Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Who's Your Pick for the Democratic Nominee (Round 2)

  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 1,297 80.8%
  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 19 1.2%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 190 11.8%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 52 3.2%
  • Amy Klobuchar

    Votes: 12 0.7%
  • Mike Bloomberg

    Votes: 31 1.9%
  • Tom Steyer

    Votes: 4 0.2%

  • Total voters
    1,605
  • This poll will close: .

moblin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,472
Москва
NV caucuses have a small but potentially significant difference from IA:

In IA, supporters of two nonviable candidates during the first round could solicit support and make those candidates viable in the second round. This isn't possible in NV; only candidates that are viable after the first round survive.

Could make a difference on the margins.
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,920
New York City
Bloomberg isn't running in Nevada.
Bloomberg isn't on any ballots until South Carolina, where currently he's at like 4% (thankfully).

Nevada is certified Bloomberg-Free™.

Edit: Apparently he's not on SC either, nevermind.
he is not on the ballot in Nevada
I was testing all of you!

Seriously though whats his plan again? Hope for brokered convention? yuck.
 

RailWays

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
7,381
I was testing all of you!

Seriously though whats his plan again? Hope for brokered convention? yuck.
That is really his only viable track, which I don't see working as Biden is still projected to have more delegates than him currently.
Bloomberg remains untested until Super Tuesday. It could be a Biden redux scenario where he massively under-performs relative to his media hype.
 

zooj

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
197
Ames, IA
NV caucuses have a small but potentially significant difference from IA:

In IA, supporters of two nonviable candidates during the first round could solicit support and make those candidates viable in the second round. This isn't possible in NV; only candidates that are viable after the first round survive.

Could make a difference on the margins.
They actually changed the IA process this year, it’s a lot more similar to NV where candidates can only move forward if they’re viable after the first alignment
 

Geg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,812
I think Bernie would end up taking Bloomer as VP. If Bloomberg actually did run third party it would guarantee Trump wins.
I remember hearing on NPR that Bloomberg apparently said he would spend huge amounts of money helping whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is win if he loses the nomination, so if that's the case I doubt he would run third party. I don't know what the actual source of him saying that is though
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
11,092
I remember hearing on NPR that Bloomberg apparently said he would spend huge amounts of money helping whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is win if he loses the nomination, so if that's the case I doubt he would run third party. I don't know what the actual source of him saying that is though
He did say that, but I think that's an assumption that he won't get second. In the case he does, I'd expect his tune to change.
 

mo60

Member
Oct 25, 2017
989
Edmonton, Alberta
I remember hearing on NPR that Bloomberg apparently said he would spend huge amounts of money helping whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is win if he loses the nomination, so if that's the case I doubt he would run third party. I don't know what the actual source of him saying that is though
bloomberg is not really campaigning against any of his opponents at the moment and is just running anti-trump ads
 

PogChamp

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
6,820
Everything old is new again:

"You already see this idealistic longing projected on Obama," Bruch said. "People talk about him as a secular messiah who will bring us political salvation. There's no sense of what is plausible."
Shit, I guess better things really aren't possible
 

cDNA

Member
Oct 25, 2017
424
They actually changed the IA process this year, it’s a lot more similar to NV where candidates can only move forward if they’re viable after the first alignment
Not true, the non-viable candidate in Iowa were able to form groups in the second round. What actually changed if that your group was viable in the first round, you cannot change to another group in the second round.
 

PKrockin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,366
I remember hearing on NPR that Bloomberg apparently said he would spend huge amounts of money helping whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is win if he loses the nomination, so if that's the case I doubt he would run third party. I don't know what the actual source of him saying that is though
He already threatened to run third-party at this time in 2016 when Bernie was looking strong against Hillary. I don't trust a word Bloomberg says.
 

Bladelaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,249
The extent to which I'm OK with Bloomberg is shitting on Trump and throwing money at Dem candidates around the country. As a nominee or in any position of authority he can fuck right off. Hopefully he gets destroyed in a debate on his record then again on Super Tuesday on the ballots.

Polls looking good for Bernie in NV. I really hope Bernie's able to direct his fans effectively to turn out the vote and not just shit on anyone not Bernie though.
 

theprodigy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
596
They actually changed the IA process this year, it’s a lot more similar to NV where candidates can only move forward if they’re viable after the first alignment
Not entirely right, what changed in Iowa was that if you were in a viable group in the first alignment, you couldn't move in the final alignment any more.
 

thewienke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,841
To be fair they were right lol. Granted, Sotomayo in the SC and legalizing gay marriage were great, but Obama did not turn out to be the progressive he campaigned as.
Obama had I think ~180 days of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. His blunder was discussing anything with Republicans and not shoving through the entire Democratic agenda in that short span of time. Although I think there were some Democratic senators that weren’t really interested in the Democratic agenda? It’s kinda hard to fault a guy’s domestic agenda when he’s limited to mostly executive orders for 6 out of his 8 years.

Knowing what we know now or what we’re asking Bernie to do, it’s possible he may have pushed on the Democrats to nuke the filibuster. That’s going to be a minimum requirement for any hypothetical Sanders presidency to enact any kind of actual change. The next minimum requirement will be figuring out if he actually has a Congressional consensus to get anything done or if he’d get sunk by moderate Dems.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,828
USA
Just catching up with this thread. Those polls.. Nevada and Texas, fuck yeah, goooo Bernie! And the NV poll was with older folks? Whew.

He can go all the way for sure.
 

Geg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,812
Obama had I think ~180 days of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. His blunder was discussing anything with Republicans and not shoving through the entire Democratic agenda in that short span of time. Although I think there were some Democratic senators that weren’t really interested in the Democratic agenda? It’s kinda hard to fault a guy’s domestic agenda when he’s limited to mostly executive orders for 6 out of his 8 years.
Yeah I remember him having to work hard and compromise to hell and back to get the necessary votes for the ACA. A good chunk of that supermajority was not particularly progressive and/or from red areas where they'd have a tough reelection
 

Bitch Pudding

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,175
Will THIS stop the endless Bloomsday prophecies in this thread? Bernie thrashes him one on one...
Another interesting quote from that article:

Yet there may be trouble ahead. Sixty-two percent of Americans — and a near-identical 61 percent of independents — say that Sanders is a “socialist.” Only a quarter of Americans (26 percent) have a favorable view of socialism, while almost half (47 percent) have an unfavorable view.
Bernie has zero chances of beating Trump, y’all know it...
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
871
Bernie has zero chances of beating Trump, y’all know it...
I don't know it.

I also don't know what these respondents consider socialism. I think everyone is against USSR style socialism I don't think near as much fear European socialism. Considering even the US is socialist in some aspects there's obviously a range of socialism that people find acceptable.
 

Nocturne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
190
it's sort of weird how you fail to note that 'all americans' includes avowed republicans, but also ignore that if 47% of americans have an unfavourable view on socialism, then... 53% of americans are at worst indifferent to the term? damn that looks awful for bernie, you're right
 

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,178
New Jersey
Another interesting quote from that article:



Bernie has zero chances of beating Trump, y’all know it...
All that says is people dont know what socialism is but like what socialism is divorced from labels. Its as simple as explaining what it is or running on the platform itself.

Something sanders already does. And something corp dems lose at because they are not for average people and run away from their base at every chance they get
 

PMS341

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,048
“AIPAC is helping to fund a Super PAC launching attack ads against Sen. Bernie Sanders in Nevada on Saturday, according to two sources with knowledge of the arrangement."

THE AMERICAN ISRAEL Public Affairs Committee is helping to fund a Super PAC launching attack ads against Sen. Bernie Sanders in Nevada on Saturday, according to two sources with knowledge of the arrangement. The ads are being run by a group called Democratic Majority for Israel, founded by longtime AIPAC strategist Mark Mellman.

The Nevada attack ads, which will air in media markets in Reno and Las Vegas, follow a similar spending blitz by DMFI ahead of the Iowa caucuses. Like the ads that aired in Iowa, the Nevada ads will attack Sanders on the idea that he’s not electable, Mediaite reported.

DMFI spent $800,000 on the Iowa ads, while the spending on the Nevada ads remains private. AIPAC is helping bankroll the anti-Sanders project by allowing donations to DMFI to count as contributions to AIPAC, the sources said. As is typical with most big-money giving programs, the more a donor gives to AIPAC, the higher tier they can claim — $100,000 level, $1 million level, and so on — and the more benefits accrue to them. A $100,000 donor gets more access to members of Congress at private functions, for instance, than someone who merely pays AIPAC’s conference fee. A $1 million donor gets still more, which means that it is important to donors to have their contributions tallied. There is also status within social networks attached to one’s tier of giving. The arrangement allows donors to give directly to DMFI, which is required to file disclosures naming its donors, without AIPAC’s fingerprints.
AIPAC attacking the Jewish frontrunner is quite the bold strategy.
 

soul creator

Member
Oct 27, 2017
118
Polls about how people feel about some sort of disembodied "socialism" aren't always super useful. "Socialism" isn't gonna be on the ballot, "Bernie Sanders, the old dude you like because he's honest and trustworthy, and he wants to guarantee healthcare and recognizes that we're being screwed by billionaires" is.

It's not like every single political question is static and forever unchanging, and is always completely unconnected from material conditions or the candidates that advocate for them!

It's like when Donald Trump magically got Republicans to agree with him that "free trade" is actually a bad thing, even though common political wisdom was that free trade was an unquestionable good, especially for conservatives. Of course, policy wise it doesn't mean much, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a sincere ideological change, but for the purposes of getting votes, it's not like Republican voters suddenly abandoned Trump because of his trade views.

The ideology of most Americans is scattered and often contradictory, and often influenced by media narratives, rather than any sort of sincere ideological struggle. Socialism is a "problem" for Bernie in the sense that media is never going to explain what it actually means, and try to play to people's fears, sure, but it's not like Bernie is just going to sit in a corner cowering and never explaining himself or playing offense. Him owning up to it, and explaining it and turning it back on and identifying the so-called "capitalists" who have been screwing you over for years, will go a long way. Even conservatives are often like "shit, I don't like the guy, but at least he's honest, fuck man, maybe he's got a point".