Bernie Sanders Question

[_Gunnar]

Given the fact that Bernie Sanders is still the most popular politician in the country, and that he is currently classified as an independent, is it conceivable that he could win the presidency by running as an independent rather than as a Democrat?

[_subgenius]

Bernie has no chance of winning even 1 electoral vote.

And by what measure is Bernie the "most popular" politician? and of which country do you mean?

[_EAllusion]

1) Amy Klobuchar is your sneaky most popular politician in the country. Sanders is popular, but not that popular.

2) Sanders would split the vote with whomever was running on the Democratic ticket and ensure a Trump landslide.

[_Kevin Graham]

Here's a question.

How would Hillary do?

I'm beginning to wonder, given the options available, if she isn't the best hope. I mean we already know she damn near beat him the first time, in fact getting the majority vote. This time around we know the Comey letter was bogus and everything said to be a flaw of Clinton has now proven to be a flaw of Trump x10.

I just think it has to be a woman given the way his administration represents a huge step back for women's rights.

1. Elizabeth Warren
2. Kirsten Gillibrand
3. Kamala Harris
4. Joe Biden
5. Cory Booker
6. Sherrod Brown

[_Dr Exiled]

Given the fact that Bernie Sanders is still the most popular politician in the country, and that he is currently classified as an independent, is it conceivable that he could win the presidency by running as an independent rather than as a Democrat?

I think he could. However, it would be a huge uphill battle to get him on all the ballots and he probably wouldn't be allowed to participate in the debates because of the very fact that he could win.

[_honorentheos]

is it conceivable that he could win the presidency by running as an independent rather than as a Democrat?

Is it conceivable? Yes, in a world where Trump won in 2016 it's conceivable just about anyone could win the Presidency.

Is it probable? No. I agree with EA. The republican primaries in 2016 were a clown car sideshow of candidates where Trump had his diehard base but wasn't taken seriously as the remaining candidates split the majority of the votes into pieces where in many states no one other candidate would end up with more than Trump. All while Trump consistently pulled in 30-40% of the Republican primary voters. Everyone assumed that it would eventually break for a clear, more traditional candidate who would get all of the non-Trump votes until it was too late. You're proposing doing this at the national level.

[_Some Schmo]

How would Hillary do?

I'm beginning to wonder, given the options available, if she isn't the best hope. I mean we already know she damn near beat him the first time, in fact getting the majority vote. This time around we know the Comey letter was bogus and everything said to be a flaw of Clinton has now proven to be a flaw of Trump x10.

I just think it has to be a woman given the way his administration represents a huge step back for women's rights.

1. Elizabeth Warren
2. Kirsten Gillibrand
3. Kamala Harris
4. Joe Biden
5. Cory Booker
6. Sherrod Brown

I was talking to my daughter about this the other day. She's a big Warren fan, and while I like her too, I wonder about her chances in a general election. As this Kavanaugh debacle has shown, this country seems to have as much a misogyny issue as it does a racial issue. Obama got elected because he was pretty much the perfect candidate - as Chris Rock pointed out, the country wouldn't have elected Flavor Flav. If a woman is going to win, her character has to be unimpeachable.

But I agree the country desperately needs a female president. These days, I'm liking Kamala Harris, but I'd have to hear her stump, of course, before casting a ballot her way.

[_Kevin Graham]

I was talking to my daughter about this the other day. She's a big Warren fan, and while I like her too, I wonder about her chances in a general election. As this Kavanaugh debacle has shown, this country seems to have as much a misogyny issue as it does a racial issue. Obama got elected because he was pretty much the perfect candidate - as Chris Rock pointed out, the country wouldn't have elected Flavor Flav. If a woman is going to win, her character has to be unimpeachable.

But I agree the country desperately needs a female president. These days, I'm liking Kamala Harris, but I'd have to hear her stump, of course, before casting a ballot her way.

Well here's the thing. America has experienced Trump, so character no longer matters to these people.

I mean, are they really going to ride the "Pocahantas" thing after what they just gave us in Trump? As far as I can tell, that's the only thing they use against her.

I still think Hillary is probably the best chance the Democrats have at this point and then maybe Kamala. I agree Elizabeth Warren probably wouldn't win at this point, but that's mostly because too many people don't know her. She would have a difficult time getting the black vote, while Hillary already has that locked down. And given what happened in 2016, it could energize more of her base to actually show up at the polls this time. Many folks didn't vote simply because they didn't believe Trump had a chance. Now they know the price for complacency.

[_subgenius]

Here's a question.

How would Hillary do?

she wouldn't do well at all....at all....her party has drastically changed since 2016 (a.k.a. she is a relic of a political style that is dead):

Nearly half of millennial Democrats say they identify as a socialist or democratic socialist, according to a new poll from BuzzFeed News and Maru/Blue. Almost half, 48 percent, said they would call themselves a democratic socialist or socialist, compared to 39 percent who said they identified as neither.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBNVnse

[_Chap]

And given what happened in 2016, it could energize more of her base to actually show up at the polls this time. Many folks didn't vote simply because they didn't believe Trump had a chance. Now they know the price for complacency.

One thing that has astonished me on this board was to find that there were intelligent people here who declined to vote against Trump - despite it already being horribly clear to any thinking person what kind of President he was intending to be, and despite the close nature of the contest - because they just disliked Clinton. So they just didn't cast a vote. And things are as they now are.

I feel that those people should be starting their day by phoning a random selection of their fellow Americans to apologise for giving them four, maybe eight years of Donald Trump.