Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems that every day at city-data we are constantly reminded of how the "blue wall" and changing demographics virtually guarantee Democratic victories in presidential elections. But we really know that this is all just a bunch of partisan spin; because in the event that Bernie Sanders--somebody who is openly socialist--was ever able to get the nomination, he would get crushed.
I would love for some partisan Democrat to explain to me why I am wrong, and how Sanders could somehow win the general election. If the "blue wall" nonsense were really true, then the Democrats wouldn't need to nominate Hillary in order to win (despite the fact that she is despised by many on the far-left).
I had to look it up. Blue wall refers to about 18 safe states the Democratic candidate has won every election since 1992 - or some variant there of.
I would be willing to bet that (as nominee) Sanders would lose at least half of those states. Only the left-wing nut jobs could possibly think otherwise.
I would be willing to bet that (as nominee) Sanders would lose at least half of those states. Only the left-wing nut jobs could possibly think otherwise.
Compared to who? Trump, Jindal, Christie, Walker or the anointed successor King Bush III?!
The entire Republican field is doomed to lose this year. It's like the special Olympics dream team over at the GOP field
I would be willing to bet that (as nominee) Sanders would lose at least half of those states. Only the left-wing nut jobs could possibly think otherwise.
Bernie Sanders versus Jeb Bush, John Kasich or Marco Rubio? Maybe.
Bernie Sanders versus Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee or Donald Trump? No way in hell.
With a lousy Democrat, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could be in reach. The rest, not so much.
It seems that every day at city-data we are constantly reminded of how the "blue wall" and changing demographics virtually guarantee Democratic victories in presidential elections. But we really know that this is all just a bunch of partisan spin; because in the event that Bernie Sanders--somebody who is openly socialist--was ever able to get the nomination, he would get crushed.
I would love for some partisan Democrat to explain to me why I am wrong, and how Sanders could somehow win the general election. If the "blue wall" nonsense were really true, then the Democrats wouldn't need to nominate Hillary in order to win (despite the fact that she is despised by many on the far-left).
Simple. Listen to what he has to say (As millions are doing). He has been working steadily toward doing the same things he talks about doing as president for years. He has a 30 year record of voting exactly the way he talks in his speeches, and his latest campaign stop in Wisconsin pulled nearly 10,000 people to hear him.
He is a Democratic Socialist by his own description, BTW. This is a philosophy that has worked out well in a number of countries. There is a difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Socialist. Democratic Socialism would really be better termed Populism.
I would be willing to bet that (as nominee) Sanders would lose at least half of those states. Only the left-wing nut jobs could possibly think otherwise.
The candidates are the problem unless you put Christie as the nominee. Bush is dead on the water based on his name while everyone else is too far to the right on social issues barring Paul who MAY be the only right wrong candidate who could win.
I would be willing to bet that (as nominee) Sanders would lose at least half of those states. Only the left-wing nut jobs could possibly think otherwise.
This, from a very conservative point of view. The fact is, Dole-McCain, you can't envision how the Democratic voter's mind works any better than a lot of Democrats cannot fathom the depths of the Republican minds.
Sanders is testing the waters as much as anything. He is not the only libber's liberal out there; he's only the best known and most experienced. How he does in the months to come, win or lose, will be a revelation of just how many and how strong the liberal side of the liberal party really is.
It will also be a signal of how much, if any, that side has re-grown after a general slide to the right of the Democratic party which began in 1992 with Bill Clinton's first election.
For both parties, it's not the winners who are often the best indicators of where a party is going in the future. It's the losers. For the Democrats, Howard Dean was that man in 2003. He pulled the entire party toward the left, closer in it's philosophy than anyone had in years, even though he didn't get very far in the primaries.
And Dean's 'Democratic Democrats' beliefs set the stage for Barack Obama, even though the party stuck with their traditions once more and nominated John Kerry.
Now, 2016 will be the Democratic test of where they party is truly headed into the future. Clinton united the party in 1992, Dean re-defined it in 2004, Obama won from Dean's re-definition, but while still united as a party, the unsettled question is which faction will lead into the future.
The Republicans have lost their ability to flex internally. That's part of the reason why both the men in your handle lost their respective elections.
Both iron and steel are very strong. The difference is steel flexes while iron does not. That's part of the reason why the Republican party splintered but the Democratic party has not. So far, the Republicans have yet to find their Howard Dean, the person who beat steel's resilience back into the Democratic party.
There was a time when the internal qualities of each party were exactly reversed 50 years ago. Back then, the Republicans, not the Demcrats, had both the strength and flexibility.
There was a time when the internal qualities of each party were exactly reversed 50 years ago. Back then, the Republicans, not the Demcrats, had both the strength and flexibility.
50 years ago there was a Democratic President and Democratic House and Senate.
50 years ago there was a Democratic President and Democratic House and Senate.
Yup.
A supermajority seems to have exactly the opposite effect than it appears to have.
Our founding fathers all understood that change is continual, and only the change that comes from hard won compromise lasts the longest. If there is too much agreement in our government it falls prey to all kinds of corruption and weaknesses.
At the same time, there are always many shades of belief that lie with the great divisions of conservatism and progressivism. The believers of each have different curves in their numbers, with the majority of the believers not always falling in the middle of the middle of either.
Just as often, the greatest number drifts off to one side or the other, within each party. And there are times when both parties are more similar in their curves and other times when the curves of each party are completely different from each other.
A state may still function well in a time of extremes, but not the nation as a whole. If too much Congressional agreement happens, the nation can run off the rails and go bouncing into the wilderness with no control or no brakes. It happened, once.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
