Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HipsterMorty

alt account
Banned
Jan 25, 2020
901
Bernie needs to drop out after Tuesday. Seriously. He already doesn't have a chance but Tuesday should be the final moment.
Or maybe he can stay in and keep fighting until Biden has enough delegates to say he's won? Biden's already adopted one of Sanders policies, maybe if he stays in he can get him to adopt a few more.

And who knows what can happen. It seems impossible for Sanders to win, but things are so crazy in the world right now I would say nothing is impossible.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
871
They just don't want to pay more taxes. Medicare for all is not radical, free college is not radical, we just have to chip in a bit more to make it happen. Reaganomics really fucked up this country and our whole fuck you got mine mentality.
It is radical for them though. If you've grown up in a country where it wasn;'t the case, and probably never lived somewhere else then it is a radical change for you. This needs to be recognised and not ignored.
 

infamous5445

Banned
Dec 3, 2019
283
Just think, tomorrow might even been more a bloodbath for Bernie, but I'm betting there's gonna be slightly decreased turnout b/c of the virus.
 

Cat Party

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,694
One thing I definitely have learned from the last few years is that voters just don't care about votes you cast or actions you took years ago. It just doesn't matter. I admire Bernie so much for his lifelong commitment to the policies he supports today, but it doesn't convince anyone to vote for him who didn't already like him. I think people just have a fundamental understanding that politics is about doing what is "right" in the moment, and not about consistency.
 

iamdelirium

Member
Nov 25, 2017
36
do you even understand what state capitalism is? it's in the name

the left to right scale is not determined by public ownership of the economy and nothing else
most petro states have a large part of their economy dominated SOEs but that doesn't make them communist
it's a total mislabeling
I didn't say anything about communism. I'm not arguing that China is communist, they're not. But state ownership of companies is a politically far left position.
But, I doubt that anyone is arguing state ownership of companies does make China much further to the left than Sanders.
 

Primethius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,841
Or maybe he can stay in and keep fighting until Biden has enough delegates to say he's won? Biden's already adopted one of Sanders policies, maybe if he stays in he can get him to adopt a few more.

And who knows what can happen. It seems impossible for Sanders to win, but things are so crazy in the world right now I would say nothing is impossible.
He can do that while dropping out as well. Both are good friends and you can push policy without being in the race. Staying in a race where the competitor is mostly ignoring you doesn't really give you much additional leverage. There's a reason Biden has largely shifted gears towards Trump.

And no, he doesn't have a chance. He has less of a chance than he did in 2016, where he was mathematically eliminated for some time.
 

muteKi

Member
Oct 22, 2018
13,153
a sunken pirate ship
I don't care if you think Biden is a liar, which he pretty much is. The man just said he wants to put a black woman on the supreme court
Despite the way you undercut your own argument before even posing it it's worth remembering that Biden's idea of a black man on the SC is Clarence Thomas. And as you all remember by the way he responded to Anita Hill, he was instrumental in making that appointment happen.

I'm not necessarily the sort of person to be inherently cynical about representation, but it's easy to see given the possibilities open to us (at least in theory) that this appointment is not going to be representative of black communities. Biden is acting as a gatekeeper here -- I mean, obviously, that's inherent in the nature of appointments. The thing is I can't be excited about this appointment in theory because I do not share Biden's politics.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,862
Ontario
I didn't say anything about communism. I'm not arguing that China is communist, they're not. But state ownership of companies is a politically far left position.
But, I doubt that anyone is arguing state ownership of companies does make China much further to the left than Sanders.
this all happened because i brought up that international context from the left is important and you referenced china. since you seemed to use them as an example if not communism i assumed you thought they were indeed far left

state owned enterprises are more common in mixed social Democratic economies, but they are not an exclusive or even signature feature of far left politics since they are also large parts of authoritarian or one party governments which are decidedly not left win. (Stalinism without socialism is not leftist, it's just a flavor of totalitarianism )
 

iamdelirium

Member
Nov 25, 2017
36
this all happened because i brought up that international context from the left is important and you referenced china. since you seemed to use them as an example if not communism i assumed you thought they were indeed far left

state owned enterprises are more common in mixed social Democratic economies, but they are not an exclusive or even signature feature of far left politics since they are also large parts of authoritarian or one party governments which are decidedly not left win. (Stalinism without socialism is not leftist, it's just a flavor of totalitarianism )
I would argue that China is closer to state capitalism than any sort of mixed socdem. That makes them far to the left of 99% of countries in the world.

My argument is against framing politicians and comparing them to any thing but their political and economic system (most of the time).
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,594
Despite the way you undercut your own argument before even posing it it's worth remembering that Biden's idea of a black man on the SC is Clarence Thomas. And as you all remember by the way he responded to Anita Hill, he was instrumental in making that appointment happen.

I'm not necessarily the sort of person to be inherently cynical about representation, but it's easy to see given the possibilities open to us (at least in theory) that this appointment is not going to be representative of black communities. Biden is acting as a gatekeeper here -- I mean, obviously, that's inherent in the nature of appointments. The thing is I can't be excited about this appointment in theory because I do not share Biden's politics.
Biden voted against Thomas' nomination.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,862
Ontario
I would argue that China is closer to state capitalism than any sort of mixed socdem. That makes them far to the left of 99% of countries in the world.

My argument is against framing politicians and comparing them to any thing but their political and economic system (most of the time).
you are totally conflating definitions but i can see this getting off-topic so i'll leave it here.

Sate capitalism is not leftist, how could it be considering it's neo-mercantilist foundation (which is a problematic label I'll grant but still very much not far-left)
 

Jer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,226
You all keep wanting results, but the best chance of results comes with a full democrat-controlled government. Biden gives you the best chance at the Senate and it isn't even close.
This cannot be restated enough. There seems to be a collective misunderstanding of how government works - the President isn’t the God King and can’t impose law by decree. Biden will result in more senate wins, and therefore more progressive laws, then Bernie.
 
Aug 12, 2019
1,387
You all keep wanting results, but the best chance of results comes with a full democrat-controlled government. Biden gives you the best chance at the Senate and it isn't even close.
OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering headlines that have been constantly pressed as a narrative with nothing to back up the idea that a "Sanders ticket" wipes out chances for the Senate and/or keeping the House majority.
 

Tamanon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,292
OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering bullshit.
The states this cycle are more red than blue.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,745
OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering bullshit.
Biden has consistently been polling better in the red/purple swing states where we need to flip the Senate states.
 

Skiptastic

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,423
OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering bullshit.
Biden's coalition is the one that brought the House back to Democrats in 2018. I don't think it's a stretch to think that coalition is the one most likely to win Senate races, as well.
 

Slayven

1000% Demon King
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
44,820
OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering headlines that have been constantly pressed as a narrative with nothing to back up the idea that a "Sanders ticket" wipes out chances for the Senate and/or keeping the House majority.
Actually it is based on polls. Hell Bullock got into the Senate race after Biden started doing well. The astronaut dude is doing well but he does even better with Biden at the top
 

Sou Da

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,836
User Banned (1 Week): Ignoring Staff Post Regarding Metacommentary
Every time I come to this thread I'm reminded that "Poli-era" is just "Third-wayEra"
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,721
Biden's VP will running on this "My administration was the one to beat Trump. Let's not risk losing all that we built by running such a risky candidate/ progressive after the 2020 primary showed they don't bring out the numbers to win."

It's a never ending cycle.
The biggest take away people are ignoring is Biden saying he have to "wait for it"

We can't keep waiting, we've been wait for over a century.

I doubt the UK was worried about fascism when they made the NHS.
 
Aug 12, 2019
1,387
Biden has consistently been polling better in the red/purple swing states where we need to flip the Senate states.
Bernie won Colorado and consistently polled better than Biden in Maine until the actual primary happened, and those are two of the most important Senate seats that we have to win and he consistently led in Arizona up until Super Tuesday. And Bernie was also very much catching up in NC until SC happened, so it wasn't like he was ridiculously behind there either. Those are the 4 that we pretty much have to win and also have the best chance of winning, with Montana only coming into play because Bullock entered the race (Which meant Montana wasn't really in play from a Senatorial perspective for either candidates). Bernie also basically won Iowa alongside Buttigieg while Biden positively cratered, so not much hope on the reach for Iowa either.

Georgia is fair, but much like Iowa, it's a reach state... so like, perhaps this isn't the clear cut "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate narrative"

Biden's coalition is the one that brought the House back to Democrats in 2018. I don't think it's a stretch to think that coalition is the one most likely to win Senate races, as well.
But that coalition is anti-Trump almost through and through. They were most likely going to vote against Republicans and Trump no matter what is what I'm saying. That coalition was largely going to be the same for any of the potential nominees. So, that coalition was always going to put the Senate back in play.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,745
Bernie won Colorado and consistently polled better than Biden in Maine until the actual primary happened, and those are two of the most important Senate seats that we have to win and he consistently led in Arizona up until Super Tuesday. And Bernie was also very much catching up in NC until SC happened, so it wasn't like he was ridiculously behind there either. Those are the 4 that we pretty much have to win and also have the best chance of winning, with Montana only coming into play because Bullock entered the race (Which meant Montana wasn't really in play from a Senatorial perspective for either candidates). Bernie also basically won Iowa alongside Buttigieg while Biden positively cratered, so not much hope on the reach for Iowa either.

Georgia is fair, but much like Iowa, it's a reach state... so like, perhaps this isn't the clear cut "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate narrative"



But that coalition is anti-Trump almost through and through. They were most likely going to vote against Republicans and Trump no matter what is what I'm saying. That coalition was largely going to be the same for any of the potential nominees. So, that coalition was always going to put the Senate back in play.
Winning a state's primary and how you perform in the general election there aren't correlated whatsoever. Also, "Bernie polled better until the actual election happened where he lost" is not the good argument you think it is. You're inadvertently pointing out that Bernie is underperforming his polls!

Bernie was only doing "well" in the polls because of the split field where he was "winning" with 30% of the vote. His team thought they could get away with that and that the race wouldn't condense to a 1 v 1. They were wrong, and because Bernie had been getting approximately 0.01% of voters who didn't vote for him in 2016 while he was retaining ~70% of his 2016 voter share, he started getting blown out bad starting on Super Tuesday post-Voltron.
 

HipsterMorty

alt account
Banned
Jan 25, 2020
901
OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering headlines that have been constantly pressed as a narrative with nothing to back up the idea that a "Sanders ticket" wipes out chances for the Senate and/or keeping the House majority.
If Bernie had won SC by the same margins as Biden did I have no doubt the tables would be turned right now. Most Democrats support Sanders keystone M4A proposal, but exit polls show they are voting for Biden purely because they think he's the best shot at beating Trump.
 

DTC

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,592

Biden won the debate. Bernie should drop out after Tuesday night if he loses by double digits in every state.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
8,147
If Bernie had won SC by the same margins as Biden did I have no doubt the tables would be turned right now. Most Democrats support Sanders keystone M4A proposal, but exit polls show they are voting for Biden purely because they think he's the best shot at beating Trump.
But then it wouldn't be the same Sanders running this current campaign, right?
That is also telling on what is the primary concern of the electorate as well.
 

Opto

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,254

Biden won the debate. Bernie should drop out after Tuesday night if he loses by double digits in every state.
"confidence he can beat trump" is such a weird metric and response on that is going to be based on a variety of people who know more direct polls like "Who are you going to vote for likely voter?" and those that don't follow the numbers.
 

Slayven

1000% Demon King
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
44,820
But then it wouldn't be the same Sanders running this current campaign, right?
That is also telling on what is the primary concern of the electorate as well.
Lowkey, the only thing that stopped bernie from winning was Bernie. Folks had thoroughly dismissed Biden until his SC win. But Bernie had to hire Ted Devine again
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,745
Lowkey, the only thing that stopped bernie from winning was Bernie. Folks had thoroughly dismissed Biden until his SC win. But Bernie had to hire Ted Devine again
This. Sanders could have won. He deliberately took every opportunity to do exactly the opposite of the things you need to do to win a Democratic primary in both 2016 and 2020.
 

HipsterMorty

alt account
Banned
Jan 25, 2020
901
But then it wouldn't be the same Sanders running this current campaign, right?
That is also telling on what is the primary concern of the electorate as well.
Exit polls showed that most voters in SC voted based on who Clyburn endorsed. Let's not pretend like Joe won SC because of his superior policy proposals or anything like that. Honestly neither Sanders or Biden put much effort to campaign in SC from what I'm aware of.
 
Aug 12, 2019
1,387
Winning a state's primary and how you perform in the general election there aren't correlated whatsoever. Also, "Bernie polled better until the actual election happened where he lost" is not the good argument you think it is. You're inadvertently pointing out that Bernie is underperforming his polls!

Bernie was only doing "well" in the polls because of the split field where he was "winning" with 30% of the vote. His team thought they could get away with that and that the race wouldn't condense to a 1 v 1. They were wrong, and because Bernie had been getting approximately 0.01% of voters who didn't vote for him in 2016 while he was retaining ~70% of his 2016 voter share, he started getting blown out bad starting on Super Tuesday post-Voltron.
The "voltron" Democratic establishment literally giving everything to Biden is kind of the thing that made Biden win considering Bernie was outperforming him in 1 on 1 match-ups in the time leading up to the collective Democratic kitchen sink being thrown at him. That's relevant, and much like Howard Dean, there was absolutely a coordinated effort to stop Sanders from receiving the nomination and to play with what the party thought was the "safe route." Voters in this election are overwhelmingly not voting on ideological grounds and only against Trump which you also just conveniently ignore every time people bring this stuff up there because its convenient to point out Biden had an even lower ceiling in the grand scheme of things because, as I've pointed out specifically many times, people aren't voting based upon candidate preferences or ideological preference beyond "Please let's get Trump out of office." Most candidates in general don't have particularly high ceilings anyway, not to mention Bernie did outperform that ceiling several times but his "ceiling is 30% always." The margins that are winning Biden this nomination are the ones that were absolutely undecided until "Biden is electable" got spun constantly and then became a self-fulfilling prophecy in South Carolina and beyond to the multiple Super Tuesday states.

Sanders vs Biden being better for the Senate elections in November was literally a narrative created before the vast majority of the people voted and was fearmongering the whole way up until Super Tuesday once it looked like Sanders actually had a very real shot. You cannot just retroactively apply the results to a stance that was created without data prior to an absolutely tectonic shift in the Democratic political world that favored Biden.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,004
Politifact has its fact check of the debate up.


Spoiler, some of the things people claim Biden was lying about were truthful, and both of them fudged things here and there.
Yeah, Bernie did vote for the Hyde Amendment when it was attached to other bills, pretty much everyone in congress has. That thing gets fucking everywhere. Only reason it's rated half true was because of how Bernie worded his response. And there's a lot of those "because of how they worded it" bits in there.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
8,147
Exit polls showed that most voters in SC voted based on who Clyburn endorsed. Let's not pretend like Joe won SC because of his superior policy proposals or anything like that. Honestly neither Sanders or Biden put much effort to campaign in SC from what I'm aware of.
But it's a presidential election, despite all claims to the contrary it's a popularity contest.
No one really gives a shit about policies unless it's to justify after the fact.
That's true for the general as well.
That's why Biden is winning right now as well.
My bad, Devine got caught up in some Russia shit, Jeff Weaver was the one I was thinking of
Let's be clear, does that make any difference that hired one loser over the other at this point?
 

Skiptastic

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,423
But that coalition is anti-Trump almost through and through. They were most likely going to vote against Republicans and Trump no matter what is what I'm saying. That coalition was largely going to be the same for any of the potential nominees. So, that coalition was always going to put the Senate back in play.
So Bernie has young voters, college educated leftists, and Latino voters as his coalition, while Biden has some white working class voters, old voters, suburban women, and black voters. (Feel free to argue I'm wrong about that grouping.) In that perspective, I would say that Bernie's voters would be the most anti-Trump voters through and through, while Biden's are less so. I would also say that Bernie's voters are less reliable to show up to vote, as you kind of pointed out with the fact that Bernie polled well in Maine and still lost.

I mean, it's all hypotheticals on how the primary is playing out compared to how the general would play out. If Bernie was repeating his wins in battleground states, I'd be more open to saying we should put Bernie at the top of the ticket. But he lost every county in Michigan, and we need Michigan. He's likely to lose Arizona, and that could be the one that we need to offset Wisconsin. He lost North Carolina, and we could really use that state to turn to help prevent a nail biter.

It makes the most sense to follow the hot hand in these elections. Biden and the "moderate" wing are the hot hand at the moment. Keep playing it?
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,594
This. Sanders could have won. He deliberately took every opportunity to do exactly the opposite of the things you need to do to win a Democratic primary in both 2016 and 2020.
If he spent more time hiring outreach people and charismatic envoys of policy, rather than attack dogs, he'd have done much better.

I've said before and will say again, Bernie spent too much of his message focused on the negative. It's not hard to paint a picture of the benefits of his programs, but he spends more time talking about what's bad now rather than what the good future he proposes is.
 

Slayven

1000% Demon King
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
44,820
But it's a presidential election, despite all claims to the contrary it's a popularity contest.
No one really gives a shit about policies unless it's to justify after the fact.
That's true for the general as well.
That's why Biden is winning right now as well.

Let's be clear, does that make any difference at this point?
You know as I was typing, I was thinking the same thing. But I want to be factual. The fact they ran the same campaign with the only adition was to try to gamne a split field says it all. They went in wanting to lose less than everyone else.
 

HipsterMorty

alt account
Banned
Jan 25, 2020
901
But it's a presidential election, despite all claims to the contrary it's a popularity contest.
No one really gives a shit about policies unless it's to justify after the fact.
That's true for the general as well.
That's why Biden is winning right now as well.
Ahh yes, a popularity contest, the foundation of a healthy democracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.