He's off to a great start with only 19% in.
Just as Republican voters demonstrated in 2016, Democratic voters are looking to be loud and clear about what they want in 2020. It looks like we sure might end up with that Trump/Sanders choice that quite a number of Democrats wanted in 2016.
Good for Bernie! it’s probably due to all that Russian influence
Well, first we hear Russia is helping Bernie, and now, he's blowing away the competition in Nevada. Coincidence?
I think NOT!
Can't wait to hear what Bill Maher has to say, lol.
Lol paprikash. I think your comment is funny but isn't it also sad that important things like impeachment and foreign election interference have been abused and reduced to a joke because of the tactics of Dems, with the media right in the middle of it too. It's going to be hard to make important differentiations in the future. This stuff should have never been used as a tactic/game.
Nevada has been called and not just a win, but a highly convincing win!
Steyer in front of Warren? Too funny.
Dems know it's time to rally around the leader, which is clearly Bernie. We'll see if they continue to attack and try to bring him down.
Just makes this worse.
I think Democrats are beside themselves right about now. Bernie or Bloomberg.
i bet Dems are just warming up with this recent Russia narrative. Wait until a potential Trump lead or win and imagine what previously used and new narratives could erupt then.
I'd sure suggest Dem attention to 2024 should Trump win again. Both parties will need to figure out great candidates. Should Trump win, continued Trump obsession following the November election would be quite a mistake IMO. Then, if Sanders were to win in November, Republicans will have some real figuring out to do. American voters are really speaking in interesting ways in the last 4 years.
"Bernie or Bloomberg"
I think they'll rally around Bernie soon. They might stay somewhat quiet for a little while longer (with potentially a little bit of Bloomberg hope), but they'll rally around Bernie soon, I think.
Bernie was robbed last time. I hope Dems don't interfere this time.
"Bernie was robbed last time. I hope Dems don't interfere this time."
I don't think they will this time. The Bernie strength is just too strong and they won't want to risk making all those voters furious. I don't think any party would be that stupid. I think they'll gather together in support of Bernie and those who think Bernie's policy is too far left will stay quiet about their plans (which could include sitting out the election or even potentially voting Trump).
Chris Wallace was just saying there are only two candidates who can pack an arena. One is Donald Trump and the other is Bernie Sanders.
Wonderful day for Bernie and his supporters.
Ann, Democrats are perilously close to having no choice but to rally around Bernie. They have little chance of bringing him down and putting forth a moderate.
It is what it is.
James Carville and Chris Matthews are having meltdowns and might need paramedics on standby, lol!
Ann, will the DNC screw over the down ballot candidates again? If they don't get behind Bernie, they will repeat 2016.
Well, they say they will vote blue no matter who........but, will they really if it’s Bernie
Bring it on.
Four years of Bernie or a VP he chooses and this country will be down the tubes.
We have ours.
Bernie might as well start wearing a big blue bonnet, as the Dems will have to rally round the old commie lol lol vote blue for a red commie.
Let the Bernie Cult begin;))
Bloomberg is going to dump millions targeting Bernie now.
Can you imagine Hillary watching this?
This is so weird. I'm now watching MSNBC and they are reporting a very low percentage of votes in and acting like there is a real contest in Nevada. Fox News called the race almost 2 hours ago with a commanding Bernie lead. I feel like I'm living in two different countries right now. My husband just said the same thing. He's in a different room and just came in and said there are two entirely different stories happening.
Trump and his fellow Foxnews addicts all fired up! ! Dirty Don the Con can beat a Socialist who has support from the Kremlin hack team!
Democrats can't run a sack race!
Oh, it gets better!
The Nevada State Democratic Party is asking its caucus site leaders to sign NDAs that would bar them from speaking with the media.
Because transparency, amirite?
Former Nevada caucus site leader quits after refusing to sign NDA over caucus technology
This just gets BETTER AND BETTER!
Biden seems to be on a sugar high with his far 2nd place finish.
Bernie's speech tonight was really something. It certainly appears we will have the Capitalist vs. Socialist election some have been talking about. There are miles between the policies of the two men, so voters will have a very easy time choosing their favorite lane. I'm not sure there is even an ounce of overlap. This is fascinating!
Ann you should correct your post by saying "Crony Capitalist vs Democratic Socialist.
Yay Bernie! This is 3/3 of the popular vote. No presidential candidate of any party has ever won the popular vote of Iowa, NH & NV before now.
Lmao. Socialist vs Capitalist. Gonna be crazy to see.
Just listening to the CNN panel with Anderson Cooper, Yang, and others. One panelist just said Nevada was going well for Sanders, but "this is a little bit of a disaster" for the other candidates, because of the technical problems Nevada is having with their caucus. It's not as bad as Iowa, because they do have some numbers, and they can declare Sanders as the winner. But several CNN panelists were calling for this to be the end of the caucus system.
Slow results, confusion and complaints at Nevada caucus sites
LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - Nevada caucus officials and voters at multiple sites on Saturday reported voting rules confusion, calculation glitches and delays in reporting tallies - despite efforts to avoid the issues that plagued Iowa’s caucuses earlier this month.
Caucus-goer Carolina Higuera said at her precinct at D.L. ‘Dusty’ Dickens Elementary School in North Las Vegas, there was widespread misunderstanding about how votes could be realigned. She also said caucus officials realized an iPad Google Forms tool, used to calculate results on caucus day with those from early voting, was counting votes for viable candidates twice.
“It just established a really icky feeling that it wasn’t being run well,” she said. “Everyone was like, I thought I was in Vegas, not Iowa. We’ve seen this on the TV.”
At precinct 1340 at Liberty High School in Henderson, there was confusion over how to count the votes, leaving several supporters of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren essentially left out as they mistakenly expected to benefit from early voters’ second choices.
Why have the Nevada debate after most had voted ?
The next debate is in just two more days, on Tuesday. I expect a very different dynamic this time, in that I think Bernie will be a much bigger target than Bloomberg. Also, I doubt it will be Warren that comes after Bernie the hardest (as she did with Bloomberg). I think it will be Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg who launch the biggest attacks. I do think it likely this one will be as feisty as the last, because it's even more make it or break it time than before.
Can someone explain how you can have early voting in a caucus system? Do you only vote for the first round? You'd be losing your vote for the remaining rounds! How does it work?
Warren probably wants to be VP, as she said she's fighting on.
So of course she'll find someone else to present herself on a cross as a beleaguered woman.
loonlake, I didn't get that either, but it looks like early voters were asked to rank up to five candidates in order of their preference (ranked choice voting.) If the candidate they ranked first wasn't viable in their caucus site, their support was moved to their next choice in the next round, I think.
Since it's the first time Nevada did early caucus voting, maybe that contributed to the slow down.
https://ktvz.com/politics/2020/02/18/here-is-how-early-voting-works-in-the-nevada-caucuses/The voter, once they begin the actual voting process, is then asked to rank either their candidates one to five in order of preference on a ballot.
That preference list is unique to caucuses and is done so that if the voter’s top choice does not reach viability in their caucus site on caucus day — that means they usually have 15% of the room supporting them — their support can go to their second or third choice. Voters can express support for up to five choices in ranked order. For example, if a voter who voted early puts former Vice President Joe Biden as their top choice but Biden is not viable in their caucus site on Saturday, their second choice will be counted upon realignment.
Stan, that's why I don't think Warren will be too busy attacking Bernie. I would bet, at this point, she'd like to at least be considered for his VP choice.
Bernie isn't my first choice, more like my last. But his Hispanic support is pretty amazing, young & old. He made a good point yesterday that if he does run against trump he may easily win Texas with it's high Hispanic population. That would be game over for trump counting on winning with the electoral college. Fla may flip to blue too for the same reason.
At this point 4 years ago the gop was freaking out about trump becoming their candidate, similar to what some demos are going through today with Bernie. Also, the demos were thrilled with trump becoming the gop candidate, similar to the repubs being thrilled about bernie today. The world is upside down as it spins around.
Anyone who votes for Bernie is anti-American in my opinion.
Maybe Bernie should get a blue hat that says MACA
Make America Communist Always
That would be game over for trump counting on winning with the electoral college.
Why? We offered to give Texas to hillary but it wouldn't have helped her.
vgkg, regardless of our party affiliation, I think lots of us might agree that the last four years (and upcoming four years) are shaping up to be the most politically consequential years of our lifetimes. What a roller coaster.
BTW, SC does not have early voting, though people have to go through all kinds of steps to vote absentee. Their primary is Saturday the 29th. Biden is strong in SC, but Bernie could still do very well and Biden's lead is narrowing. Warren is going all out this week.
NC has early voting right now for a few weeks and is part of Super Tuesday.
It is harder and harder to look at the numbers and not see that Bernie & Warren combined have a good bit of the vote. The rest of the "moderate" candidates are dividing up the crumbs.
LOL, queenmargo. MACA= caca.
My two voting age sons agree with you there. As much as they want to see Trump gone, they have a very hard time with Bernie's support of communists both yesterday and today.
Vgkg, it's a heck of a lot like 4 years ago!
I guess a Texas flip is possible, but I hope not likely. One state Dems have been hoping to flip is Wisconsin, but it appears it's turning more, not less, red. I think Florida will stay red. I was just reading about the great DeSantis polling data.
Zalco, I'm sure glad to here that news about your sons. I'll be curious to see whether people with those views (anti-Trump and not willing to go as far left as Bernie) will be more likely to sit it out or vote for Trump (if Bernie is the nominee).
The caucus needs to go. I heard only 4% of eligible voters participated in Nevada, similar in Iowa.
"Bernie & Warren combined have a good bit of the vote"
At first glance, I thought that might indeed be a winning combination, but then I remembered all the years of advice about picking a VP who fills out some gaps in the candidate's resume--not someone who mirrors his most prominent traits. Someone who appeals to a group of voters not that attracted to the presidential candidate.
So, I'd think a moderate VP candidate would be needed. Perhaps Bernie and Klobuchar?
Maybe since Biden has usually teetered on the fence between being a moderate and being liberal (though Repubs. incorrectly condemned him as a full-blown liberal), a combination of Biden and Kamala Harris, who is more liberal, might be workable.
I can't see Buttigieg running with either of those two, so I guess he will have to keep aiming for the top position. Whether he needs a VP to add leftist appeal or a more moderate one to temper his liberal positions, I'm not sure.
The caucus needs to go. I heard only 4% of eligible voters participated in Nevada, similar in Iowa.
The delusional 4%.
Funny, Trump supporters get their nose bent out of shape when people question their values in supporting Trump, not his policies his actions and language, but think it is perfectly acceptable to call Bernie supporters anti American or un-American.
Buttigieg is gonna flop hard in the South. Probably because so many African Americans really arent all that "woke".
I feel concerned about Bernie. His election as prez would probably help continue the divisiveness in America. Not that he has done anything wrong, but his record as a senator is not as impressive as Amy's. I cannot picture him interacting in a presidential way with world leaders because all I've seen is him do is rave. His intensity, as well as Elizabeth's, are wearing. Medicare for all sounds like a nightmare; maybe it could happen in time if the country gradually shifts to it. Glad NV wasn't a primary!
In my view Bernie would be a terrible President. The country needs bringing together not more entrenchment. However, I'm not very hopeful for an outcome that would support that.
Any Democratic person will become part of divisiveness in America. Republicans will see to that.
Again for the slow, there is nothing inherently wrong with the ideals of communism, they just aren't workable when you have to work with human beings. Too many people are greedy and selfish. Democratic Socialism actually works pretty well. Unbridled Capitalism not so much. Kind of like Communism. Take either concept to its extreme it seems to bring out the worst in people.
The country needs bringing together not more entrenchment.
The GOP did not care that President Obama sought to unify the country.
I truly believe that there can be no Democratic unifier with the current GOP -- with or without Trump dominating the party.
I think the country wanted to unify, therefore they elected President Obama. However, he only divided us more.
I think that's out, because Klobuchar was the only one in an earlier debate to raise her hand when they were asked if they had any concerns about having a socialist Democrat nominee. (I thought that was a point for Klobuchar.)
Steyer looked like he might have been starting to raise his hand in the video, when Bernie raised his own hand and said, "I'm not!"
Both Biden and Klobuchar made comments saying a socialist Dem nominee would divide or hurt the Dem part, and alienate mainstream voters.
Because he disagreed with you? Democrats are supposed to throw in the towel and just agree with Conservatives or be labeled divisive?
I'm not sure I can think of any president who doesn't hope to unify the country, but it rarely works out as they hope. I think anyone who chooses to run for president has a big ego and high self confidence. I think people like that might think they can bring people to like or at least accept them based on what they think will be their good leadership. But, it rarely works out that way and especially now, in our very divided nation.
Then, I think when it doesn't work out that way, a president tends to end up causing division (sometimes almost inadvertently) because human nature tells us it's very hard to like someone who hates you. So each president seems to develop their own brand of attitude toward those they've become very aware can't stand the current president.
Probably because we disagree with the left's derogatory evaluations of Trump's values (and ours, by affiliation) but we agree (speaking for myself, anyway) with questioning how well a Democrat Socialist's values align with American values.
However, he only divided us more.
It was not President Obama's fault that the GOP decided to make him a one-term president by vowing in January 2009 to oppose all legislation that he favored.
I don't think Bernie would be likely to choose a moderate VP. I think that because Bernie doesn't waver on his policy wishes. I think Bernie would do all he could to surround himself with people who would be helpful to him in achieving his policy goals.
Some more moderate Dems have said to not worry about Bernie because he couldn't get his more progressive policies passed anyway. Bernie is not the person I think it makes sense to think that about. He's been dedicated to the same things for a very long time. He's the original and if he becomes president, I can't see him being a wavering or settling sort of person at all.
I can't imagine he'd choose a moderate VP, but I think we'll have the opportunity to find out because it will be hard for anyone to pass Bernie in obtaining this nomination.
Plus I imagine if Bernie were to win, his coattails would be pretty strong.
I'm wondering if "unified" is a nice word, and something we all like to think is possible, but it might be more realistic to have a goal of allowing our system of government to function as it was designed.
Maybe a more realistic goal is to avoid civil war, and to let the three branches settle disagreements as they were designed to do. The founders knew the normal state of the union was going to always be some level of disagreement between citizens.
My concerns are not so much that American citizens disagree over policies, but that some seem to believe those disagreements are enough cause to disregard the laws and precedents we used to rely on to settle our differences.
An elected president has the right to enforce the policies his supporters agree with. Elections are the remedy for disagreements over policy.
"An elected president has the right to enforce the policies his supporters agree with."
You seem to have forgotten that we have THREE CO-EQUAL powers in charge of our government: the legislature (Congress); the executive (president); and the judicial (Supreme court).
Our founding fathers never envisioned the president acting like the Big Referee standing above the contesting players below him and deciding who was right. Instead, he is supposed to enforce the laws that Congress passed and that the president signed in agreement. If the president thinks some law is NOT what his supporters agree with, the president will have to go back to Congress and lobby them to change the law. If Congress doesn't want to change the law (regardless of what the president claims his supporters want), then the law does not get changed.
Nor was Congress considered a tool to carve out the president's wishes. They are supposed to create, shape, and pass laws--which the president may or may not agree with.
Nor was the Supreme Court viewed as a rubber stamp for the president's policies. They are the final interpreters of the constitutionality and meaning of the laws passed by Congress and signed in agreement by the president.
The image of the president as standing at the top of the pyramid and everybody else situated below him is just plain wrong.
I will never understand how people can avoid the history of socialism. Over 200 million people have died at the hands of socialist governments.
btw, to the person who said Bernie could take Fla. I doubt it. It's filled with people who risked their lives to escape socialism.
And you and your buddies have dished out at least as many insults to others as you claim were directed at you.
However, some individuals certainly do excel at the "sport."
And if you notice Kate, it is the left leaning individuals that cry about it not the right leaning. We counter punch;)