Sanders vs. Trump 2020

[James G]

*A bat flapped its wings in China late in 2019*


The 2020 United States presidential election was one marred by controversy yet, fortunately, not the violence which some expected. There were allegations of vote suppression, foreign interference and a whole load of lies being told.
Incumbent president, Donald Trump, contested the election alongside Vice President Mike Pence for the Republican Party. Their campaign was cash-rich and went without too many hiccups. Trump fought the campaign which he was ready to fight: one against a socialist. The Democrats gave Trump a gift which he didn't reject.
That candidate for the Democratic Party was Bernie Sanders with his running mate being Stacey Abrams. It wasn't a socialist campaign that they ran on yet it was one successfully painted that way by both the Republicans and also portions of the centre-left too. The Democratic Party establishment didn't want Bernie.
While few third-party candidates ever manage to make an impact, Ross Perot an exception, the billionaire Mike Bloomberg ran in the 2020 race as an Independent after failing to secure the Democratic candidacy. His impact was there during the race and on election day. Bloomberg would take votes away from both Sanders and Trump.

When election day came, despite bad polling, it was generally agreed that Trump would prevail for a third term. That belief was born out in the end.
Moderate Republicans and Independents either went for Trump or Bloomberg rather than Sanders. The latter kept his base, loyal Democrats, but failed to attract many others to his cause. Abrams did help run up the totals in certain states but not in the swing states. Trump, crude and divisive, stayed on-message throughout the contest. With a booming economy (for which he claimed full credit for), no foreign conflicts and a nation weary of a 'socialist' Sanders, victory was assured.

Against Clinton's 2016 outcome, Sanders returned Michigan to the Blue Wall but lost Minnesota. Trump improved upon his 2016 result by taking Nevada, New Hampshire & Wisconsin as well as Minnesota. Sanders came close down in Georgia plus in Pennsylvania but couldn't take them nor could he seize Arizona, Florida, North Carolina & Ohio where much effort was made within them.
The final results after Election Day were later skewered when the Electoral College met and there were faithless electors everywhere. However, the initial totals were 309-229 for Trump. 

[gillan1220]

This is similar to my timeline on the wiki: althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline_(World_Without_COVID-19)

And my collaboration with american2006's Butterflying A Bat.

[gillan1220]

Forgot to add, I wrote a diary-style spin-off of Butterflying A Bat: Sinulog 2021: The Celebration of a LifeTime

[stevep]

Jul 31, 2021 8:33:55 GMT James G said:

*A bat flapped its wings in China late in 2019*


The 2020 United States presidential election was one marred by controversy yet, fortunately, not the violence which some expected. There were allegations of vote suppression, foreign interference and a whole load of lies being told.
Incumbent president, Donald Trump, contested the election alongside Vice President Mike Pence for the Republican Party. Their campaign was cash-rich and went without too many hiccups. Trump fought the campaign which he was ready to fight: one against a socialist. The Democrats gave Trump a gift which he didn't reject.
That candidate for the Democratic Party was Bernie Sanders with his running mate being Stacey Abrams. It wasn't a socialist campaign that they ran on yet it was one successfully painted that way by both the Republicans and also portions of the centre-left too. The Democratic Party establishment didn't want Bernie.
While few third-party candidates ever manage to make an impact, Ross Perot an exception, the billionaire Mike Bloomberg ran in the 2020 race as an Independent after failing to secure the Democratic candidacy. His impact was there during the race and on election day. Bloomberg would take votes away from both Sanders and Trump.

When election day came, despite bad polling, it was generally agreed that Trump would prevail for a third term. That belief was born out in the end.
Moderate Republicans and Independents either went for Trump or Bloomberg rather than Sanders. The latter kept his base, loyal Democrats, but failed to attract many others to his cause. Abrams did help run up the totals in certain states but not in the swing states. Trump, crude and divisive, stayed on-message throughout the contest. With a booming economy (for which he claimed full credit for), no foreign conflicts and a nation weary of a 'socialist' Sanders, victory was assured.

Against Clinton's 2016 outcome, Sanders returned Michigan to the Blue Wall but lost Minnesota. Trump improved upon his 2016 result by taking Nevada, New Hampshire & Wisconsin as well as Minnesota. Sanders came close down in Georgia plus in Pennsylvania but couldn't take them nor could he seize Arizona, Florida, North Carolina & Ohio where much effort was made within them.
The final results after Election Day were later skewered when the Electoral College met and there were faithless electors everywhere. However, the initial totals were 309-229 for Trump. 

  I can't really see Saunders being the Democrat candidate in 2020, especially without Covid to shake things up which would probably have boosted support for him given it showed clear shortcomings in both Trump and the current establishment and hence heightened the need for change.

  If he did somehow become the candidate then I would agree he would lose barring serious probably criminal activity by Trump being highlighted, which would probably force Trump's vote down to its core base of about 35-40%.  Suspect that given a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea so to speak most moderates would abstain rather than choice either candidate.

  Its going to be a bad 4 years for the US and probably the world especially if the Republicans retain control of the Senate and possibly make gains in the lower house on the coat-tails of an anti-Bernie propaganda rampage.  Hopefully whoever succeeds Trump would in 2024 would be more moderate  or - more likely unfortunately given the way the party has been going - equally extreme and would be defeated by a moderate democrat in 2024 and the country could start repairing some of the damage.  Assuming that enough voter repression and fraud doesn't enable the Republicans to cling onto power.

  I think you made a typo above.  Doubt even Trump would claim a 2020 win would be a 3rd term for him.

[gillan1220]

Jul 31, 2021 10:50:40 GMT stevep said:

Jul 31, 2021 8:33:55 GMT James G said:

*A bat flapped its wings in China late in 2019*


The 2020 United States presidential election was one marred by controversy yet, fortunately, not the violence which some expected. There were allegations of vote suppression, foreign interference and a whole load of lies being told.
Incumbent president, Donald Trump, contested the election alongside Vice President Mike Pence for the Republican Party. Their campaign was cash-rich and went without too many hiccups. Trump fought the campaign which he was ready to fight: one against a socialist. The Democrats gave Trump a gift which he didn't reject.
That candidate for the Democratic Party was Bernie Sanders with his running mate being Stacey Abrams. It wasn't a socialist campaign that they ran on yet it was one successfully painted that way by both the Republicans and also portions of the centre-left too. The Democratic Party establishment didn't want Bernie.
While few third-party candidates ever manage to make an impact, Ross Perot an exception, the billionaire Mike Bloomberg ran in the 2020 race as an Independent after failing to secure the Democratic candidacy. His impact was there during the race and on election day. Bloomberg would take votes away from both Sanders and Trump.

When election day came, despite bad polling, it was generally agreed that Trump would prevail for a third term. That belief was born out in the end.
Moderate Republicans and Independents either went for Trump or Bloomberg rather than Sanders. The latter kept his base, loyal Democrats, but failed to attract many others to his cause. Abrams did help run up the totals in certain states but not in the swing states. Trump, crude and divisive, stayed on-message throughout the contest. With a booming economy (for which he claimed full credit for), no foreign conflicts and a nation weary of a 'socialist' Sanders, victory was assured.

Against Clinton's 2016 outcome, Sanders returned Michigan to the Blue Wall but lost Minnesota. Trump improved upon his 2016 result by taking Nevada, New Hampshire & Wisconsin as well as Minnesota. Sanders came close down in Georgia plus in Pennsylvania but couldn't take them nor could he seize Arizona, Florida, North Carolina & Ohio where much effort was made within them.
The final results after Election Day were later skewered when the Electoral College met and there were faithless electors everywhere. However, the initial totals were 309-229 for Trump. 

  I can't really see Saunders being the Democrat candidate in 2020, especially without Covid to shake things up which would probably have boosted support for him given it showed clear shortcomings in both Trump and the current establishment and hence heightened the need for change.

  If he did somehow become the candidate then I would agree he would lose barring serious probably criminal activity by Trump being highlighted, which would probably force Trump's vote down to its core base of about 35-40%.  Suspect that given a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea so to speak most moderates would abstain rather than choice either candidate.

  Its going to be a bad 4 years for the US and probably the world especially if the Republicans retain control of the Senate and possibly make gains in the lower house on the coat-tails of an anti-Bernie propaganda rampage.  Hopefully whoever succeeds Trump would in 2024 would be more moderate  or - more likely unfortunately given the way the party has been going - equally extreme and would be defeated by a moderate democrat in 2024 and the country could start repairing some of the damage.  Assuming that enough voter repression and fraud doesn't enable the Republicans to cling onto power.

  I think you made a typo above.  Doubt even Trump would claim a 2020 win would be a 3rd term for him.

I actually will have Yang-Gabbard in my other no COVID timeline. I'd have them narrowly lose to Trump. 

Well, I may sound greedy but if I was an American, I would take my chances of four years of Trump compared to another damed pandemic. Yes, in the short-run it will be good but in the long run it will be bad as many said. But I'm more concerned of the present and having a stable economy and getting to eat out with friends is way much better.

[stevep]

Jul 31, 2021 12:05:59 GMT gillan1220 said:

Jul 31, 2021 10:50:40 GMT stevep said:

  I can't really see Saunders being the Democrat candidate in 2020, especially without Covid to shake things up which would probably have boosted support for him given it showed clear shortcomings in both Trump and the current establishment and hence heightened the need for change.

  If he did somehow become the candidate then I would agree he would lose barring serious probably criminal activity by Trump being highlighted, which would probably force Trump's vote down to its core base of about 35-40%.  Suspect that given a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea so to speak most moderates would abstain rather than choice either candidate.

  Its going to be a bad 4 years for the US and probably the world especially if the Republicans retain control of the Senate and possibly make gains in the lower house on the coat-tails of an anti-Bernie propaganda rampage.  Hopefully whoever succeeds Trump would in 2024 would be more moderate  or - more likely unfortunately given the way the party has been going - equally extreme and would be defeated by a moderate democrat in 2024 and the country could start repairing some of the damage.  Assuming that enough voter repression and fraud doesn't enable the Republicans to cling onto power.

  I think you made a typo above.  Doubt even Trump would claim a 2020 win would be a 3rd term for him.

I actually will have Yang-Gabbard in my other no COVID timeline. I'd have them narrowly lose to Trump. 

Well, I may sound greedy but if I was an American, I would take my chances of four years of Trump compared to another damed pandemic. Yes, in the short-run it will be good but in the long run it will be bad as many said. But I'm more concerned of the present and having a stable economy and getting to eat out with friends is way much better.

  I agree avoiding the pandemic - provided its not just delayed as might be the case - would save a lot of lives but a 2nd Trump term is going to seriously challenge the social and political welfare of the US and also put a lot of strain on both the western world system - since I doubt the EU is willing and able to assume leadership in the absence of the US - and not going to be good for the ecology of the world with his fervent support of vested business interests.

[american2006]

Jul 31, 2021 8:33:55 GMT James G said:

*A bat flapped its wings in China late in 2019*


The 2020 United States presidential election was one marred by controversy yet, fortunately, not the violence which some expected. There were allegations of vote suppression, foreign interference and a whole load of lies being told.
Incumbent president, Donald Trump, contested the election alongside Vice President Mike Pence for the Republican Party. Their campaign was cash-rich and went without too many hiccups. Trump fought the campaign which he was ready to fight: one against a socialist. The Democrats gave Trump a gift which he didn't reject.
That candidate for the Democratic Party was Bernie Sanders with his running mate being Stacey Abrams. It wasn't a socialist campaign that they ran on yet it was one successfully painted that way by both the Republicans and also portions of the centre-left too. The Democratic Party establishment didn't want Bernie.
While few third-party candidates ever manage to make an impact, Ross Perot an exception, the billionaire Mike Bloomberg ran in the 2020 race as an Independent after failing to secure the Democratic candidacy. His impact was there during the race and on election day. Bloomberg would take votes away from both Sanders and Trump.

When election day came, despite bad polling, it was generally agreed that Trump would prevail for a third term. That belief was born out in the end.
Moderate Republicans and Independents either went for Trump or Bloomberg rather than Sanders. The latter kept his base, loyal Democrats, but failed to attract many others to his cause. Abrams did help run up the totals in certain states but not in the swing states. Trump, crude and divisive, stayed on-message throughout the contest. With a booming economy (for which he claimed full credit for), no foreign conflicts and a nation weary of a 'socialist' Sanders, victory was assured.

Against Clinton's 2016 outcome, Sanders returned Michigan to the Blue Wall but lost Minnesota. Trump improved upon his 2016 result by taking Nevada, New Hampshire & Wisconsin as well as Minnesota. Sanders came close down in Georgia plus in Pennsylvania but couldn't take them nor could he seize Arizona, Florida, North Carolina & Ohio where much effort was made within them.
The final results after Election Day were later skewered when the Electoral College met and there were faithless electors everywhere. However, the initial totals were 309-229 for Trump. 

Did I miss something???

This does look really plausible, however I doubt that Michigan would flip. States tend to all move in one direction, with few exceptions. In 2020 IRL, only Biden flipped states. In 2016, only Trump flipped states. In 2012, only Romney flipped states. In 2008, only Obama flipped states. 2004 was an exception, but was also 16 years ago. Swing states and districts tend to all break one direction. 

I am interested to see how this develops, and who Trump picks for DHS in this case, as well as Defense (although I don't recall whether his previous Secretary left before or after the election).

229 seems generous for Sanders, I think he'd be a turnout for independents and moderate Democrats. 

The only state on here that I think would go to Sanders that you have going to Trump is New Hampshire, given it's proximity to Vermont and generally left-leaning views as it is. 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops. Feel free to private message me for help with this or to suggest something to me about Butterflying the Bat, given how similar they are.

[gillan1220]

Jul 31, 2021 23:30:59 GMT american2006 said:

Jul 31, 2021 8:33:55 GMT James G said:

*A bat flapped its wings in China late in 2019*


The 2020 United States presidential election was one marred by controversy yet, fortunately, not the violence which some expected. There were allegations of vote suppression, foreign interference and a whole load of lies being told.
Incumbent president, Donald Trump, contested the election alongside Vice President Mike Pence for the Republican Party. Their campaign was cash-rich and went without too many hiccups. Trump fought the campaign which he was ready to fight: one against a socialist. The Democrats gave Trump a gift which he didn't reject.
That candidate for the Democratic Party was Bernie Sanders with his running mate being Stacey Abrams. It wasn't a socialist campaign that they ran on yet it was one successfully painted that way by both the Republicans and also portions of the centre-left too. The Democratic Party establishment didn't want Bernie.
While few third-party candidates ever manage to make an impact, Ross Perot an exception, the billionaire Mike Bloomberg ran in the 2020 race as an Independent after failing to secure the Democratic candidacy. His impact was there during the race and on election day. Bloomberg would take votes away from both Sanders and Trump.

When election day came, despite bad polling, it was generally agreed that Trump would prevail for a third term. That belief was born out in the end.
Moderate Republicans and Independents either went for Trump or Bloomberg rather than Sanders. The latter kept his base, loyal Democrats, but failed to attract many others to his cause. Abrams did help run up the totals in certain states but not in the swing states. Trump, crude and divisive, stayed on-message throughout the contest. With a booming economy (for which he claimed full credit for), no foreign conflicts and a nation weary of a 'socialist' Sanders, victory was assured.

Against Clinton's 2016 outcome, Sanders returned Michigan to the Blue Wall but lost Minnesota. Trump improved upon his 2016 result by taking Nevada, New Hampshire & Wisconsin as well as Minnesota. Sanders came close down in Georgia plus in Pennsylvania but couldn't take them nor could he seize Arizona, Florida, North Carolina & Ohio where much effort was made within them.
The final results after Election Day were later skewered when the Electoral College met and there were faithless electors everywhere. However, the initial totals were 309-229 for Trump. 

Did I miss something???

This does look really plausible, however I doubt that Michigan would flip. States tend to all move in one direction, with few exceptions. In 2020 IRL, only Biden flipped states. In 2016, only Trump flipped states. In 2012, only Romney flipped states. In 2008, only Obama flipped states. 2004 was an exception, but was also 16 years ago. Swing states and districts tend to all break one direction. 

I am interested to see how this develops, and who Trump picks for DHS in this case, as well as Defense (although I don't recall whether his previous Secretary left before or after the election).

229 seems generous for Sanders, I think he'd be a turnout for independents and moderate Democrats. 

The only state on here that I think would go to Sanders that you have going to Trump is New Hampshire, given it's proximity to Vermont and generally left-leaning views as it is. 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops. Feel free to private message me for help with this or to suggest something to me about Butterflying the Bat, given how similar they are.

Generally without COVID, even Florida would not have been so close to flipping blue in 2020.

Perhaps all those cabinet secretaries would remain due to the butterflies. Chad Wolf would be the DHS Secretary while Mark Esper would remain as SecDef because without the George Floyd riots and protests, Esper would not need to be conflicted to do the Insurrection Act thereby in turn not making Trump lose faith with him.