Trump and Sanders

[callmeslick]

kind of an attempt here to split off of something put forth in another thread, in which one can find comments in the links about Trump v Sanders. I got to thinking, out on the road to Lowes, that Sanders, like Trump, taps into the angry voter. Maybe folks angry about different stuff, but quite a few seemingly just angry, and not really sure what needs to be done. In every election, you see the nuance of the public....there are things they are fine with, others not so much so, some stuff they despise. Very few voters are either angry about everything, nor sanquine about everything. The candidate's game is to try and soothe folks over stuff they like, and tap into the motivation over stuff the voters are angry over. I would think, should Trump actually get the nomination, that Bernie would be his worst nightmare, because they are in direct competition for the angry voters, and Bernie, it has been shown, is pretty good at pulling angry voters that had voted Republican, to come over to his side. Not all, mind you, but enough. Given Trumps clear ceiling, I wonder if Bernie's ceiling is far higher, and if he would be polarizing enough or 'establishment' enough for Trump to do his thing. Just a thought, now back to fixing the basement sink drains.

[Lothar]

Trump's worst nightmare isn't Bernie. It's any serious candidate from either party -- Hillary, Jeb, Kasich, even O'Malley or Chafee. Bernie might be the only one who Trump has a chance against.

[callmeslick]

Trump's worst nightmare isn't Bernie. It's any serious candidate from either party -- Hillary, Jeb, Kasich, even O'Malley or Chafee. Bernie might be the only one who Trump has a chance against.

well, to date, neither Jeb, nor Kasich, has made any traction. You might be right insofar as he gets crushed by any of the Dems. You might even be right on the GOP side, once people walk behind the curtain and decide what lever to pull(or buton to push or whatever). Still, I can see the vulnerability among the folks who have been the strength of Trump, thus far, of Bernie being far less. Hillary can(and will be) painted as Clinton term #3, and thus a representative of the status quo. O'Malley doesn't seem to fire up anyone, Jeb is yet another Bush, has as little charisma as O Malley, and Kasich is a career politician. Bernie has also been in office as a while, but(like Rand Paul or Cruz to some extent) more on his own terms and not in lockstep with a party cadre. He would be able to point to Trump, lay out his standard campaign scenario, and say, "Do you really think a billionaire from Wall Street is going to make your life better?". I have no delusion that Trump v Sanders will be a likely main event, but damn, it is fascinating to ponder were it to happen.

[Lothar]

yeah, there are a lot of serious candidates who haven't gotten much traction. But the point is, if any of them did, they would crush Trump. Basically any semi-competent politician (governor, senator, representative) who isn't way out on the far wing of one party or the other would roflstomp Trump heads-up. Because he basically only appeals to a particular angry fringe, and very few people would choose angry fringe over a sane candidate from the other party.

Bernie isn't exactly "angry fringe", but he is uniquely fringe. He seems like he lives in an imaginary world of economics, which gives him the same sort of hard cap on support that Trump has -- I'd rather cross the line and vote for "the evil I know" in Hillary than for Bernie. (Honestly, if he's in line to get the D nomination, I put a high likelihood of the R's brokering a convention to nominate Romney. He sucks, but he's known for having economic sense.)

[callmeslick]

although Bernie's ideas would cost me money, I actually see the logic in much of what he proposes. Would it ever get passed? Not likely, and certainly it would take several election cycles to fully implement at that. All Romney would offer is the same game plan that made him rich at the expense of tens of thousands of laid-off employees, and losses to countless pension funds. Bernie would hammer him, too, I'd bet.

You, Lothar, allude to the lack of traction among 'serious' candidates on the GOP side. I think that MAY be a reflection of how much anger and hate has built up(and, to some extent been encouraged) within the party. Like I say, I'll bet that old Bernie might be able to attract a chunk of those angry to his side, just through sheer willingness to keep pounding the message. I don't see Clinton or O Malley with that sort of laser-focus. Now, would that sort of laser-focus on one issue be a good indicator of Presidential leadership? I don't necessarily think so, but, that moves us to a whole other topic.

[Lothar]

the lack of traction among 'serious' candidates on the GOP side. I think that MAY be a reflection of how much anger and hate has built up(and, to some extent been encouraged) within the party

Probably.

But it also points to the field currently being broad. I'd consider Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Christie, Huckabee, Graham, and Santorum all to be "serious"/"establishment" candidates in one way or another (though several of them are deeply flawed and wouldn't stand a chance against Hillary). Right now, combined, they're polling at like 47%, but they're splitting a lot of votes. If half of them dropped out, basically none of their supporters would go to Trump (or Carson); they'd consolidate behind whichever serious candidate was in the best position, and Cruz or Rubio would suddenly be a frontrunner.