Bernie/Pete vs Biden Electability

2,138 Views | 82 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Professor Bearitas
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I saw 5 articles in Google news today about Sanders being unelectable and anguish on the downward spiral of Joe Biden. I almost think they were plants. I really don't see that Joe presents much better than Sanders, and I was prepared to vote for Joe. Could either beat Trump? Perhaps. Anyone sitting at the top of the Democrat ticket could wind up winning the general election. After all, Clinton won more votes the last time, and she did not, by her own account, run an effective campaign. Trump may be on an up right now in polls, but knowing Trump, many possible events between now and November could end up gifting the Democrats the White House.

But then there is Joe. Never an effective campaigner for himself on the national stage. And he is showing his age more than Sanders or Warren. There is a revealing pattern that within 30 minutes into a debate, his speech patterns go down hill. He leaves thoughts unfinished, his sentences become a mess, he starts shouting. He's had some rambling and strange town-hall appearances. So much so that SNL took a shot last weekend about the doctor "giving him 6 to 7 months." He shows no patience, and not infrequently makes headlines for yelling at audience members, the latest one an insult of some purported incomprehensible reference to some John Wayne thing at a heckler. Finally, he is running on the fumes of Obama, but many young Democrats see those years as a time in which their party's power was wasted on half-measures, and they want meaningful change. They will not get that with Biden as the nominee, and if he should somehow win the nomination, I don't see them coming to the polls in mass, even in the face fo Trump.


Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent. He is winning significant support in the early states. If Warren drops out, he likely will find even greater support. The guy can run nationally. Yes, he is quirky, yells a lot and some of his ideas are dead on arrival or patently unconstitutional. But he is a sharp guy and an effective campaigner. There will be questions after the heart attack so his VP choice will matter. And Bernie is a compromiser in practice on the Senate floor, and will start selling that. But in a divided country, there is really no reason to believe he can't win, especially with a very motivated group of supporters. And he represents enough change to have Dems come out in force against Trump.

Mayor Pete seems to be the moderate opponent to Sanders. He has come out of nowhere to win Iowa (last I heard) and likely will do well in New Hampshire. He has issues with black voters and will need to name a back running mate. He has the resume to appeal to intellectual wing of the Dems and independent moderates- Harvard, Rhodes Scholar and former Naval intelligence officer. The mayor speaks English, Norwegian, Spanish, French, Italian, Maltese, Arabi and Dari. Will his own party get behind him? He can emphasize generational change. He can provide me-to empathy to minority voters with the impact of being gay. He can capitalize on being an outsider to Washington.

The electability arguments presented by Bernie and Pete would seem like better bets to me than Biden right now.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I like Pete but I like Amy better. Biden is a loser. Amy may end up a VP pick. I feel a sense of doom about 2020. If tRump wins I'm disengaging. Oh, and F Bernie. Might end up a Bloomberg/Amy ticket.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I felt Bernie could win a general in 2016 and nothing seems to have changed
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dammit, why is the best we can do... a) a really old guy, b) a really old admitted Socialist and c) a really young mayor of a mid-sized city. This is a pretty good argument to bring back the smoke-filled room.

I liked Elizabeth Warren, before she went from a reformer to a politician.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Bernie absolutely can beat Trump.

My concerns are:

1. His age.

If he can finish out his term can he run for a second one? Maybe that is getting ahead of ourselves, but it is something to consider strategically.

2. His ability to accomplish his goals.

While I think Bernie can win, I don't think he will be able to do much of what he promises - especially if the GOP keeps the Senate. I do not think he will be an effective President. Is that setting the Dems up for a GOP win in 2024 and 2028 after a failed "social experiment" sabotaged by Moscow Mitch from the start?

The Dems are faced with an interesting proposition where they might win the battle and yet lose the war.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


While I think Bernie can win, I don't think he will be able to do much of what he promises - especially if the GOP keeps the Senate. I do not think he will be an effective President. Is that setting the Dems up for a GOP win in 2024 and 2028 after a failed "social experiment" sabotaged by Moscow Mitch from the start?

I'm not a huge Bernie fan, but I will vote for him if he wins the nomination. That said, I don't expect any of the Democratic candidates to be effective in implementing their campaign promises if the Senate stays in GOP hands (heck, even if Dem's win the Senate, they would need 60 seats to actually do anything). However, I would expect an undoing of all the executive orders Trump implemented that no one likes, a better and more thought out foreign policy, and nothing much in terms of legislation or filling court vacancies, which is better than what I would expect if the GOP keeps the Senate.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Bernie downsides:
1) Hillary spilled the beans when she said, "nobody in Washington likes him."
2) 79 years old
3) recently had a heart attack
4) will not release his medical records
5) has never been a democrat
6) He, is, in fact, clearly a communist. Please google his entire life.
7) his wife was once under investigation for stealing one million dollars from a college fund
8) he owns three homes ---one a lake front--how does that square with him bemoaning the plight of the poor????
9) when he was younger, he wrote fantasies about rape. ( this will emerge in the general election)
10) other than the above, he is straight out of 1968 UC Berkeley casting.
11) young folks, ages 4-21 love him because they have been taught the "wonders" of socialism and how America is a terrible country since Nursery school.
12) Good luck to this country if Bernie wins...
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

I like Pete but I like Amy better. Biden is a loser. Amy may end up a VP pick. I feel a sense of doom about 2020. If tRump wins I'm disengaging. Oh, and F Bernie. Might end up a Bloomberg/Amy ticket.
Is it realistic that an old billionaire from New York (stop me if this sounds like the current President) can win that many delegates?

Another question: Any thought this will be a brokered election? Personally, I think Warren and Biden are toast, and there are too many legitimate moderate candidates to stop Sanders from winning the nomination. I welcome all opinions on why I'm wrong.

I voted for Pete on mail in ballot today btw.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

The Bernie downsides:
1) Hillary spilled the beans when she said, "nobody in Washington likes him."
2) 79 years old
3) recently had a heart attack
4) will not release his medical records
5) has never been a democrat
6) He, is, in fact, clearly a communist. Please google his entire life.
7) his wife was once under investigation for stealing one million dollars from a college fund
8) he owns three homes ---one a lake front--how does that square with him bemoaning the plight of the poor????
9) when he was younger, he wrote fantasies about rape. ( this will emerge in the general election)
10) other than the above, he is straight out of 1968 UC Berkeley casting.
11) young folks, ages 4-21 love him because they have been taught the "wonders" of socialism and how America is a terrible country since Nursery school.
12) Good luck to this country if Bernie wins...
#9 source?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Bernie absolutely can beat Trump.

My concerns are:

1. His age.

If he can finish out his term can he run for a second one? Maybe that is getting ahead of ourselves, but it is something to consider strategically.

2. His ability to accomplish his goals.

While I think Bernie can win, I don't think he will be able to do much of what he promises - especially if the GOP keeps the Senate. I do not think he will be an effective President. Is that setting the Dems up for a GOP win in 2024 and 2028 after a failed "social experiment" sabotaged by Moscow Mitch from the start?

The Dems are faced with an interesting proposition where they might win the battle and yet lose the war.

My thought on Bernie is that despite his age he is very popular with young voters. Electing him possibly gives that group a chance to remake the Democratic Party in their own image and build a strong base of support that doesn't depend on one guy. IMO that's what the party really needs, not short-term policy wins (the current GOP will block those no matter who wins the White House).

I wasn't sure at first, but the more this has gone on the more I am impressed with Sanders' political instincts. Of all the candidates no one seems to be able to lay a finger on him, despite what you'd think are some big liabilities.
Blue Moon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

The Bernie downsides:
1) Hillary spilled the beans when she said, "nobody in Washington likes him."
2) 79 years old
3) recently had a heart attack
4) will not release his medical records
5) has never been a democrat
6) He, is, in fact, clearly a communist. Please google his entire life.
7) his wife was once under investigation for stealing one million dollars from a college fund
8) he owns three homes ---one a lake front--how does that square with him bemoaning the plight of the poor????
9) when he was younger, he wrote fantasies about rape. ( this will emerge in the general election)
10) other than the above, he is straight out of 1968 UC Berkeley casting.
11) young folks, ages 4-21 love him because they have been taught the "wonders" of socialism and how America is a terrible country since Nursery school.
12) Good luck to this country if Bernie wins...
3 & 4)
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476266-sanderss-doctors-declare-him-healthy-after-october-heart-attack

6)
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/18511864/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism-cnn-town-hall

7) Will probably collapse if you are forced to cite evidence

9)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear Sycasey: What do you think the founding fathers ( All of them) if they knew that a obvious Communist ( please google everything he has said & done his entire life) were to capture the heart & soul of the demo party??He didn';t honeymoon in the Catskills---he honeymooned in the Soviet Union where he was filmed ( yes---filmed) singing communist songs while drunk???This is your standard bearer???Please revisit the third grade & read the Constitution. Also, read the history of communist countries since Adam & Eve. jesus!!!and, I don't mean that in the religious sense. The Market would probably drop 15,000 points on the first day. And, that's only the first day...
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Dear Sycasey: What do you think the founding fathers ( All of them) if they knew that a obvious Communist ( please google everything he has said & done his entire life) were to capture the heart & soul of the demo party??He didn';t honeymoon in the Catskills---he honeymooned in the Soviet Union where he was filmed ( yes---filmed) singing communist songs while drunk???This is your standard bearer???Please revisit the third grade & read the Constitution. Also, read the history of communist countries since Adam & Eve. jesus!!!and, I don't mean that in the religious sense. The Market would probably drop 15,000 points on the first day. And, that's only the first day...
I think if you asked the founding fathers this, they would say, "What's a Communist?"
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The electability argument has been turned inside out. Sanders leads a coalition that is broad based- young people, people of color, working people, independents, and urban dwellers- pretty much the emerging electorate

Pete is a two bit mayor of the fourth largest city of Indiana. So far he has won nothing and I doubt he could deliver Indiana in the general. His strengths so far are college educated older whites and in Iowa and NH rural and suburban areas.

The difference is also a movement for change vs a smiley face on the new status quo.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

"My fellow Americans, we face a national emergency. Never before have we had a president so utterly lacking in personal integrity, so able to lie and abuse his powers with such impunity and so blindly backed by an amoral party, an unscrupulous attorney general and a media-fund-raising juggernaut. It is an engine of raw power that will cram anything the president says or does right down your throat.

James Carville had it exactly right when he noted on "Morning Joe" the other day that the only thing standing in the way of lasting damage by this machine to all that makes America unique and great is the Democrats' nominating the right person to defeat Donald Trump.

We have to get this right. This is no ordinary time, no ordinary Republican Party, no ordinary incumbent, and it will require an extraordinary Democratic machine to triumph.

Because, without doubt, Russia and China also will be "voting" Trump 2020 for three reasons: (1) Trump keeps America in turmoil and unable to focus on building the infrastructure we need to dominate the 21st century the way we did the 20th. (2) Both Beijing and Moscow know that Trump is so disliked by America's key allies that he can never galvanize a global coalition against China or Russia. And (3) both Russia and China know that Trump is utterly transactional and will never challenge them on human rights abuses. Trump is their chump, and they will not let him go easily.

So who is the right Democratic candidate? " Thomas Friedman, NY Times

Opinion | Paging Michael Bloomberg - The New York Times


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/opinion/bloomberg-president-2020.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hopefully, one good thing about competitive primaries, is that this has the Dems can focus on getting their candidates' messages out, and what the party stands for other than not for Trump. For the last 6 months, they have been playing to Trump's play book, by forcing on Trump and letting him or his conduct dominate the news. As for the two bit mayor, he has more delegates than anyone else, and I think he will have legs. Iowa and New Hampshire are examples of states Trump can win. I still think Sanders has the inside track to the nomination, but there still is a long way to go.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Hopefully, one good thing about competitive primaries, is that this has the Dems can focus on getting their candidates' messages out, and what the party stands for other than not for Trump. For the last 6 months, they have been playing to Trump's play book, by forcing on Trump and letting him or his conduct dominate the news. As for the two bit mayor, he has more delegates than anyone else, and I think he will have legs. Iowa and New Hampshire are examples of states Trump can win. I still think Sanders has the inside track to the nomination, but there still is a long way to go.

IMO Sanders is actually doing the best job of describing what his own message is above and beyond being anti-Trump.

Pete needs to figure out how to get votes from non-white voters, because that will be important in the rest of the states. If he can't his slim delegate lead will evaporate quickly. Again, besides Biden only Sanders has shown any strength so far with this group. With Biden in freefall it will be interesting to see where the older Black and Latino voters turn.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The next two primaries are Nevada and South Carolina. Biden can win both and regain some momentum. Pete's not winning either.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:



Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent.

I ignored this when heart made this claim, but I'm really surprised at this coming from you, so I have to respond.

1. He did not come close to beating Clinton. She won the popular vote by 12%, 55.2%-43.1%. In real numbers that is a trouncing in any race. Now, what he DID do was significantly beat expectations (something I thought was going to happen when he announced - Bernie has spent a lot of time on liberal radio and television for years and was very popular among liberals. Add the "anybody but Clinton" vote and it should have been obvious he'd do well.) But that does not equate to "almost beat Clinton". She should have gotten like 65% of the vote, but he never came close to beating her. He was never in the race.

2. The Democratic establishment was certainly for Clinton. That doesn't mean the process was rigged. It plainly wasn't. 1. Again - look at the popular vote. 2. He received a higher percentage of pledged delegates than popular votes (She won 54%-46%). That is pretty awful rigging. Would they have used the superdelegates to rig the process if they had to? Very possible especially if either popular vote or pledged delegates was close enough to make a claim. They never had to. He wasn't close to beating her. He was never going to be close to beating her. He beat the spread. That is all. If UC Davis loses a football game to Alabama 56-40, it is still a loss. Game not rigged. They may get some attention for a good try, but it isn't a win or close to it.

As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.

Biden's candidacy has really hurt the Democrats. He sucked all the minority votes away from candidates like Harris and Booker and those campaigns are gone. He sucked the moderate votes away and most of the moderates are gone from the race. I think that Buttigieg was a flavor of the month at the right time but what you see in New Hampshire is that many that were defaulting to Biden saw that his campaign was sinking like a stone, but were uncomfortable with Buttigieg. Klobuchar had a great debate performance at the right time - just in time to be seen as a possible option. I think the moderates are going to full out abandon Biden now. I wonder if some of Buttigieg's vote was as the only moderate alternative to Biden and if some of those people may have voted for Klobuchar if they thought she had a chance (and if Klobuchar can change that narrative).

Next question is where minorities will go with Biden crippled. Bernie has a good chance at getting a lot of that vote. The culinary union in Nevada coming out last night and making it clear they are going full out against Bernie, and timing it the way they did makes things interesting in Nevada.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I haven't done due diligence on Klobuchar to know whether to giver her my support. However, as a candidate she has had to earn every vote she has gotten through hard work and basically winning almost every debate. That is impressive. I suspect that she would actually run the best general campaign and be the most electable when you consider all factors including skill at campaigning and debating. Whether I ultimately support her or not, I'd very much like to see her become a viable candidate for the nomination.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Klobuchar's shot was Iowa an adjoining state where she finished third. Her third place finish in NH seems more like trickle down. I doubt third place finishes are enough to get her the money to be competitive
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary but had two moderates Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, who vaulted to #3 close on his heels.

Joe Biden, after looking like the front-runner through 2019, finished a distant fifth after Elizabeth Warren, who also had been strong out of the gate.
Why it matters: Klobuchar's surprising showing, along with the close margin between Sanders and Buttigieg, shows there's a sizable moderate bloc for Sanders to overcome, Axios' Margaret Talev and Alexi McCammond write from Manchester.

But moderates are split, while the progressive wing of the party is starting to consolidate behind Sanders and seems to be walking away from Warren.
And the big wakeup: Biden the candidate President Trump had feared most, in an obsession that helped lead to impeachment utterly collapsed.
The big picture: The fact that Sanders and Buttigieg finished in the top two in both New Hampshire and Iowa coupled with Mike Bloomberg's rise in national polls suggests that people are still hungry for an outsider, like they were in 2016.

Between the lines: The three moderate candidates combined Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden got more than half the New Hampshire vote, while the two progressives Sanders and Warren got far less, Cook Political Report's Dave Wasserman pointed out.

However, exit polls suggested that 40% of Hispanics voted for Sanders, according to ABC News suggesting potential strength among minority voters, whose support any Democratic nominee will need.
A sign of the tension between the two wings: Sanders' supporters at his Manchester headquarters booed Buttigieg during his victory speech chanting "Bernie beats Trump!" and "Wall Street Pete." Axios

Bernie Sanders' uneasy New Hampshire win - Axios


https://www.axios.com/new-hampshire-primary-results-bernie-sanders-4695dd3d-fb7d-4658-93e6-7c0fd13afdef.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am in the camp that says Sanders is not electable.

I think Biden is Trump's most stringest test, mostly because he probably flips PA which makes the EC map extremely tough for Trump. That said, I also think Biden is an atrocious candidate.

Buttigieg...I don't believe the country is ready for a gay president. I think plenty of people will say publicly that they don't care but will vote the opposite in the privacy of the booth.

Klobuchar..I haven't been following closely enough to say one way or the other.

Bloomberg..I'm not sure you can win a nomination while ignoring retail politics. Ads only get you so far.

Having said all that I don't think Trump is any type of guarantee to win. 35%-40% of the electorate HATES him. That is hard to overcome.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent.

I ignored this when heart made this claim, but I'm really surprised at this coming from you, so I have to respond.

1. He did not come close to beating Clinton. She won the popular vote by 12%, 55.2%-43.1%. In real numbers that is a trouncing in any race. Now, what he DID do was significantly beat expectations (something I thought was going to happen when he announced - Bernie has spent a lot of time on liberal radio and television for years and was very popular among liberals. Add the "anybody but Clinton" vote and it should have been obvious he'd do well.) But that does not equate to "almost beat Clinton". She should have gotten like 65% of the vote, but he never came close to beating her. He was never in the race.

2. The Democratic establishment was certainly for Clinton. That doesn't mean the process was rigged. It plainly wasn't. 1. Again - look at the popular vote. 2. He received a higher percentage of pledged delegates than popular votes (She won 54%-46%). That is pretty awful rigging. Would they have used the superdelegates to rig the process if they had to? Very possible especially if either popular vote or pledged delegates was close enough to make a claim. They never had to. He wasn't close to beating her. He was never going to be close to beating her. He beat the spread. That is all. If UC Davis loses a football game to Alabama 56-40, it is still a loss. Game not rigged. They may get some attention for a good try, but it isn't a win or close to it.

As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.

Biden's candidacy has really hurt the Democrats. He sucked all the minority votes away from candidates like Harris and Booker and those campaigns are gone. He sucked the moderate votes away and most of the moderates are gone from the race. I think that Buttigieg was a flavor of the month at the right time but what you see in New Hampshire is that many that were defaulting to Biden saw that his campaign was sinking like a stone, but were uncomfortable with Buttigieg. Klobuchar had a great debate performance at the right time - just in time to be seen as a possible option. I think the moderates are going to full out abandon Biden now. I wonder if some of Buttigieg's vote was as the only moderate alternative to Biden and if some of those people may have voted for Klobuchar if they thought she had a chance (and if Klobuchar can change that narrative).

Next question is where minorities will go with Biden crippled. Bernie has a good chance at getting a lot of that vote. The culinary union in Nevada coming out last night and making it clear they are going full out against Bernie, and timing it the way they did makes things interesting in Nevada.
From Donna Brazile's book:

"When I got back from a vacation in Martha's Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreementsigned by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Eliasspecified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings."

==========

And don't forget the leaked 20K emails which proved the DNC violated its charter by working to discredit Sanders and favoring Clinton.

Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

I am in the camp that says Sanders is not electable.

I think Biden is Trump's most stringest test, mostly because he probably flips PA which makes the EC map extremely tough for Trump. That said, I also think Biden is an atrocious candidate.

Buttigieg...I don't believe the country is ready for a gay president. I think plenty of people will say publicly that they don't care but will vote the opposite in the privacy of the booth.

Klobuchar..I haven't been following closely enough to say one way or the other.

Bloomberg..I'm not sure you can win a nomination while ignoring retail politics. Ads only get you so far.

Having said all that I don't think Trump is any type of guarantee to win. 35%-40% of the electorate HATES him. That is hard to overcome.

Amazing how Elizabeth Warren has just DROPPED OUT of the conversation. Not sure what happened there, but she somehow went from a reformer to a politician, styling herself as the less-old alternative to Bernie and then started hedging on her positions, to boot. ("I have a plan for that! And it's better than the one I had yesterday!")

I have no idea who will ultimately be electable, but I know if the Dems nominate Bernie Sanders and he ends up losing to Trump, it will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes of all time.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent.

I ignored this when heart made this claim, but I'm really surprised at this coming from you, so I have to respond.

1. He did not come close to beating Clinton. She won the popular vote by 12%, 55.2%-43.1%. In real numbers that is a trouncing in any race. Now, what he DID do was significantly beat expectations (something I thought was going to happen when he announced - Bernie has spent a lot of time on liberal radio and television for years and was very popular among liberals. Add the "anybody but Clinton" vote and it should have been obvious he'd do well.) But that does not equate to "almost beat Clinton". She should have gotten like 65% of the vote, but he never came close to beating her. He was never in the race.

2. The Democratic establishment was certainly for Clinton. That doesn't mean the process was rigged. It plainly wasn't. 1. Again - look at the popular vote. 2. He received a higher percentage of pledged delegates than popular votes (She won 54%-46%). That is pretty awful rigging. Would they have used the superdelegates to rig the process if they had to? Very possible especially if either popular vote or pledged delegates was close enough to make a claim. They never had to. He wasn't close to beating her. He was never going to be close to beating her. He beat the spread. That is all. If UC Davis loses a football game to Alabama 56-40, it is still a loss. Game not rigged. They may get some attention for a good try, but it isn't a win or close to it.

As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.

Biden's candidacy has really hurt the Democrats. He sucked all the minority votes away from candidates like Harris and Booker and those campaigns are gone. He sucked the moderate votes away and most of the moderates are gone from the race. I think that Buttigieg was a flavor of the month at the right time but what you see in New Hampshire is that many that were defaulting to Biden saw that his campaign was sinking like a stone, but were uncomfortable with Buttigieg. Klobuchar had a great debate performance at the right time - just in time to be seen as a possible option. I think the moderates are going to full out abandon Biden now. I wonder if some of Buttigieg's vote was as the only moderate alternative to Biden and if some of those people may have voted for Klobuchar if they thought she had a chance (and if Klobuchar can change that narrative).

Next question is where minorities will go with Biden crippled. Bernie has a good chance at getting a lot of that vote. The culinary union in Nevada coming out last night and making it clear they are going full out against Bernie, and timing it the way they did makes things interesting in Nevada.
Nice try, but not exactly. Without the superdelegates picked by the party, Clinton did not receive enough delegates to win the nomination.

About 85 percent of the convention's delegates were chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent were superdelegates pickled by the party, almost all of whom prior to even the primaries had come out for Clinton. So Sanders had to win a huge pledged elected delegate margin of victory of 59 percent plus to take the nomination outright. Clinton had no where near the majority without a decent share of super delegates to push her over the finish line. Outsider Sanders, who wasn't even a Democratic, never had a chance - Clinton got almost every super delegate. So basically, unless an opposing candidate got a super-majority approaching 60% of the vote, they lose to Clinton. The nomination was rigged in that regard, and Bernie supporters resented that. They argue quite rightly that if the super delegates had waited and saw the momentum for Bernie that might have had more of a chance since his views sat better with the Democratic party's values. Moreover, it would have seemed less less inevitable that Clinton was winning since the superdelegate count was included in the TV network coverage, and late states would have been in play, instead of everybody voting for Clinton since she had clinched the nomination. In other words, because of ths super delegate counting, Clinton's percentage of voters was artificially high.

Things change a lot in politics quickly. Joe seems like he is dead in the water, but you never know. As where his votes would go to, my guess is some split between Klobacher and Mayor B, and I think you are right about that Klobacker has to have a better narrative than I was a third place finisher so I can win. Bloomberg might take Biden votes as well. The other question is how long does Warren stay in the race since I assume most of her supporters will veer towards Sanders. Finally, as you suggest, the test for Mayor B is can he widen his support beyond white and suburban voters.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent.

I ignored this when heart made this claim, but I'm really surprised at this coming from you, so I have to respond.

1. He did not come close to beating Clinton. She won the popular vote by 12%, 55.2%-43.1%. In real numbers that is a trouncing in any race. Now, what he DID do was significantly beat expectations (something I thought was going to happen when he announced - Bernie has spent a lot of time on liberal radio and television for years and was very popular among liberals. Add the "anybody but Clinton" vote and it should have been obvious he'd do well.) But that does not equate to "almost beat Clinton". She should have gotten like 65% of the vote, but he never came close to beating her. He was never in the race.

2. The Democratic establishment was certainly for Clinton. That doesn't mean the process was rigged. It plainly wasn't. 1. Again - look at the popular vote. 2. He received a higher percentage of pledged delegates than popular votes (She won 54%-46%). That is pretty awful rigging. Would they have used the superdelegates to rig the process if they had to? Very possible especially if either popular vote or pledged delegates was close enough to make a claim. They never had to. He wasn't close to beating her. He was never going to be close to beating her. He beat the spread. That is all. If UC Davis loses a football game to Alabama 56-40, it is still a loss. Game not rigged. They may get some attention for a good try, but it isn't a win or close to it.

As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.

Biden's candidacy has really hurt the Democrats. He sucked all the minority votes away from candidates like Harris and Booker and those campaigns are gone. He sucked the moderate votes away and most of the moderates are gone from the race. I think that Buttigieg was a flavor of the month at the right time but what you see in New Hampshire is that many that were defaulting to Biden saw that his campaign was sinking like a stone, but were uncomfortable with Buttigieg. Klobuchar had a great debate performance at the right time - just in time to be seen as a possible option. I think the moderates are going to full out abandon Biden now. I wonder if some of Buttigieg's vote was as the only moderate alternative to Biden and if some of those people may have voted for Klobuchar if they thought she had a chance (and if Klobuchar can change that narrative).

Next question is where minorities will go with Biden crippled. Bernie has a good chance at getting a lot of that vote. The culinary union in Nevada coming out last night and making it clear they are going full out against Bernie, and timing it the way they did makes things interesting in Nevada.
Nice try, but not exactly. Without the superdelegates picked by the party, Clinton did not receive enough delegates to win the nomination.

About 85 percent of the convention's delegates were chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent were superdelegates pickled by the party, almost all of whom prior to even the primaries had come out for Clinton. So Sanders had to win a huge pledged elected delegate margin of victory of 59 percent plus to take the nomination outright. Clinton had no where near the majority without a decent share of super delegates to push her over the finish line. Outsider Sanders, who wasn't even a Democratic, never had a chance - Clinton got almost every super delegate. So basically, unless an opposing candidate got a super-majority approaching 60% of the vote, they lose to Clinton. The nomination was rigged in that regard, and Bernie supporters resented that. They argue quite rightly that if the super delegates had waited and saw the momentum for Bernie that might have had more of a chance since his views sat better with the Democratic party's values. Moreover, it would have seemed less less inevitable that Clinton was winning since the superdelegate count was included in the TV network coverage, and late states would have been in play, instead of everybody voting for Clinton since she had clinched the nomination. In other words, because of ths super delegate counting, Clinton's percentage of voters was artificially high.

Things change a lot in politics quickly. Joe seems like he is dead in the water, but you never know. As where his votes would go to, my guess is some split between Klobacher and Mayor B, and I think you are right about that Klobacker has to have a better narrative than I was a third place finisher so I can win. Bloomberg might take Biden votes as well. The other question is how long does Warren stay in the race since I assume most of her supporters will veer towards Sanders. Finally, as you suggest, the test for Mayor B is can he widen his support beyond white and suburban voters.
Nice try back at you. I'm guessing you weren't around the Democratic primary in 2008

In 2016, she got a clear majority of the pledged delegates. She almost had a majority of the overall delegates. The only reason she did not is because superdelegates exist. If there were zero superdelegates she easily had a majority of the delegates. Bernie did not. Yes, she had a lot of pledged superdelegates up front. A superdelegate pledge and a$5 might get you coffee at Starbucks. Had Bernie beaten her in popular vote and pledged delegates, it is extremely unlikely those pledges would have held. Why do I think this?

Because a similar thing happened in 2008. She had a big superdelegate lead over Obama to start. And there was a bigger percentage of superdelegates back then. There was a running debate the whole primary season about the threat that the superdelegates would flip the nomination from Obama to Clinton because she spent most of the time ahead in delegate count when superdelegates were factored in. As an Obama supporter I didn't cry over it. I just had faith that they wouldn't have the guts to overturn the voted on delegate count if he beat her. He beat her. They flipped to him. That is how the process works. Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat. They didn't. Are you saying that there were people who didn't vote for Bernie because they were afraid of the superdelegates? If so, I guess Bernie voters aren't as hearty a lot as Obama voters.

She got almost all the superdelegates at the convention because the superdelegates did what they did for Obama and what they always do - vote for the nominee. If Bernie had won a majority of the pledged delegates and the superdelegates flipped it, I'd be right there with the Bernie supporters screaming my head off. I doubt they would have. We won't know because it didn't come up. She clearly beat him in both popular vote and pledged delegate count. He had zero claim to the nomination. He had zero claim to it being rigged. The most he could say is gee if I had won they may have rigged it. You gotta win to make the claim.

I don't like the superdelegates, but again, she skunked him. She skunked him by less than expected, but she skunked him.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent.

I ignored this when heart made this claim, but I'm really surprised at this coming from you, so I have to respond.

1. He did not come close to beating Clinton. She won the popular vote by 12%, 55.2%-43.1%. In real numbers that is a trouncing in any race. Now, what he DID do was significantly beat expectations (something I thought was going to happen when he announced - Bernie has spent a lot of time on liberal radio and television for years and was very popular among liberals. Add the "anybody but Clinton" vote and it should have been obvious he'd do well.) But that does not equate to "almost beat Clinton". She should have gotten like 65% of the vote, but he never came close to beating her. He was never in the race.

2. The Democratic establishment was certainly for Clinton. That doesn't mean the process was rigged. It plainly wasn't. 1. Again - look at the popular vote. 2. He received a higher percentage of pledged delegates than popular votes (She won 54%-46%). That is pretty awful rigging. Would they have used the superdelegates to rig the process if they had to? Very possible especially if either popular vote or pledged delegates was close enough to make a claim. They never had to. He wasn't close to beating her. He was never going to be close to beating her. He beat the spread. That is all. If UC Davis loses a football game to Alabama 56-40, it is still a loss. Game not rigged. They may get some attention for a good try, but it isn't a win or close to it.

As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.

Biden's candidacy has really hurt the Democrats. He sucked all the minority votes away from candidates like Harris and Booker and those campaigns are gone. He sucked the moderate votes away and most of the moderates are gone from the race. I think that Buttigieg was a flavor of the month at the right time but what you see in New Hampshire is that many that were defaulting to Biden saw that his campaign was sinking like a stone, but were uncomfortable with Buttigieg. Klobuchar had a great debate performance at the right time - just in time to be seen as a possible option. I think the moderates are going to full out abandon Biden now. I wonder if some of Buttigieg's vote was as the only moderate alternative to Biden and if some of those people may have voted for Klobuchar if they thought she had a chance (and if Klobuchar can change that narrative).

Next question is where minorities will go with Biden crippled. Bernie has a good chance at getting a lot of that vote. The culinary union in Nevada coming out last night and making it clear they are going full out against Bernie, and timing it the way they did makes things interesting in Nevada.
Nice try, but not exactly. Without the superdelegates picked by the party, Clinton did not receive enough delegates to win the nomination.

About 85 percent of the convention's delegates were chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent were superdelegates pickled by the party, almost all of whom prior to even the primaries had come out for Clinton. So Sanders had to win a huge pledged elected delegate margin of victory of 59 percent plus to take the nomination outright. Clinton had no where near the majority without a decent share of super delegates to push her over the finish line. Outsider Sanders, who wasn't even a Democratic, never had a chance - Clinton got almost every super delegate. So basically, unless an opposing candidate got a super-majority approaching 60% of the vote, they lose to Clinton. The nomination was rigged in that regard, and Bernie supporters resented that. They argue quite rightly that if the super delegates had waited and saw the momentum for Bernie that might have had more of a chance since his views sat better with the Democratic party's values. Moreover, it would have seemed less less inevitable that Clinton was winning since the superdelegate count was included in the TV network coverage, and late states would have been in play, instead of everybody voting for Clinton since she had clinched the nomination. In other words, because of ths super delegate counting, Clinton's percentage of voters was artificially high.

Things change a lot in politics quickly. Joe seems like he is dead in the water, but you never know. As where his votes would go to, my guess is some split between Klobacher and Mayor B, and I think you are right about that Klobacker has to have a better narrative than I was a third place finisher so I can win. Bloomberg might take Biden votes as well. The other question is how long does Warren stay in the race since I assume most of her supporters will veer towards Sanders. Finally, as you suggest, the test for Mayor B is can he widen his support beyond white and suburban voters.
Nice try back at you. I'm guessing you weren't around the Democratic primary in 2008

In 2016, she got a clear majority of the pledged delegates. She almost had a majority of the overall delegates. The only reason she did not is because superdelegates exist. If there were zero superdelegates she easily had a majority of the delegates. Bernie did not. Yes, she had a lot of pledged superdelegates up front. A superdelegate pledge and a$5 might get you coffee at Starbucks. Had Bernie beaten her in popular vote and pledged delegates, it is extremely unlikely those pledges would have held. Why do I think this?

Because a similar thing happened in 2008. She had a big superdelegate lead over Obama to start. And there was a bigger percentage of superdelegates back then. There was a running debate the whole primary season about the threat that the superdelegates would flip the nomination from Obama to Clinton because she spent most of the time ahead in delegate count when superdelegates were factored in. As an Obama supporter I didn't cry over it. I just had faith that they wouldn't have the guts to overturn the voted on delegate count if he beat her. He beat her. They flipped to him. That is how the process works. Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat. They didn't. Are you saying that there were people who didn't vote for Bernie because they were afraid of the superdelegates? If so, I guess Bernie voters aren't as hearty a lot as Obama voters.

She got almost all the superdelegates at the convention because the superdelegates did what they did for Obama and what they always do - vote for the nominee. If Bernie had won a majority of the pledged delegates and the superdelegates flipped it, I'd be right there with the Bernie supporters screaming my head off. I doubt they would have. We won't know because it didn't come up. She clearly beat him in both popular vote and pledged delegate count. He had zero claim to the nomination. He had zero claim to it being rigged. The most he could say is gee if I had won they may have rigged it. You gotta win to make the claim.

I don't like the superdelegates, but again, she skunked him. She skunked him by less than expected, but she skunked him.
Ball back on your aide of the court. One critical aspect missing from the analogy, Clinton didn't have the nominate shown as clinched so it looked like there was no reason to vote for Obama. That is a huge difference in explaining the vote differential.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

I am in the camp that says Sanders is not electable.

I think Biden is Trump's most stringest test, mostly because he probably flips PA which makes the EC map extremely tough for Trump. That said, I also think Biden is an atrocious candidate.

Buttigieg...I don't believe the country is ready for a gay president. I think plenty of people will say publicly that they don't care but will vote the opposite in the privacy of the booth.

Klobuchar..I haven't been following closely enough to say one way or the other.

Bloomberg..I'm not sure you can win a nomination while ignoring retail politics. Ads only get you so far.

Having said all that I don't think Trump is any type of guarantee to win. 35%-40% of the electorate HATES him. That is hard to overcome.
I'm only asking this question because of your statement about Klobuchar - Have you been following the campaign.

There is a big difference between having the best profile on paper and being the most stringent test. You acknowledge he has been an atrocious candidate. I'd say it is beyond that. No ground game. Terrible mistakes. No energy. Concedes New Hampshire at the debate. Announces he is leaving New Hampshire the morning of election day. What the hell?

A guy with Biden's profile would be a tough test for Trump. Biden would get crushed unless he demonstrates something that he has not remotely shown. Half of the Democrats have been begging Biden to give them a reason to vote for him and he still can't do it.

IMO, Biden is done. He has to get out and clear the field.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent.

I ignored this when heart made this claim, but I'm really surprised at this coming from you, so I have to respond.

1. He did not come close to beating Clinton. She won the popular vote by 12%, 55.2%-43.1%. In real numbers that is a trouncing in any race. Now, what he DID do was significantly beat expectations (something I thought was going to happen when he announced - Bernie has spent a lot of time on liberal radio and television for years and was very popular among liberals. Add the "anybody but Clinton" vote and it should have been obvious he'd do well.) But that does not equate to "almost beat Clinton". She should have gotten like 65% of the vote, but he never came close to beating her. He was never in the race.

2. The Democratic establishment was certainly for Clinton. That doesn't mean the process was rigged. It plainly wasn't. 1. Again - look at the popular vote. 2. He received a higher percentage of pledged delegates than popular votes (She won 54%-46%). That is pretty awful rigging. Would they have used the superdelegates to rig the process if they had to? Very possible especially if either popular vote or pledged delegates was close enough to make a claim. They never had to. He wasn't close to beating her. He was never going to be close to beating her. He beat the spread. That is all. If UC Davis loses a football game to Alabama 56-40, it is still a loss. Game not rigged. They may get some attention for a good try, but it isn't a win or close to it.

As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.

Biden's candidacy has really hurt the Democrats. He sucked all the minority votes away from candidates like Harris and Booker and those campaigns are gone. He sucked the moderate votes away and most of the moderates are gone from the race. I think that Buttigieg was a flavor of the month at the right time but what you see in New Hampshire is that many that were defaulting to Biden saw that his campaign was sinking like a stone, but were uncomfortable with Buttigieg. Klobuchar had a great debate performance at the right time - just in time to be seen as a possible option. I think the moderates are going to full out abandon Biden now. I wonder if some of Buttigieg's vote was as the only moderate alternative to Biden and if some of those people may have voted for Klobuchar if they thought she had a chance (and if Klobuchar can change that narrative).

Next question is where minorities will go with Biden crippled. Bernie has a good chance at getting a lot of that vote. The culinary union in Nevada coming out last night and making it clear they are going full out against Bernie, and timing it the way they did makes things interesting in Nevada.
Nice try, but not exactly. Without the superdelegates picked by the party, Clinton did not receive enough delegates to win the nomination.

About 85 percent of the convention's delegates were chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent were superdelegates pickled by the party, almost all of whom prior to even the primaries had come out for Clinton. So Sanders had to win a huge pledged elected delegate margin of victory of 59 percent plus to take the nomination outright. Clinton had no where near the majority without a decent share of super delegates to push her over the finish line. Outsider Sanders, who wasn't even a Democratic, never had a chance - Clinton got almost every super delegate. So basically, unless an opposing candidate got a super-majority approaching 60% of the vote, they lose to Clinton. The nomination was rigged in that regard, and Bernie supporters resented that. They argue quite rightly that if the super delegates had waited and saw the momentum for Bernie that might have had more of a chance since his views sat better with the Democratic party's values. Moreover, it would have seemed less less inevitable that Clinton was winning since the superdelegate count was included in the TV network coverage, and late states would have been in play, instead of everybody voting for Clinton since she had clinched the nomination. In other words, because of ths super delegate counting, Clinton's percentage of voters was artificially high.

Things change a lot in politics quickly. Joe seems like he is dead in the water, but you never know. As where his votes would go to, my guess is some split between Klobacher and Mayor B, and I think you are right about that Klobacker has to have a better narrative than I was a third place finisher so I can win. Bloomberg might take Biden votes as well. The other question is how long does Warren stay in the race since I assume most of her supporters will veer towards Sanders. Finally, as you suggest, the test for Mayor B is can he widen his support beyond white and suburban voters.
Nice try back at you. I'm guessing you weren't around the Democratic primary in 2008

In 2016, she got a clear majority of the pledged delegates. She almost had a majority of the overall delegates. The only reason she did not is because superdelegates exist. If there were zero superdelegates she easily had a majority of the delegates. Bernie did not. Yes, she had a lot of pledged superdelegates up front. A superdelegate pledge and a$5 might get you coffee at Starbucks. Had Bernie beaten her in popular vote and pledged delegates, it is extremely unlikely those pledges would have held. Why do I think this?

Because a similar thing happened in 2008. She had a big superdelegate lead over Obama to start. And there was a bigger percentage of superdelegates back then. There was a running debate the whole primary season about the threat that the superdelegates would flip the nomination from Obama to Clinton because she spent most of the time ahead in delegate count when superdelegates were factored in. As an Obama supporter I didn't cry over it. I just had faith that they wouldn't have the guts to overturn the voted on delegate count if he beat her. He beat her. They flipped to him. That is how the process works. Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat. They didn't. Are you saying that there were people who didn't vote for Bernie because they were afraid of the superdelegates? If so, I guess Bernie voters aren't as hearty a lot as Obama voters.

She got almost all the superdelegates at the convention because the superdelegates did what they did for Obama and what they always do - vote for the nominee. If Bernie had won a majority of the pledged delegates and the superdelegates flipped it, I'd be right there with the Bernie supporters screaming my head off. I doubt they would have. We won't know because it didn't come up. She clearly beat him in both popular vote and pledged delegate count. He had zero claim to the nomination. He had zero claim to it being rigged. The most he could say is gee if I had won they may have rigged it. You gotta win to make the claim.

I don't like the superdelegates, but again, she skunked him. She skunked him by less than expected, but she skunked him.
Ball back on your aide of the court. One critical aspect missing from the analogy, Clinton didn't have the nominate shown as clinched so it looked like there was no reason to vote for Obama. That is a huge difference in explaining the vote differential.
What? Hillary Clinton didn't "clinch" the necessary number of delegates until June 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

OaktownBear is right. Sanders did much better than expected, but he did not have a majority of votes, pledged delegates, or anything else. If he had won more pledged delegates the superdelegates would not have mattered. I think you really don't remember how the 2008 Democratic Primary went. It was almost exactly the same, only Obama won more pledged delegates so the superdelegates flipped from Hillary to him.

There are some other things you can argue the DNC did to put their thumb on the scale, like schedule the debates on Friday nights when people are less likely to be watching, but that's marginal stuff that would not have significantly changed the result.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



Bernie Sanders almost beat Clinton (if not for a rigged nomination process) while being horribly outspent.

I ignored this when heart made this claim, but I'm really surprised at this coming from you, so I have to respond.

1. He did not come close to beating Clinton. She won the popular vote by 12%, 55.2%-43.1%. In real numbers that is a trouncing in any race. Now, what he DID do was significantly beat expectations (something I thought was going to happen when he announced - Bernie has spent a lot of time on liberal radio and television for years and was very popular among liberals. Add the "anybody but Clinton" vote and it should have been obvious he'd do well.) But that does not equate to "almost beat Clinton". She should have gotten like 65% of the vote, but he never came close to beating her. He was never in the race.

2. The Democratic establishment was certainly for Clinton. That doesn't mean the process was rigged. It plainly wasn't. 1. Again - look at the popular vote. 2. He received a higher percentage of pledged delegates than popular votes (She won 54%-46%). That is pretty awful rigging. Would they have used the superdelegates to rig the process if they had to? Very possible especially if either popular vote or pledged delegates was close enough to make a claim. They never had to. He wasn't close to beating her. He was never going to be close to beating her. He beat the spread. That is all. If UC Davis loses a football game to Alabama 56-40, it is still a loss. Game not rigged. They may get some attention for a good try, but it isn't a win or close to it.

As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.

Biden's candidacy has really hurt the Democrats. He sucked all the minority votes away from candidates like Harris and Booker and those campaigns are gone. He sucked the moderate votes away and most of the moderates are gone from the race. I think that Buttigieg was a flavor of the month at the right time but what you see in New Hampshire is that many that were defaulting to Biden saw that his campaign was sinking like a stone, but were uncomfortable with Buttigieg. Klobuchar had a great debate performance at the right time - just in time to be seen as a possible option. I think the moderates are going to full out abandon Biden now. I wonder if some of Buttigieg's vote was as the only moderate alternative to Biden and if some of those people may have voted for Klobuchar if they thought she had a chance (and if Klobuchar can change that narrative).

Next question is where minorities will go with Biden crippled. Bernie has a good chance at getting a lot of that vote. The culinary union in Nevada coming out last night and making it clear they are going full out against Bernie, and timing it the way they did makes things interesting in Nevada.
Nice try, but not exactly. Without the superdelegates picked by the party, Clinton did not receive enough delegates to win the nomination.

About 85 percent of the convention's delegates were chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent were superdelegates pickled by the party, almost all of whom prior to even the primaries had come out for Clinton. So Sanders had to win a huge pledged elected delegate margin of victory of 59 percent plus to take the nomination outright. Clinton had no where near the majority without a decent share of super delegates to push her over the finish line. Outsider Sanders, who wasn't even a Democratic, never had a chance - Clinton got almost every super delegate. So basically, unless an opposing candidate got a super-majority approaching 60% of the vote, they lose to Clinton. The nomination was rigged in that regard, and Bernie supporters resented that. They argue quite rightly that if the super delegates had waited and saw the momentum for Bernie that might have had more of a chance since his views sat better with the Democratic party's values. Moreover, it would have seemed less less inevitable that Clinton was winning since the superdelegate count was included in the TV network coverage, and late states would have been in play, instead of everybody voting for Clinton since she had clinched the nomination. In other words, because of ths super delegate counting, Clinton's percentage of voters was artificially high.

Things change a lot in politics quickly. Joe seems like he is dead in the water, but you never know. As where his votes would go to, my guess is some split between Klobacher and Mayor B, and I think you are right about that Klobacker has to have a better narrative than I was a third place finisher so I can win. Bloomberg might take Biden votes as well. The other question is how long does Warren stay in the race since I assume most of her supporters will veer towards Sanders. Finally, as you suggest, the test for Mayor B is can he widen his support beyond white and suburban voters.
Nice try back at you. I'm guessing you weren't around the Democratic primary in 2008

In 2016, she got a clear majority of the pledged delegates. She almost had a majority of the overall delegates. The only reason she did not is because superdelegates exist. If there were zero superdelegates she easily had a majority of the delegates. Bernie did not. Yes, she had a lot of pledged superdelegates up front. A superdelegate pledge and a$5 might get you coffee at Starbucks. Had Bernie beaten her in popular vote and pledged delegates, it is extremely unlikely those pledges would have held. Why do I think this?

Because a similar thing happened in 2008. She had a big superdelegate lead over Obama to start. And there was a bigger percentage of superdelegates back then. There was a running debate the whole primary season about the threat that the superdelegates would flip the nomination from Obama to Clinton because she spent most of the time ahead in delegate count when superdelegates were factored in. As an Obama supporter I didn't cry over it. I just had faith that they wouldn't have the guts to overturn the voted on delegate count if he beat her. He beat her. They flipped to him. That is how the process works. Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat. They didn't. Are you saying that there were people who didn't vote for Bernie because they were afraid of the superdelegates? If so, I guess Bernie voters aren't as hearty a lot as Obama voters.

She got almost all the superdelegates at the convention because the superdelegates did what they did for Obama and what they always do - vote for the nominee. If Bernie had won a majority of the pledged delegates and the superdelegates flipped it, I'd be right there with the Bernie supporters screaming my head off. I doubt they would have. We won't know because it didn't come up. She clearly beat him in both popular vote and pledged delegate count. He had zero claim to the nomination. He had zero claim to it being rigged. The most he could say is gee if I had won they may have rigged it. You gotta win to make the claim.

I don't like the superdelegates, but again, she skunked him. She skunked him by less than expected, but she skunked him.
Ball back on your aide of the court. One critical aspect missing from the analogy, Clinton didn't have the nominate shown as clinched so it looked like there was no reason to vote for Obama. That is a huge difference in explaining the vote differential.
The huge difference is that Obama was beating Clinton in popular vote and pledged delegates nearly from day one and Clinton was beating Bernie nearly from day one.

I don't know what you mean by Clinton being shown as clinched. Obama was reported to have clinched on June 4. Clinton on June 6.

If you are talking about showing superdelegate counts throughout the voting process, that was much more influential in 2008. There were more superdelegates and they were publicizing her lead throughout the process. It was always "Obama leads in pledged delegates X to Y and Clinton leads in overall delegates including superdelegates A to B". Literally everyday they were covering whether any superdelegates committed or flipped and running the current tallies. They did not publicize it like that in 2016 because it was such a disaster in 2008.

However, the bottom line is that there was no way Obama could overcome the superdelegate support with pledged delegates. If we Obama supporters had given up that easily, he could not have won. The only way he could win was to use the pledged delegate counts to change the minds of the superdelegates.

Further, you are missing a big event that happened in 2008. In the coverage of the primaries on May 8, Tim Russert declared that we now know Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Other pundits followed his lead while the Clinton camp unsuccessfully tried to stop that train. He was basically right, but she did have races that were favorable to her coming up. What Russert allowed Obama to do was to declare victory and pull out of all those races that he knew he was going to lose and say he was working on the general election from that point on. She kept trying to change the narrative by saying she had momentum. She even passed him in popular votes during that period (he was more successful in caucuses). Her goal had been to surpass him in popular votes and make the argument that was more important than pledged delegates and keep the superdelegates on her side. The cover by Russert allowed Obama to say he had already won and she only passed him in popular vote because he wasn't trying anymore. Many of the Clinton supporters were plenty ticked off at that process.

In 2016 there was never any chance that Sanders was going to beat her in popular vote or pledged delegates. I have to think that you were not watching the 2008 and 2016 Democratic nomination process from week to week, because this is just not how it went and it is not how the Democratic primary process works.
Professor Griff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat.
What will you do if Sanders goes into the convention with somewhere in the neighborhood of 41-45% of the delegates with a 10% lead over his nearest competitor and a brokered convention nominates someone other than the person with the highest delegate count?
Page 1 of 3
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.