Yeah, you're right. Better nominate one of the less popular candidates.Holman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:21 pmThe problem isn't Sanders' popularity but its distribution.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:02 pm(I'm paraphrasing.)
Valid points, but it's equally true that Donald Trump was "unelectable" in 2016 because he's a sexist, racist, lying gameshow host clown. And Hillary was the most moderate, status quo, name recognition establishment candidate there ever was.
I think what makes Sanders the most electable among the current democratic nominees is:
- Polls says so
- He is building a grassroots movement of millions of people (like Trump did)
- He has a strong message (like Trump did)
- He is anti-establishment (like Trump pretended to be)
- He has the potential to mobilize new voter groups that normally don't vote (independents, young voters, disillusioned midwestern working class)
- He is one of the most well-known and most popular politicians in the country (by favorability ratings)
- Where are moderate voters gonna go anyway? Abstain? Vote for Trump? "Vote blue no matter who" goes both ways.
Bloomberg on the other hand is one of the weakest candidates against Trump. He will lose the working class vote and the minority vote, he lacks excitement, has no message and no political movement behind him.
Sanders recently held a rally in Washington attended by 17,000 people. Bloomberg buys TV ads.
Sure, he'll win blue states overwhelmingly, but this whole election will turn on a small number of swing states, most of them trending slightly Red and far more inclined to centrism than socialism.
Winning New York by 35 points means nothing if you lose Pennsylvania and Ohio by one point each.
Snark aside, which other candidate do you think would have a better chance of winning the swing states? Pete? Biden? Warren? I just don't see it, not in the general against Trump. Sanders might just be able to win back some disappointed Trump voters. But I can't see that happening with any of the other candidates.