Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
You aren't getting two terms out of Biden. It's extremely unlikely.
81 yr old Joe Biden shouldn't be doing another four years if it comes to it. let's be real.
A few weeks ago it looked pretty unlikely we'd get one term from Biden.
In all seriousness if Biden picks Superwoman as his VP, we could potentially end up with 4 years of Biden followed by 8 years of Superwoman. That'd be pretty neat.
So people would be ok with someone primarying Sanders because of age?
Let's be real, people who are calling for a hypothetical primary of an incumbent Democrat POTUS have no idea what they are talking about.
If Biden cancels first I'm looking forward to the conspiracy garbage that will be flung by some Bernie supporters and Trump himself.
They should both cancel.
He'd be 86 at the end of his second term, if he made it. Both he and Bernie were always unlikely to be two-term presidents. I don't think you'll need to primary Biden should he win. I'd hope he'd step down in his second term.
Okay, I know this is the US and you're not always used to Primaries having more than 2 or 3 candidates competing against each other for any length of time, but I'm gonna use France as an example.
Back in the 2017 presidential election, we had 11 candidates running.
The Top 4 candidates all got scores in the vicinity of 20%. Macron ended 1st with 23.1%, Le Pen 2nd with 22.85%, Mélenchon 3rd with 20.8% and Fillon 4th with 17.8%. Everyone else was sub-10%.
For the second round, Macron won with 63.7%, Le Pen lost with 36.1%.
Why did Macron get almost 3 times more votes in the second round, when he was neck-and-neck with Le Pen during the first round? Did he just decide to go Super Saiyan? Of course not.
The point is: the more candidates you have, the more split the vote is. It's just a function of people having more options to choose from, and it's very rare that someone is so strong they blow everyone else out of the water, even if their potential would be much higher in a narrower race. Ceilings are relative. The dynamic completely changes when the electorate has to consider different match-ups. It takes either being a once-in-a-lifetime candidate with exceptional political gifts, everyone else being comically abysmal, or being in a specific region that plays to your strengths to stand out from the crowd from the beginning. On that last point, Bernie got that in Nevada, Biden got that in SC. Both had the same kind of lead in their respective strong states, and both overperformed the polls.
That's why people scoffed at news shows trying to portray Sanders as a loser when you combined the score of the next 3 candidates together. It's a ridiculous narrative on the face of it.
Now, there's one thing that throws a wrench in the mix. And if there is one lesson to be learned from this election in terms of strategy, it's this: endorsements are king. In quality, quantity and timing. They single-handedly brought Biden back into the game and completely changed the narrative in an irreversible fashion. It started with Jim Clyburn, which allowed him to overperform in SC, and then all the other Dem candidates dropping out and endorsing him - including fucking Bloomberg, of all people... which should raise some questions by the way. The fact that there was so little time between Biden's only win in SC and ST made the timing of the endorsements absolutely perfect. Honestly, in terms of political tactics, it was an absolutely brilliant move, no question about that. I would have been horrified in Sanders's shoes.
As EricTheGamerman pondered, one does wonder how things would have played out in the following alternate scenarios for instance:
- everyone keeps running until at least after ST
- everyone drops out after SC, but doesn't endorse anyone else
- some/all candidates drop out after Nevada and endorse Bernie, others after SC and endorse Biden
It's not far-fetched to assume that Bernie would have benefitted from mass coalescing behind his candidacy just as much as Biden did, if not moreso given his early lead. I only wonder if the best timing would have been right after Nevada, right before SC, or right before ST. Nonetheless, it didn't happen, and now Biden leads and has a 95% chance of winning the nom - by a significant margin, even. That's just the facts. But let's not act like this reversal of fortunes happened because Bernie is not popular akshually and Biden was the Democratic savior all along who was just hiding his powerlevel. It was all about him making the risky gamble of betting the farm on one state, suceeding, and then getting brilliantly-timed strong endorsements. The Democratic party had one tiny window to salvage everything, and they nailed it.
In fact, it would seem that the endorsement card matters more than pretty much any other strategic move, provided it's well-played: ground game (Bernie had it, Biden had 0 until SC), early momentum (Pete/Bernie had it, while Biden severely underperformed), funding (Bloomberg crushed everyone else, and Bernie did really well), advertising, clear messaging, energy, policies or even media narrative. All those matter of course, but clearly not to the same extent.
I'm sure this election will be remembered and studied for years to come for those 72 hours between SC and ST.
yes, probably. I kinda agree with the people who said neither should've stood this time but it is what it is. In four years whatever happens there needs to be someone else.
People wanting to primary an incumbent Democrat POTUS are tossing away one of the most important advantages any electoral candidate can have.
It's ludicrous.
Honestly I have no issue with people voting Biden in 2020 with the precondition that if he sucks, we can just primary him in 2024. That should always be an option to the electorate, regardless of the difficulties that would pose in the general election.
If Bill Weld was knocking Trump out in the GOP primary right now, I'd be cheering him on - not just for the fact that winning as a non-incumbent is harder, but also because the bottom line is Trump would be gone no matter what the outcome of the election, even if I'd hardly be swayed to vote for Weld (a less bad Republican).
As it stands I think it's likely Biden steps down after one term anyway, even if he wouldn't admit it until 2023 or so.
Chalking all this up to endorsements is a vast over-simplification. The uneasiness was there regarding Bernie, his chances in the general and his ability to get down ticket wins so a good showing by Biden was what broke the log jam. The foundation was there and waiting and that's why what happened happened quickly.
You're not saying anything here everyone already doesn't know. The problem is Bernie refused to actually try to grow his coalition and simply banked on winning 30% pluralities while needling at the establishment the entire time. And then he was apparently shocked when they hit back.
The article seems to be soberly reporting what they were told by their sources, if you consider "Jamie Dimon would be considered for Treasury" to be scare mongering then 🤷♂️
As others have pointed out, we are a ways off from any cabinet appointees, but maybe raising a fuss about it early is better than not. Not that I truly believe they'll listen, but hey, maybe
No, I wouldn't. Unless there was some type of clear issue with him being in office, I'm not going to call for an elected official to step down and throw away an electoral advantage when there is literally no reason for it.
I wouldn't do it if Sanders was elected, and I wouldn't do it if Biden was elected. Even if I have more concerns regarding Sanders ability to stay healthy in office, I wouldn't call for him to step down after one term because of some hypothetical possible future that hasn't come to fruition. Sanders earned that spot if he's POTUS, even if my concerns from this election still hold true, I wouldn't hamper the ability to get progressive agendas implemented and call for an incumbent to step down for literally no reason. That's a stupid gamble.
I mean, yea if he is an unmitigated disaster I would be open to it. But I'm working under the assumption that he won't be. The current conversation is just talking about how Biden should get premiered because of age, which is just making a blind shot of what the future looks like.
If that's their strategy, I don't think it should come from his mouth. A big advantage to party activists is being able to run on incumbency next time. It'd also probably play poorly into the "Biden is old and frail" narrative.
Someone for the love of god please make Bernie quit. This is just brutality at this point.
Tough crowd. I saw six months somewhere earlier in the thread and didn't bother questioning the maths. 6, 8, or a year, doesn't really change my point.
I think so as well. Makes his VP choice so much more important as they'll immediately be the front runner in 2024.
Remember when Obama was Quasi primaried by almost every down ticket Dem running away from ACA?
Jesus Christ. Already bracing for four more years of Donald Dipshit.
Anything in double digits should automatically force Bernie to drop out.. At that point the question is, what are you trying to accomplish?
I think an argument can be made that if Sanders wants to take the L with grace this time, he can stay in to try and negotiate policies into Biden's platform.
But again, I say that with preface if Sanders can handle taking an L, which we have seen he has a hard time doing.
Personally, I'd still like a chance to vote in the Primaries. That'd be nice, thanks.
Because the candidate is likely someone who does the best in Michigan? That's...weird.
And the Democrats who embraced the ACA and Obama's other achievements did better than the Democrats who ran the fuck away from it, even if they still lost (Perriello in a tough Virginia district, for example).
Give people a reason to vote for you.
Wait would Biden run again? Oh god. I figured he wouldn't want it for that long - the dude is ôd
Be thankful the nominee will have a shot at winning Florida and potentially a Democratic Senate
Yeaaah I wouldn't be surprised if Biden won Michigan at this point but 40 points seems absurd.
My home state has disappointed me plenty though, ie giving Rick Snyder two terms and even after THAT going for Trump. I suppose going all in for the guy who's heavily supported all of the trade deals and helped get Fred Upton elected would be par for the course.
At least we have Rashida Tlaib.
Man me too. Our primary isn't until April 4th. I'm going to try to get my vote in early, but still.
I know there's absolutely no way Sanders wins Louisiana but I still want to vote for him while I can
Even if Bernie drops out you still have options...*checks people running*...like Tulsi....lol nvm.
This narrative that Biden can't beat Trump is wild to me.
One guy is accused or rape and sexual assault by multiple women across literally decades. An ex-wife claimed he raped her. Denies it all and makes fun of those who accused him, and other sexual assault victims.
The other has some weird looking clips, and not a single alleged crime. has apologised if he ever made anyone feel uncomfortable. Has the backing of almost every major woman's group on the left.
This ridiculous and insulting technique people have of saying the two are the same is frankly disgusting and just goes to show that you don't care about the issue at all - it's purely political points scoring.
I think the issue is that the bigger losses he takes as Joe gains more momentum, the less clout he has to negotiate.
Yeah - I wouldn't even want 8 years of Biden, that'd just mean the progressive wing of the party died
- Status