2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Reading that Iowa spent $60,000 on that app.....that'll get you close to half of the salary for one competent developer in this day and age.

This is an app I could have wrote in a week or two. It's not terribly complex.

High price is because it's a grift between buddies. Also maybe a few campaigns got preferential treatment with the "rounding" errors they are finding.

[Edward64]

I want to know the testing process they did and the user who signed-off on it. I would want to know the test scenarios, scripts that were used. Someone had to sign-off on it and that is the person to allocate most blame to.

Maybe it wasn't a app bug vs load-balancing issue (which admittedly is hard to simulate for a production environment) or connectivity issue? or maybe even an end-user training (or lack of) issue

[thesloppy]

I wouldn't call $120,000 a high price for that kind of development, YMMV.

The article I read said the app was only available to download on TestFlight and TestFairy which are explicitly used for releasing beta software, and the fact that it couldn't even make it into the Apple/Google stores should have been an obvious non-starter...but if you're not technical and/or familiar with that stuff, it probably wouldn't set off alarm bells.

I use TestFlight every day at work and it's definitely not too complicated, as it practically operates like an app store, but it would've involved folks having to install/enable TestFlight or TestFairy, and THEN download the caucas app through that. You've got an extra step of complexity (and probably a handful of extra privacy & licensing agreements to agree to) before you're even considering the caucas app itself, which could be crucial for non-technical users.

DOLA: This article goes even further and says they were using the FREE version of TestFairy which limits the number of test users that can access the app to 200. FULL BODY EYEROLL

The app that broke the Iowa Caucuses was sent out through beta testing platforms - The Verge

[Edward64]

Bernie still has a chance to win it. Unfortunately, won't change the story of Biden's poor showing.

Bernie is also leading in NH polls with Pete in second. If I had to pick between the 2 to win it all, I'd go for Pete.

Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg in virtual Iowa caucus tie

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg were in a virtual dead heat in the Iowa caucuses as the results from 97 percent of precincts in the state were reported on early Thursday, officials said.

Sanders narrowed the gap on Buttigieg’s lead when results from three of the four satellite caucuses in the Hawkeye State were recorded soon after midnight.

Buttigieg has 550 state delegate equivalents, while Sanders trails by three with 547, according to results from the Iowa’s Democratic Party.

Sanders performed extremely well in the satellite caucuses, which were set up for caucus-goers who couldn’t make their assigned precinct in each of Iowa’s four congressional districts.

The party said the results from the final precinct were “in transit” and would not be released until later Thursday.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is an app I could have wrote in a week or two. It's not terribly complex.

High price is because it's a grift between buddies. Also maybe a few campaigns got preferential treatment with the "rounding" errors they are finding.

The rounding errors story is bullshit. In all but one tally I've seen, the rules were followed, and in the one where there was an error, it cost Pete a delegate.

[PilotMan]

One of the biggest drawbacks of the information age is that so much information is out there that everyone thinks they are experts in areas that they have no business thinking that in.



There's a gap between reading (or watching) and critical thinking and concluding. How else can legitimate facts come under question?

[Radii]

The party said the results from the final precinct were “in transit” and would not be released until later Thursday.

I'm imagining a man on horseback from the outer reaches of Iowa riding with the greatest urgency, pushing his horse to his physical limits, racing through corn and wheat fields to Des Moines with the election results in an old beaten up saddlebag that is guarded at all costs whenever a stop is made to use the bathroom, or perhaps to forage for some food in a field or a nearby forest as the rider must travel light to make the journey in time.

[Kodos]

Perhaps Pheidippides is involved in delivering the info.

[ISiddiqui]

It appears that Tom Perez has asked the Iowa Democratic Party to recanvas the vote. Basically do a recount of all the paper ballots to assure folks that the numbers are able to be trusted.

[Jas_lov]

Iowa just needs to be written off and forgotten. They blew it. New Hampshire will count the votes correctly and serve as the first contest to winnow the field. Nevada now has a chance to be the 1st caucus in the nation.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Iowa just needs to be written off and forgotten. They blew it. New Hampshire will count the votes correctly and serve as the first contest to winnow the field. Nevada now has a chance to be the 1st caucus in the nation.

Yep, looks like this is the case. Big loss for Iowa and they may lose their "first" status for the next presidential election. Maybe that means we can stop subsiding ethanol to the levels we do if people don't have to kowtow to that state every four years.

[ISiddiqui]

So what is fascinating is the latest national Morning Consult poll shows Buttigieg with a rise to 12%, but Bloomberg is still ahead of him. And Warren is at 11%.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So what is fascinating is the latest national Morning Consult poll shows Buttigieg with a rise to 12%, but Bloomberg is still ahead of him. And Warren is at 11%.

His odds on 538 went from 4% to 6% after Iowa. They now have Bernie as the favorite and Biden dropping quickly.

I assumed Biden would drop, but he fucked up in Iowa royally. If he looked this bad in Iowa it's probably best he isn't on a debate stage with Trump or addressing his supporters at any point in front of a camera.

[cuervo72]

Michael Steele had an interesting angle on Biden and Iowa, that he wasn't really bringing his A-game. That's going to be saved for South Carolina, where the voters may not care what went on in (very white) Iowa.

[JPhillips]

There's a reason why Biden has crapped out twice before.

I'm trying to decide if I want to go out on a ledge and predict a Bernie/Bloomberg final.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Michael Steele had an interesting angle on Biden and Iowa, that he wasn't really bringing his A-game. That's going to be saved for South Carolina, where the voters may not care what went on in (very white) Iowa.

Has ignoring early states ever worked out in recent primary history?

[Edward64]

Enjoying Bernie in the CNN townhall right now. He is much more appealing to me in a calm environment and when not agitated. IMO he needs to drop his angry man image (but I get it appeals to his base).

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Enjoying Bernie in the CNN townhall right now. He is much more appealing to me in a calm environment and when not agitated. IMO he needs to drop his angry man image (but I get it appeals to his base).

My only major issue with Bernie is his supporters are awful. Almost all of their conspiracies regarding stealing the nomination come from the fact that most were voting for the first time last election and had no idea how politics or nthe nomination process works. If he wins he has my vote (as does literally any other dem including Bloomberg).

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Michael Steele had an interesting angle on Biden and Iowa, that he wasn't really bringing his A-game. That's going to be saved for South Carolina, where the voters may not care what went on in (very white) Iowa.

If he only has one A-game and everything else is Iowa he isn't winning.

[Edward64]

Pete is up next, then Amy. Good night of TV.

Debates have their purpose but prefer the town hall format at this stage since you don't get quality time in the debates.

[JPhillips]

The big problem with Bernie and Warren is that this cycle seems terrible to run on their economic message. When 60%+ approve of the economy and think they'll be personally better off next year, I don't think a promise to remake the economy is a winning message.

[Edward64]

I wasn't always paying full attention to Sanders or Pete but am disappointed that I haven't heard any specifics about foreign policy (China, North Korea, Iraq etc.), nothing about illegal immigration, rebuilding bipartianship etc.

I thought it was the debates' setting but Amy also rambles on when answering a town hall question.

[miked]

Why is it up to the D candidate to "rebuild bipartisanship"? When McConnell took over, he said his only goal was to make Obama a 1 term president. He won't bring things up for votes that 80% of Americans support and they refuse to even consider anything a D comes up with. Is Trump trying to restore bipartisanship? Should we hold it against him?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

Why is it up to the D candidate to "rebuild bipartisanship"? When McConnell took over, he said his only goal was to make Obama a 1 term president. He won't bring things up for votes that 80% of Americans support and they refuse to even consider anything a D comes up with. Is Trump trying to restore bipartisanship? Should we hold it against him?

It's not up to only the D candidate to rebuild bipartianship.

[PilotMan]

At this point, I'm fully willing to escalate partisanship. Bring it on. The rules are the rules and McConnell will reap what he has sown.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It's not up to only the D candidate to rebuild bipartianship.

By definition.

[miked]

I think that is the problem with the D party, they are always looking to build bipartisanship with a group that has absolutely no interest in it. So I would say the ideal candidate would not care about that one bit.

[Arles]

I'm just shocked people are going through the motions again of Bernie having a chance. At this point, it's clear he does well in situations where a vocal minority can railroad a primary (aka a Caucus). He is from the state right next to New Hampshire, is perfect for a caucus (Iowa/Nev) and is beloved by the super left in California. So, the beginning of the primary is like ducks in a row for him.

However, his plans have no chance and most smart democrats realize that. Given his negatives and the overall "Bernie fatigue" by independents, it seems pretty clear he would get whipped by Trump. Just like in 2016, I fully expect the democratic party to throw themselves in oncoming traffic to stop him from getting the nomination. Yet, legit places like 538 have him as the favorite?!

The real irony of Sanders is the perfect demographic for his platform (low education, organized, somewhat gullible) is 100% in the bag for Trump. He's going to have to rely on young people and scared seniors to get elected - and that's a recipe for disaster in a presidential election.

[JPhillips]

I'm very skeptical of Bernie's chances, but here is the data for Bernie fatigue? He's been consistently leading in most head to head polling.

[Fidatelo]

Or maybe the candidate doesn't even matter? An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter - POLITICO

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm very skeptical of Bernie's chances, but here is the data for Bernie fatigue? He's been consistently leading in most head to head polling.

No

Moderates are afraid of Bernie and write off his chances. I don't think Bernie could have won 8 or even 4 years ago but most of his ideas are mainstream dem now and not seen as extreme as they were in 2016. Bernie will likely get the youth vote out at near Obama levels. He has a better chance of beating Trump in this election than Biden IMO.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm just shocked people are going through the motions again of Bernie having a chance. At this point, it's clear he does well in situations where a vocal minority can railroad a primary (aka a Caucus). He is from the state right next to New Hampshire, is perfect for a caucus (Iowa/Nev) and is beloved by the super left in California. So, the beginning of the primary is like ducks in a row for him.

However, his plans have no chance and most smart democrats realize that. Given his negatives and the overall "Bernie fatigue" by independents, it seems pretty clear he would get whipped by Trump. Just like in 2016, I fully expect the democratic party to throw themselves in oncoming traffic to stop him from getting the nomination. Yet, legit places like 538 have him as the favorite?!

The real irony of Sanders is the perfect demographic for his platform (low education, organized, somewhat gullible) is 100% in the bag for Trump. He's going to have to rely on young people and scared seniors to get elected - and that's a recipe for disaster in a presidential election.

Get a grip. Bernie absolutely has a chance. He polls just as well, if not better than anyone else against Trump, and if there's anyone who will get crossover votes, it's him. Look at the Joe Rogan endorsement for proof of that.

And I can't believe that you're suggesting the DNC do everything it can to block his nomination, and are seemingly OK with that. If that happens again, and it's obviously rigged against Bernie, whoever the Dem nominee is will get slaughtered in the general, and the DNC will be FUBAR'ed for years.

Biden excites no one, especially the young vote. It's Hillary rd. 2 but probably a much worse loss. And mayor Pete has literally 0% African American support. He has no chance. His own city doesn't like him and his questionable McKinsey ties don't help him. His only hope is an Obama endorsement, which is possible and I think should worry progressives a lot, especially if it becomes clear he is the viable choice for the moderate, or in your words "smart" wing of the party.

You're putting way too much weight in "his plans." Many "unsmart" dems actually do realize everything he says won't be possible to get done in his term(s). But what President has? What matters to people is the momentum, and shift he represents towards a government that works for everyone. They see a movement, not a candidate. Clearly you don't understand this. Why do you think AOC is also so popular? She will carry Bernie's torch.

[Arles]

In Feb of 2016, both Clinton and Sanders won Head-to-Head with Trump by a 50-40 margin. Independents tend to focus only on the economy and Sanders doesn't do well there. If we were mired in a recession, I think he'd have a chance. But, he's been branded a socialist for 6 years (even said he is himself) and that is starting to stick with some. I would be shocked if Sanders won against Trump with the economy going this well - but I was also shocked that Trump won in 2016. So, who knows I guess. But, every election has shown that most voters who don't pay a ton of attention usually vote on the economy - and those aren't going to show up in Feb of 2020 polling.

I think it very well could come out to turnout. I would bet a record turnout by Republicans against Bernie given the "Socialist Boogeyman" the right has made him. If it's Biden, I can't see too many republicans being super motivated to vote Trump over Biden. But, I bet democrats would still turn out for Biden because of their hatred for Trump.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not a Bernie fan, but the WORST thing the party can do is to actively block Sanders from the nomination. His folks (some of whom are now House members) seem believe Superdelegates stole the 2016 primary from him (even though he got less votes). Stoking that fire would be a big mistake.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Arles

In Feb of 2016, both Clinton and Sanders won Head-to-Head with Trump by a 50-40 margin. Independents tend to focus only on the economy and Sanders doesn't do well there. If we were mired in a recession, I think he'd have a chance. But, he's been branded a socialist for 6 years (even said he is himself) and that is starting to stick with some. I would be shocked if Sanders won against Trump with the economy going this well - but I was also shocked that Trump won in 2016. So, who knows I guess. But, every election has shown that most voters who don't pay a ton of attention usually vote on the economy - and those aren't going to show up in Feb of 2020 polling.

I think it very well could come out to turnout. I would bet a record turnout by Republicans against Bernie given the "Socialist Boogeyman" the right has made him. If it's Biden, I can't see too many republicans being super motivated to vote Trump over Biden. But, I bet democrats would still turn out for Biden because of their hatred for Trump.

I think the "Socialist" label is becoming a lot less scary for people than it was in 2016. He's also pivoted to "Democratic socialism" and is pointing to Nordic European countries as examples of what he wants to accomplish. Not the say, Venezuelan version of socialism, a developing economy whose is tied to one natural resource (oil). I think people are smart enough to differentiate. And the media is even starting to get wise and call it what it is, democratic socialism.

You're right about the economy. Here's the thing though: It is "strong" in metrics, i.e. stock market, but the "strength" has not been felt by the middle class. The rich is getting richer and wage growth has stagnated. Will that translate to anything meaningful as far as votes are concerned? To be determined. Dems will be wise to bring up $15 minimum wage in the general. Bernie's strength here will be labor union support.

No matter what, whoever the candidate is, there will need to be record turnout. Independent votes, and crossover voters do matter yes, but much less than I think you are giving it. Trump has a rock solid 45% or whatever. He hasn't gained any voters though since 2016, only lost some if anything. And that can be beat but the Dems can only win by bringing out the youth vote, and the POC vote in record numbers. Iowa wasn't a great indication of that happening yet (granted it's 90% white so the sample size is small) so lots of work to be done there. But a lot of people think Bernie is the candidate to do those things, especially paired with a VP like say, Stacey Abrams.

When Dems win Presidential elections, it's when the youth vote turns out. This is just a bonafide fact. See Obama. And this is Bernie's strength. So yes, he absolutely has a chance.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not a Bernie fan, but the WORST thing the party can do is to actively block Sanders from the nomination. His folks (some of whom are now House members) seem believe Superdelegates stole the 2016 primary from him (even though he got less votes). Stoking that fire would be a big mistake.

Yeah, after 2016, I can see this being an issue. They are kind of trapped with him now.

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

No matter what, whoever the candidate is, there will need to be record turnout. Independent votes, and crossover voters do matter yes, but much less than I think you are giving it. Trump has a rock solid 45% or whatever. He hasn't gained any voters though since 2016, only lost some if anything. And that can be beat but the Dems can only win by bringing out the youth vote, and the POC vote in record numbers. Iowa wasn't a great indication of that happening yet (granted it's 90% white so the sample size is small) so lots of work to be done there. But a lot of people think Bernie is the candidate to do those things, especially paired with a VP like say, Stacey Abrams.

When Dems win Presidential elections, it's when the youth vote turns out. This is just a bonafide fact. See Obama. And this is Bernie's strength. So yes, he absolutely has a chance.

I think Bloomberg entering the race will cut into Biden and give Bernie a better chance at winning the nomination - but I just can't see him winning a general. Obama got a ton of middle-aged independents and McCain just didn't resonate with any demographic. Trump is a little like Bernie in that he has his haters, but also a bunch of zealot supporters. I don't think many people on the fence would choose Bernie given the massive economic changes he wants to make. There's just too much risk for most voters there.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, after 2016, I can see this being an issue. They are kind of trapped with him now.


I think Bloomberg entering the race will cut into Biden and give Bernie a better chance at winning the nomination - but I just can't see him winning a general. Obama got a ton of middle-aged independents and McCain just didn't resonate with any demographic. Trump is a little like Bernie in that he has his haters, but also a bunch of zealot supporters. I don't think many people on the fence would choose Bernie given the massive economic changes he wants to make. There's just too much risk for most voters there.

There isn't a perfect candidate. Bloomberg and Biden will both turn off progressive voters. Warren is a woman, which comes with a whole host of issues in a general election. Buttigieg will turn off the religious moderates and a large number of progressives.

Trump did a good job of framing himself as more moderate than Romney and both Bushes to Dem voters and was able to pull in a large number of left leaning moderates that didn't like Hillary because of that. He's not going to be able to repeat that. He does have the economy going for him but remains historically unpopular.

If Trump wins I look forward to 4 years of moderates telling everyone Dems chose a bad candidate and that's why they either didn't vote or voted 3rd party. Meanwhile libertarians will reserve the right to to pick and choose who to blame based on which way the wind blows that day.

[Arles]

Trump was at a 38% favorable rating when he got elected. This week, gallup just reported his approval rating was at a personal high of 49%. I think he will get a lot of non-partisans in this election (even more than vs Clinton). America's confidence in the economy is as high as it has ever been since 2000 and the "national satisfaction" level is at a 15-year high, I can't ever remember a sitting president losing in that economical situation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Arles

Trump was at a 38% favorable rating when he got elected. This week, gallup just reported his approval rating was at a personal high of 49%. I think he will get a lot of non-partisans in this election (even more than vs Clinton). America's confidence in the economy is as high as it has ever been since 2000 and the "national satisfaction" level is at a 15-year high, I can't ever remember a sitting president losing in that economical situation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

What point are you even trying to make then? That Trump is going to win on the strength of the economy and Dems are doomed no matter who they put up, so why even bother?

Approval ratings fluctuate. His is still, by and large, on the whole, historically terrible. There is a lot of time for Trump to piss people off again (and again, and again...). And he’s one market downturn from his one big platform to stand on collapsing him.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

Trump was at a 38% favorable rating when he got elected. This week, gallup just reported his approval rating was at a personal high of 49%. I think he will get a lot of non-partisans in this election (even more than vs Clinton). America's confidence in the economy is as high as it has ever been since 2000 and the "national satisfaction" level is at a 15-year high, I can't ever remember a sitting president losing in that economical situation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

His overall is still under 44% per 538 which makes him the least popular president at this point in an election year since Truman.

You also can't compare Trump's presidency to others. Trump is the first president to make no attempt to pull in moderates or bridge the partisan gap between parties. We have no idea how that's going to play out but based on his approval ratings it's unlikely the economy is going to help him as much as a more traditional sitting president.

Trump's campaign knows his approval ratings are a problem as they've gone on TV stating their plan is to try to make whoever wins the dem primary as unpopular as Trump and hope things break their way in the electoral.

[Jas_lov]

I'm becoming more convinced that Pete is the best person to run against Trump out of the current crop of candidates. He gets young and old support, is from rural Indiana and outside Washington and is a military veteran. He provides the most contrast to Trump. I don't think people care about experience because they voted for Obama over McCain and Trump over Hillary. He needs more support from minorities. Maybe that will come with more primary victories and then picking Abrams as VP candidate.

Biden doesn't excite young people and Bernie seems too far left for old people. Warren was trying to be the candidate in the middle of those two but Pete seems to have taken that lane. Bloomberg may overtake him but he's another 75+ year old and I'm not sure he inspires anybody to go out and vote.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Trump was at a 38% favorable rating when he got elected. This week, gallup just reported his approval rating was at a personal high of 49%. I think he will get a lot of non-partisans in this election (even more than vs Clinton). America's confidence in the economy is as high as it has ever been since 2000 and the "national satisfaction" level is at a 15-year high, I can't ever remember a sitting president losing in that economical situation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

Like I said above, he's the incumbent with a good economy. He should be the favorite.

Also, don't put too much stock in one poll.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I'm becoming more convinced that Pete is the best person to run against Trump out of the current crop of candidates. He gets young and old support, is from rural Indiana and outside Washington and is a military veteran. He provides the most contrast to Trump. I don't think people care about experience because they voted for Obama over McCain and Trump over Hillary. He needs more support from minorities. Maybe that will come with more primary victories and then picking Abrams as VP candidate.

Biden doesn't excite young people and Bernie seems too far left for old people. Warren was trying to be the candidate in the middle of those two but Pete seems to have taken that lane. Bloomberg may overtake him but he's another 75+ year old and I'm not sure he inspires anybody to go out and vote.

But Pete gets almost no support from African-Americans. That's a big problem.

[thesloppy]

Based on absolutely nothing but what I have pulled out of my butt, I imagine that high satisfaction actually results in lower-turnout from opposition voters, rather than increased votes for the incumbent, and that Trump's unique standing could cancel out that effect.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But Pete gets almost no support from African-Americans. That's a big problem.

A huge problem. I hate to say it, as a very socially progressive liberal, but the rest of America isn’t ready to nominate a gay man to the Presidency. Did you all see the voter who changed her vote when she found out he was gay?

Iowa Voter Shocked To Learn Buttigieg Is Gay, Asks To Change Vote | NBC News - YouTube

Unfortunate reality, but true. And it’s not puzzling at all why the African American community, which Pete will desperately need in the general, doesn’t support him, as that demographic is particularly not very “pro gay” historically. I don’t see that budging at all, unless of course Obama endorses him/and or Michelle is his VP. His only hope really.

Finally, just because he is young, does not mean he will have young support. He doesn’t actually. In fact, they don’t like him, like, at all. Hell, the gay community doesn’t even particularly like him.

Why Pete Buttigieg Enrages the Young Left - POLITICO

[ISiddiqui]

I have read that to some young folks he just seems phony.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I have read that to some young folks he just seems phony.

Well, yea. Not posting any policy positions on your website for the first 10 months of his campaign, supporting M4A then backtracking once he started raising money behind closed doors from big money donors, name dropping black activists in South Carolina and trying to pass them off as supporters, claiming victory prematurely in Iowa and speaking in ridiculous, vague platitudes constantly like this tweet yesterday, makes him seem like a robotic political candidate molded out of focus groups. Look at the comments to that tweet, they’re objectively pretty hilarious.

#CNNTownHall pic.twitter.com/lt4yVD7Krz

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) February 7, 2020

[molson]

So the battle for the soul of the Democratic party is basically senior citizens screaming unattainable promises at clouds v. vague young feel-good enthusiasm.

(And I guess Biden awkwardly standing around hoping both approaches fail).

[thesloppy]

Pete is trying to be everything for everybody. It sounds great at first, until you hear him make an exact opposite promise to someone else.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Has ignoring early states ever worked out in recent primary history?

No. But then there has never been anyone spending this kind of money to try it. Bloomberg keeps getting bumps. I think the best thing for his opponents/worst thing for him is that he will be in the debate before Super Tuesday. I think he is going to be pretty unimpressive on the debate stage.

Originally Posted by miked

I think that is the problem with the D party, they are always looking to build bipartisanship with a group that has absolutely no interest in it. So I would say the ideal candidate would not care about that one bit.

I honestly think the biggest challenge right now isn't reaching across the isle. It is shoring up the party. The far-left wing and the moderate wing are at the point of complete split. I fear the party might be in real trouble whether Sanders wins or loses. The Sanders people sound more and more like the lefts version of the MAGA people everyday, which makes the moderates dislike him even more.