It seems simple enough to me: If the Dems push for the center than where are the Reps to go but further and further right to capture more voters and enthuse their base?

I am not referring to primaries. Actual results that produce seats in Washington. How many progressives have shown the ability to do that? Sanders, Warren and... I am sure there are a few others.

but that has less to do with the (un)popularity of progressive positions than it does with district gerrymandering, racism, and poor messaging from exactly the type of dems that you're trying to champion itt

http://thehill.com/homenews/335837-p...g-minimum-wage

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...yer-healthcare

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ugs_is_failing

so maybe you are the problem, rather than progressives being at fault

I ignored it because it was baseless.

Lies make baby Jesus cry.

Oh please, you're like one of the most dishonest posters on the forums using ****ty tactics such as misalignment of other peoples positions.

So produce something of substance like how progressives with no history of winning in big ways will all of a sudden win. You and I both know you have nothing that backs up a lot of your BS.

I would say winning 43% of the primary vote as a relative unknown with non mainstream positions, locking up an overwhelming majority of the youth vote, shows the viability of progressive politics on the national scale. Saying Clinton won the primaries, chessmate, is willfully ignoring margins, the closed nature of many primaries, a raft of polling, Hillary's built-in advantages (e.g. name recognition), and so on. It's just lazy.

Sanders wasn't a relative unknown to anyone who keeps up with politics.

you mean like the polling from right-leaning outfits that i just posted (which you ignored)?

microbet's post about bernie's primary support in non-progressive areas of the country also speaks to this end

Which is like 10% of the population? Most people don't follow it at all and have little patience for discussions of it.

Those are primaries. Which show results of one side voting between candidates of their side. How is that supposed to be taken seriously when the objective should be get R's and Trump out?

Nah. You just have this weird thing where you get angry when people disagree with you, and when you get angry you call people stupid, and when it turns out no-one really cares that you called them stupid, you get even angrier.

You are not a trustworthy arbiter of 'substance'.

Okay, hypocrite.

You're more interested in insults than I am (here's the thing if you tally up the ****show people attack me as often I do them). So do us bother a favor either don't respond to me like ever or actually show your work. I haven't been angry at all itt. I throw back the same BS you have thrown at me in more than this thread. I've been 100% certain you're only interests is trolling than actual discussion for awhile.

Now find general election results.

I showed my work. You lied and said it was 'baseless'. It's not baseless. You're just a coward and a liar (fwiw, to my recollection this is the first actual insult I've aimed at you ITT, and it's been well earned). You want no more replies, you'll get no more replies. I'm tired of bringing graphs to a feels fight and there's no shortage of other people dunking on you.

LOL at the bolded, too. You can calm whatever years-old butthurt you're nursing by reflecting on this simple fact about me:

I checked them, and it seems your GTO centrist candidate lost to the most incompetent candidate in the history of politics. You don't get to say "scoreboard!" when you lose to Donald ****ing Trump.

And what do you make of the polls from Spring 2016, that showed the Dems with a significantly larger vote share against Trump with Sanders than with Clinton? Or the current polls that have Sanders at 57% approval nationwide, 32% disapproval (best in the nation afaik)? You may say its Sanders's cult of personality, which could def be part of it, but as replol linked earlier, progressive policies poll with similar favorability. And not only are these good policies that the public responds to intuitively, but campaigning on them is imo the best way to solve THIS huge problem:

You're such a hypocrite.

You said I had no credibility (an insult). Used your Newt Gingrich line (insults). Used insults in other forms in prior posts. Don't pretend you weren't using those as insults or trolling.

And if you didn't think about me you wouldn't go out of your way to bother with me like you have done in the past. So keep up the lies, homey.

And to make a point clear as to how vapid progressives are itt... dunking on me doesn't me ****. Dunking on R's does.

Which states that Hillary won would Bernie have lost?

once again you're ignoring the polling i provided which i think is by far the more interesting and useful of observations/evidence

i feel like you're just in the mood to argue tho, so i'm not gonna make this the pauly D show if you aren't going to actually say anything interesting or coherent

I think current polls show Sanders that high because he's like the figurehead of Trump opposition, and now people realize what Trump policies actually do. If there was a more vocal person than Sanders I'd fathom they would have similar or better approval ratings too.

I'd hafta ask you what you think about polls showing Clinton beating Trump right up until the election. I'm more skeptical of polls now. Maybe Sanders could have won. Who knows? But that's not really the main thing. How many progressive candidates are there out there who have general appeal like Sanders or Warren? We all keep referring to Clinton and Sanders... but I think that's narrowing it all down to one race when we need to win a lot more than one race to get rid of R's.

margin of error, how does it work? polling was only grossly off in a couple states, wisconsin being the biggest iirc (which he still barely squeaked out)

goddammit i said i wasnt gonna do this anymore if you were gonna keep tarding around baselessly

I think maybe Virginia (49-44 but Bernie probably plays poorly in the DC burbs compared to Hillary)? Worth noting that Trump still wins 273-265 if VA turns red while PA/WI/MI turn blue. Not that I endorse Paul's side here or anything, I just think it's an interesting thought experiment.

Dont accuse me of tarding it up when you obviously are neglecting Nate Silver and others tarding it up by stuff that isn't margin of error. Nate came out and said one of his models was off at some point.

EDIT: It wasn't the Trump and Clinton one that I'm referring to.