That might be so, but only because in past election cycles, Democrats still appealed to non-college educated rural Whites instead of suburbanites. So the coalitions that led Reps or Dems in the past to victory or defeat are different now. And the Midwest has these non-college educated White voters by the bucketload - way above the average for the US and more than even the South. These people can shift quite dramatically from blue to red and stick with it, as West Virginia proves.

Seems the media are blacking out Bernie for real, this will just hurt the country in the long run.. damn

If you're considering Mayor Pete you might want to check out this thread to see what kind of individual he really is. @cycycychris 

In another case of Tulsi being right.

Talking out of my ass of course - and also looking at tons of info, rhetoric, and opinions from people all over the political spectrum (and probably also personal bias too admittedly). But I pretty much agree, I honestly think Yang and Tulsi have the best chance to beat Trump by far. Why? B/c they have crossover support. That is what you need to win elections.

Sure, you could say the general is a different story but the end game is to beat Trump, right? It's going to be tough to inspire a high voter turnout for Centrist corporatists like Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg b/c many will ask themselves, well, what's the point? You could argue the point is to beat Trump, but what exactly, on a fundamental level, is the drastic alternative these centrists are offering that's so different and improved from Trump in the first place? Especially with a guy like Biden who literally insults his own voters, has a ton of baggage, and is basically a Neocon running as a Dem, or Pete who can't even commit to M4A or loan forgiveness, and claims he won't even meet with our adversaries when even Obama was on record saying he'd be willing to do so.

Bernie definitely has a chance to win - mainly b/c of the Rust Belt/Mid West, which, as a Midwesterner, I can tell you, Bernie was FAR more popular here in 2016 than Hillary, thanks mainly b/c of his opposition to trade deals which have screwed over our economy. Still, I do think Bernie will have a hard time shaking off what many perceive to be a farther left "socialist" angle which many in America seem to fear. I'll admit, he's a bit far left for me, but I'd certainly vote for him and still very much prefer him to both Trump and Neolib corporatist candidates. He'd almost certainly draw more voters than Hillary, and still appeals to some independents, though might turn off some moderates.

Yang and Tulsi are more interesting - as they're both more outside the political establishment, and come off as moderates in some ways that draw crossover support, while at the same time many of their ideas are actually pretty significantly left wing and seem to offer real positive change. They also tend to be more grounded in modern day society and more in tune with the issues facing young people, especially Yang. This is why I think they'd be the best candidates to beat Trump. 

Unfortunately, the media is a powerful mechanism that can easily sway millions of minds. Hell, they've convinced millions upon millions of people that Tulsi, the progressive vegan woman of color from Hawaii, who plays the ukelele, serves her country in the National Guard, and advocates peace, is somehow a "traitor," "dangerous," "supports dictators," a "Russian Asset," or a number of other preposterous fearmongering garbage. She was once the Democrat darling and future prospect but as soon as she supports Bernie and goes against the Clinton machine she's suddenly evil incarnate. This is the power of the MSN to manipulate people's minds. It's not easy to overcome that level of power and influence.

While their influence is declining, I do fear that between their reach, and that of the Dem establishment who clearly does not want these two in their party, that they won't even have a chance to be the nominee in the first place to beat Trump. But I do honestly believe the Dem establishment are ironically a bigger threat to Tulsi and Yang than Trump is.

The only REALISTIC hope to beat Trump at this point is Bernie, which he could definitely do - though we'd have to see it he still has the Rust Belt like in 2016. 

I'll have to disagree on the socialist stuff and him not being able to appeal to moderates. Moderates in the way the media uses it literally means center right to right wing. Unfortunately for the media, the true nature of the American public is not that. Look up the individual issues that Bernie has been stumping for and you'll find that most of them are overwhelmingly popular with the American people.

The American people unfortunately don't really vote ideologically, but that's also a boost for Bernie. Bernie has 3 major advantages in a race vs Trump and its why he has the overall highest chance to win. 1st He has crossover support. Its Tulsi with the most, followed by Bernie, followed by Yang. He Already eats into trump's base while the other "top candidates" don't. 2nd His record. Bernie's 40 year record of saying the same things leads to polls of him being the most trusted etc. The American people vote more on "trust" and belief than based on the ideas you present and that's why when someone starts to waffle on their ideas they lose support majorly. More of us are now on the policy train which also helps but at the same time, they want to know you're fighting for them and that you will fight for them. Not just talk a big game (thanks Obama). 3rd and Most importantly, He attracts new voters and lapsed voters to come out of the woodwork. This means he increases voter turn out and when do Democrats see sweeping victories? With high voter turn out. In short I think you're underestimating Bernie's outsider status and his appeal. You also underestimate his ground game and the amount of volunteers and such he has (me included). The man has the best infrastructure and over 1 million volunteers, more than anyone else going around knocking doors and that's the real strength he has.

If Bernie is on the ballot in the general the dems will extend their lead in the house, and they have the best shot of actually taking back the senate.

But its Like you said somewhat, the Dem establishment is the bigger threat to Yang, Tulsi and Bernie. The Bernie Black out is part of their doing. The Media is also smearing the hell out of him and doctoring pictures etc. I can say 1 thing tho, as long as Tulsi and Yang don't hit 15% in Iowa Bernie wins Iowa in a Landslide victory. I've stated this before but Yang and Tulsi supporters overlap heavily with Bernie supporters, they will both outperform polls because they both appeal to newer voters, some that Bernie wouldn't reach but still view Bernie favorably. In Iowa with how the caucus works there will be a realignment for those who didn't hit 15% and with over 80% of Tulsi and Yang People on the Bernie 2nd choice train, they'll caucus with his folks and gg.

In Fact Iowa is going to be very interesting, expect Biden to under perform as well and I wouldn't be shocked, and I'm serious here, I wouldn't be shocked if Biden doesn't hit over 15 while Warren and Pete Barely go over 15. This would be an overwhelming blow to the establishment too because Biden supporters 2nd choice if this happens? Also Bernie. Iowa will set the stage for the rest of the primary and Bernie is set up to win it and with how the media keeps downplaying and acting like he has no shot in Iowa or the Primary in General, that one win especially if it goes the way I describe would shock the living hell out of the establishment, cause a freakout and make the impact even bigger.

Anyway I want you to look at Bernie's platform, ignore the labels, ignore the "left or too far left" nonsense and just go down his platform 1 by 1. You'll be surprised to find that most people agree in america agree with everything he's saying. When most people agree with your position, that's not far left, that's the real centrist position of the country.

Krystal Ball on how Bernie can break the establishment

@Mnementh @HylianSwordsman @DarthMetalliCube  I think you'd enjoy this one and this is what I've been saying Bernie should do as president and the funniest part is he's already done it back when he was mayor.

Uran said he's a volunteer for Bernie and I think it'd be fun to know how many of us here are volunteer/paid campaign staff for our candidate of choice. So are any of you part of your candidates campaign?

I'm also a volunteer for Bernie. I regularly canvass, make calls, and go to and help out with events. I've also tabled a few times. Btw we're seeing incredible enthusiasm y'all and from people who don't normally vote!

Tulsi is so punk rock haha.

At first I was shaking my head at this decision to refuse to participate in the debate, especially since so much of her campaign has seemingly been centered around the excitement of qualifying polls and making it to these debates. But the more I think about it, and after reading some thoughts from many of her other supporters, I think this is actually a great, clever move ultimately. I know many here will probably disagree (those few that even care lol) or think it's ridiculous and that's cool, I do get it, but my take is -

The Dem's procedure in naming qualifying polls seems.. questionable at best. There seems to be no consistency, transparency, or outright basis in general as to what polls "count" and which don't. It just seems like their avenue to control what candidates' voices can be heard and which cannot, and who gets to climb the ladder. And I have heard they are taking an unusually long time to announce the final poll Tulsi would need to qualify - many seem to think they are planning on holding back until well after the debate, making her not qualify by default. So she decided to take the initiative and simply bow out herself. It's a great strategy in a way, as she can use that time to focus more on campaigning elsewhere, without waiting and being at the mercy of these guys.

The debates just seem extremely antiquated, restricted, and often designed to push a narrative rather than legitimately allow the candidates to get their message of ideals and policy out there. You get 5-8 minutes (or even less if you happen to be someone the establishment doesn't like) to explain how you're going to be the leader of the free world. It's a joke. Many of the questions are ridiculous and verge on highschool debate club or reality TV show level - "what would you say to Putin?" The hell? The recent debates have some of the lowest viewership ever at 6.6 million. As I think I mentioned here, the Bernie Rogan podcast alone has in fact squelched that total at 10 million hits. The Yang and Tulsi ones have also each gotten 3-5 million. With the internet and endless streams of information available, there's just no need for these televised capsule debates, it's outdated. And this isn't singling out the Dems, GOP debates would be the same.

Avenues like youtube and podcasts are the future vehicle for this IMO. The fact that one schmo's youtube podcast can generate close to the total viewership of the debate of a major party of a major network illustrates this. I think more and more are seeing the debates as full of empty or ambiguous talking points with little substance. It's a popularity contest.

Internet is just a more useful tool in an era with so many streams of information coming at us from so many directions. With the Rogan podcast, for instance, I was able to listen to Yang and Tulsi speak for probably 8-10 hours total (listening at 1.25x speed), while the debates would only give me like 3 minute snippets (half of which would be used to defend against baseless smears in the case of Tulsi).

I think even if Gabbard did make the debate, she'd have to spend most of it defending herself against the ridiculous groundless accusations anyway. So she's refusing to play their game on her terms. Good for her.

Best of luck to Yang, though. Happy for him to make it that far and going up against some very big names. Hopefully they'll give him somewhere close to a fair amount of time to speak this time heh.

That's awesome! Not part of any campaign per se although I have donated to Gabbard. I've also received a text message apparently from someone in her Illinois campaign wanting me to be a Tulsi delegate of Illinois. Don't know how legit that is (if its standard procedure for her doners) or what precisely it entails but I politely declined - as going out and attending events, going door to door and getting signatures, etc isn't exactly my style, being the shy, reserved person I am (in real life at least ha). I'd rather just support her from the sidelines - by which I mean sit on my ass and play the nerdy keyboard warrior role and occasionally toss in a donation while not actually achieving anything XD. 

@SpokenTruth No links (that I've seen) - just based on speculation I've heard. It's probably bs, though I partly can't say I blame the paranoia given the unusual selecting process for choosing which polls are accepted and which aren't. I never totally bought the poll conspiracy thing and I certainly don't know enough about it to formulate a concrete opinion on it, just repeating sentiment I've heard. Fair enough, although I am confused as to - why alter the thresholds at a later date in the first place?