/do what he wants - unfortunately running a country is different from a company.