Blair already won two elections by a mammoth landslide before Iraq. In 1997 he picked up 418 seats for Labour. In 2001 he picked up 413 seats. In 2005 he won with 365 which is just three less than the tories huge win now but a big swing in seats ordinarily.
Is it? That might turn out to be true, but there's no way we can draw that comparison just like that. They are two different countries. For one thing, the New Labour that many now think would have won this election was still explicitly social democratic, with many views similar to the "radical" ones of the American "hard left".
The US will eventually move to a more social democratic direction but there’s plenty of room for skepticism that it will happen this cycle, with so much on the line if Trump were to get re-elected. Also, despite the loud noises on Twitter, the base and power structure of the Democratic Party is still primarily comprised of the old Obama coalition, which is not coincidentally why uncle Joe slid into the race as the immediate front runner.
There are enough similarities between Trump and Boris's successes to draw that parallel. There's only so much you can beat out of healthcare. Imo immigration will be a crucial factor in this election. The "open entry" to US is a theme that Trump will capitalize well.
Where did this open entry narrative come from? Did I miss something?
Unless you've tuned out Trump completely....
He’s full of shit so he doesn’t count. His dickriders think every democrat wants open borders anyway.
Comparing the two is really stretching it.
It doesn't really matter what it is in Europe or anywhere else, as long as it's considered the left in the US.
Bernie isn't all social media likes though. The guy has by far the most individual cash donations and its not even close. His supporters are also polled as saying they're the least likely to flip to another candidate. It's still a mountain to climb, but writing him off as some Twitter fad would be a mistake. He's a hell of a lot more likely to win the nomination than Warren is, and Biden is more than capable of falling over and shitting all over himself before or during the primaries.
That is not true.
He’s clearly not a social media phenomenon, just as the Twitter noise in support and against him is largely just that. I expect him to outperform his polling by a few points (much as Trump will likely do as well).
We'll see.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
also the trade deal could matter in the important states
I'm not writing him off as a Twitter fad. What I'm saying is for eight months Joe Biden has been dunked on by the online twitter mob. But these attacks on Biden have not been working. He's a stronger candidate than people give credit for. Look at Warren who has a plan for everything yet could only hold a lead of the poll aggregate for a week.
Twitter literally doesn't matter(And its certainly not one of the reasons for the election result last Thursday).
It’s a shame he’s leading there because the south means feck all in the general election.
That's my point. Biden is leading because he's not running a campaign to please the vocal minority online who deplore his policies but because his policies resonate with the wider public.
True but the south in terms of the democratic party voters is more reflective in diversity than Iowa and New Hampshire. Furthermore it's not out of the question imo that at least one big state could switch there. I believe Trump did worse than Romney in 2016, and in 2018 Beto and Abrams came extremely close to a big upset. Maybe 2020 is too early but the demographics favour democrats in the near future.
Not because of policy though as you claimed.
He hasn't got any polices. Biden is the front runner in some states because he was Obama VP and is quite conservative(Which plays well with older Democrats).
Interesting theory considering it was originally a Heritage Foundation plan.
Perhaps the better question would be, why does the electorate like Biden when both your questions are closer to truth / actual truth? We are fecked.
Furthermore very similar to Romneycare in Massachusetts.
Not a single republican voted for it. They spent eight years trying to repeal it. Just like they do not support Biden's, Pete's, Klobuchar's public option.
There are many people who see Biden as the return to normalcy and see his history of working with “both sides” of the aisle to make progress. And because of that, they think he’ll get “realistic” policies pushed through deadlock.
What more do you need
Which shows exactly how determined they were to oppose Obama at all costs. Oh and also how far right the Republican Party has slid over the last few decades.
Great post and provides much needed balance.
