NYT: The Democratic coalition ≠ True Leftists and coastal liberal elites (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 04:50:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  NYT: The Democratic coalition ≠ True Leftists and coastal liberal elites (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: NYT: The Democratic coalition ≠ True Leftists and coastal liberal elites  (Read 1674 times)
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« on: April 30, 2015, 12:06:01 PM »

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2015, 12:34:23 PM »

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.
The NYT does this kind of analysis everytime a candidate announces. But I think this had to be said considering how much it's falling on deaf ears in the comments section.

It was hilarious to read this HuffPo article yesterday by a writer who doesn't even realize he's living in a bubble:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's definitely a lot of Pauline Kael Syndrome radiating out of Manhattan and Hollywood behind these articles.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2015, 12:45:37 PM »

The True Leftists online are already turning on Sanders anyway.

Only neoliberals run for President. Ugh, so mainstream. HP.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2015, 12:52:39 PM »

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

His chances are obviously extremely slim regardless, but he'd have a better shot at winning as a Democrat than an independent. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, he'd at least start with 40-45% of the vote. As an independent he'd be lucky to crack 5%.

I'd say his slim chances are higher as independent. The intrigue of a serious independent candidacy brings out high turnout from people who normally check out of the political process. 1992 was a huge year.

He'd have an easier time convincing 30% of Democrats, 30% of Independents, and 10% of Republicans in a general than 51% of Democrats to roll the dice on him being able to win. Both impossible scenarios, but one slightly less so.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2015, 01:18:33 PM »

All true. He'd probably have to win a majority of Democrats in that scenario, too. But I would say it would be easier to convince in a general campaign rather than just asking Democrats to roll the dice on Bernie Sanders being able to beat Scott Walker 1-on-1.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.