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

[gogosox82]

This is a particular flavor of bullshit that I see coming towards Sanders that I don't see with any other candidate. There's an exceeding level of intellectual dishonesty in the way he gets attacked.

Click to shrink...

This is such an odd complaint.

 

[Steel]

1. Centrist moderate numbers are vastly overrated. See analysis from Geoffrey Skelly on 538 here. That same study links to another of his that points out how they mostly went to Trump last cycle and he only won by a few hundred thousand votes in a few select swing states that had very poor Dem turnout.

2. Per Rachel Bitecofer, a professor who specializes in electoral prediction models and largely nailed the mid-terms, they no longer decide elections.

3. Even allowing the moderate undecideds a seat at the table requires one to acknowledge who they are. 538 has another great study showing that they already have polarized views, they just don't associate strongly with a party despite sharing some non-trivial core ideology.

4. The entire Trump campaign that worked in 2016 was to make the race so distasteful as to keep most moderates from even showing up. Bannon has spoken about this at length so I won't give any of the conservative rags he did so the clicks for covering it. The entire strategy was to mobilize a largely untapped base of alt-right shitheads while making the "moderate" suburban white voters stay home because of how unpleasant politics had become. It worked very, very well.

The Democratic party won the mid-terms because they got moderate dems AND a larger segment of the base than in 2016 to show up.

All polling shows that moderate dems are, like they did in '18, going to show up specifically to vote against Trump, regardless of the Dem candidate. "Moderate" independents broke hard for Trump in '16 already. So either they caught a cup of reality since then or they're already lost regardless of the Dem candidate.

The only candidate with a meaningful X factor to turn out voters is Sanders. There is a massive wealth of <40 voters to be tapped into. If Sanders can do that, which all polling says he and only he can, that is a paradigm shift. He doesn't need to to massively move the needle either.

<30's turned out at about 50% in 2016, as compared to about 58% across the whole field. They'll account for an even larger share of the electorate in 2020. Clinton lost this group in two ways:
1. she got worse turnout than Obama did in both '08 and '12.
2. when <30's did turn out they were far more likely to vote 3rd party. Third party candidates combined for 3% of the vote in 2012. That was up to 8% in 2016. A lot of that went to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The former was the "conservative moderate" and libertarian alternative to Donald Trump. Sanders, the longest tenured anti-foreign engagement politician in the country, plays well to that audience even if they don't care for his healthcare policies. The Stein voters were a huge loss for Clinton and likely were a big part of deciding at least two or three swing states. Sanders would almost certainly bring most of them back in the fold.

Conventional political strategy at this point is a both-sides-ism. To believe it you need to believe that there is a vast ocean of moderate undecideds, when all assessments prove the opposite. That those moderates are willing to swing based on candidates and aren't going to instead vote on a single personal issue, like immigration, abortion rights/lack thereof, etc.. That even if some margin of them could be swung they're going to be swung by anything but the economy.

Its wishful, naive thinking. Unless the economy tanks before the election the Dem path to victory is running a candidate who energizes untapped left voters, which amounts to the youth and hispanic voters. Sanders leads both by a wide margin.

That candidate also needs to be unflappable and unwavering in the face of political criticism. The major news networks, CNN and MSNBC included, put far more time digging into Clinton's shit than Trump's shit in '16. That will happen again. They did this because for every "its over" story they had on Trump his support would bounce back within a week and it wouldn't matter. Telling the truth about Trump had less media draw than telling stories about Clinton.

Sanders is that guy too. No one in the Dem Primary has been able to make anything stick to him. Nothing from MSNBC or CNN either. How Fox News covers him is irrelevant because their viewership is already in lockstep with the Trump agenda.

Chuck Todd putting a conservative op-ed on a podium by calling Sanders supporters brownshirts shows the flaw at MSNBC. They went for the Nazi imagery over the actual part that had merit: To win now you need a higher floor of support than ever before as that makes you teflon from the disingenuous reporting we get from for profit media. Sanders is the only candidate on the left who has that.

His supporters are the polar opposite of Trump though. Trumpers are there for the pain and suffering he causes to others. Sanders supporters are there because of the pain and suffering they're experiencing right now in the broken system we have today.

Click to shrink...

There's a lot that I agree with in this post, but... On the other hand, the dems who win red states and flip purple and red districts tend to be moderates to blue dogs, and that's not an accident.

 

[Dank Lotion]

Went to vote this morning in SoCal and their computer systems were down, they also told me it's down across multiple precincts. :/ luckily I live right across the street from mine so it's no biggie.

 

[Dr. Lucien Sanchez]

This is a particular flavor of bullshit that I see coming towards Sanders that I don't see with any other candidate. There's an exceeding level of intellectual dishonesty in the way he gets attacked.

Click to shrink...

What a wild tweet.

 

[Pasha]

3000 likes because bernie raises his voice when talking about the rich stealing the poor blind and millions of people dying and suffering because they have been denied access to their human rights

I seriously cannot comprehend the liberal perspective. If anyone wants to take a shot at deciphering it please @ me

Click to shrink...

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

It's been deciphered a long time a go.

 

[Jom]

There's a lot that I agree with in this post, but... On the other hand, the dems who win red states and flip purple and red districts tend to be moderates to blue dogs, and that's not an accident.

Click to shrink...

They only have to worry about their tiny district or state. The presidential nominee needs to worry about far more territory. Sure maybe if you had a blue dog candidate you lose by slightly less to Trump or even eke out a victory in that state, but that candidate would depress democratic turnout across the entire country.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I guess they figured out Bernie and his supporters being sexist wasn't landing, so next the next try is to paint him as a negitive male stereotype?

 

[A Syrian Communist]

this is kind of personal to me because i bought into the bullshit of "electability" in 2016. i was one of the people on gaf who preferred hillary over bernie even though i liked the latter's policies more

but i was proven wrong by events when hillary lost. so i did the rational thing when you're proven wrong by events and made a mea culpa and changed my stance

similarly, i have a hard time accepting certain arguments as having been made in good faith when they turn out to be wrong and people then don't come out and say "my bad". it's not my fault that those people didn't choose to amend their stances to fit reality. they are the people making themselves look bad. it's not on me to unmake their mistakes. that's squarely on them.

Click to shrink...

This is exactly where I'm at as well, all the way down to preferring Hillary over Bernie even though I liked Bernie a lot more. When your whole appeal is supposed to be "electability", the least you can do is fucking win against the clown you propped up as your opponent.

 

[Deleted member 16657]

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

It's been deciphered a long time a go.

Click to shrink...

Man, this whole thing feels like prisoner's dilemma, especially with the idea of "vote blue no matter who." Blue encompasses both positive and negative peace. How long do we need to accept negative peace for? When will we have a chance for justice?

 

[gogosox82]

3000 likes because bernie raises his voice when talking about the rich stealing the poor blind and millions of people dying and suffering because they have been denied access to their human rights

I seriously cannot comprehend the liberal perspective. If anyone wants to take a shot at deciphering it please @ me

Click to shrink...

No conflict is preferrable to conflict because at the end of the day, those things do no effect them. So they only talk about things that effect them like yelling because it triggers a past trauma.

 

[Azzanadra]

I guess they figured out Bernie and his supporters being sexist wasn't landing, so next the next try is to paint him as a negitive male stereotype?

Click to shrink...

It's funny how they can never hit Bernie on policy, it's always stupid shit like this.

 

[Snowy]

This is a particular flavor of bullshit that I see coming towards Sanders that I don't see with any other candidate. There's an exceeding level of intellectual dishonesty in the way he gets attacked.

Click to shrink...

Sady is an especially reprehensible poster, to be fair.

 

[Tracygill]

This is literally the only way to win the general election. There's bizarre kool-aid drinking or mental gymnastics afoot if someone doesn't believe that you win elections by appealing to the centrists/moderates (oftentimes this translates to the suburban voters in PA, FL and OH, although OH is now a red state).

I swear, every 4 years Democrats forget we pick our president via electoral college rather than a popular vote. Either you're trying to appeal to the swing voters of select states who reliably come out to vote.......or you advocate for "Lets appeal to the non-traditional voters who have always been unreliable and are already concentrated in blue states. If we get more pot heads to get off the couch in Vermont, Brooklyn and the mission district, we'll totally win this election. Also I'm on mind-altering drugs right now."

The DNC and its primary voters can select a candidate that appeals to the centre, or they can watch Trump brag about an even redder electoral county map.

And you know he's going to be bragging about that one everywhere for the next four years.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, you're right this Barack Hussein Obama guy will never become president.

 

[HipsterMorty]

So are we really not getting results today? I can't find any articles about results being delayed, and the vox live results page says that Nevada dems are releasing results today unless they encounter issues like in Iowa.

 

[Rental]

I don't know Bernie yelling does remind me of an old man yelling to get off my lawn. He's message just blend together and I start to tune him out.

 

[Deleted member 4614]

Man, this whole thing feels like prisoner's dilemma, especially with the idea of "vote blue no matter who." Blue encompasses both positive and negative peace. How long do we need to accept negative peace for? When will we have a chance for justice?

Click to shrink...

You can either vote blue no matter who this election, 2022, and every election after, or every major ecosystem will collapse.

 

[medinaria]

Sady is an especially reprehensible poster, to be fair.

Click to shrink...

sady is a terrible poster who also gets to be approvingly cited in new york times articles as an example of people who have been unfairly harassed by sanders supporters

if there's a better example of the problem with the bernard brother argument, I haven't seen it

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

It's funny how they can never hit Bernie on policy, it's always stupid shit like this.

Click to shrink...

I can understand how an angry male figure can make people uncomfortable, I grew up in that situation also, but in general I've just known him to be grumpy for issues that he fights for, not as an insecurity that is caused by toxic masculinity.

 

[Lentic]

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

It's been deciphered a long time a go.

Click to shrink...

The rest of the quote is just as amazing and true today:

"who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Last few sentences are too true.

 

[Fanto]

1. Centrist moderate numbers are vastly overrated. See analysis from Geoffrey Skelly on 538 here. That same study links to another of his that points out how they mostly went to Trump last cycle and he only won by a few hundred thousand votes in a few select swing states that had very poor Dem turnout.

2. Per Rachel Bitecofer, a professor who specializes in electoral prediction models and largely nailed the mid-terms, they no longer decide elections.

3. Even allowing the moderate undecideds a seat at the table requires one to acknowledge who they are. 538 has another great study showing that they already have polarized views, they just don't associate strongly with a party despite sharing some non-trivial core ideology.

4. The entire Trump campaign that worked in 2016 was to make the race so distasteful as to keep most moderates from even showing up. Bannon has spoken about this at length so I won't give any of the conservative rags he did so the clicks for covering it. The entire strategy was to mobilize a largely untapped base of alt-right shitheads while making the "moderate" suburban white voters stay home because of how unpleasant politics had become. It worked very, very well.

The Democratic party won the mid-terms because they got moderate dems AND a larger segment of the base than in 2016 to show up.

All polling shows that moderate dems are, like they did in '18, going to show up specifically to vote against Trump, regardless of the Dem candidate. "Moderate" independents broke hard for Trump in '16 already. So either they caught a cup of reality since then or they're already lost regardless of the Dem candidate.

The only candidate with a meaningful X factor to turn out voters is Sanders. There is a massive wealth of <40 voters to be tapped into. If Sanders can do that, which all polling says he and only he can, that is a paradigm shift. He doesn't need to to massively move the needle either.

<30's turned out at about 50% in 2016, as compared to about 58% across the whole field. They'll account for an even larger share of the electorate in 2020. Clinton lost this group in two ways:
1. she got worse turnout than Obama did in both '08 and '12.
2. when <30's did turn out they were far more likely to vote 3rd party. Third party candidates combined for 3% of the vote in 2012. That was up to 8% in 2016. A lot of that went to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The former was the "conservative moderate" and libertarian alternative to Donald Trump. Sanders, the longest tenured anti-foreign engagement politician in the country, plays well to that audience even if they don't care for his healthcare policies. The Stein voters were a huge loss for Clinton and likely were a big part of deciding at least two or three swing states. Sanders would almost certainly bring most of them back in the fold.

Conventional political strategy at this point is a both-sides-ism. To believe it you need to believe that there is a vast ocean of moderate undecideds, when all assessments prove the opposite. That those moderates are willing to swing based on candidates and aren't going to instead vote on a single personal issue, like immigration, abortion rights/lack thereof, etc.. That even if some margin of them could be swung they're going to be swung by anything but the economy.

Its wishful, naive thinking. Unless the economy tanks before the election the Dem path to victory is running a candidate who energizes untapped left voters, which amounts to the youth and hispanic voters. Sanders leads both by a wide margin.

That candidate also needs to be unflappable and unwavering in the face of political criticism. The major news networks, CNN and MSNBC included, put far more time digging into Clinton's shit than Trump's shit in '16. That will happen again. They did this because for every "its over" story they had on Trump his support would bounce back within a week and it wouldn't matter. Telling the truth about Trump had less media draw than telling stories about Clinton.

Sanders is that guy too. No one in the Dem Primary has been able to make anything stick to him. Nothing from MSNBC or CNN either. How Fox News covers him is irrelevant because their viewership is already in lockstep with the Trump agenda.

Chuck Todd putting a conservative op-ed on a podium by calling Sanders supporters brownshirts shows the flaw at MSNBC. They went for the Nazi imagery over the actual part that had merit: To win now you need a higher floor of support than ever before as that makes you teflon from the disingenuous reporting we get from for profit media. Sanders is the only candidate on the left who has that.

His supporters are the polar opposite of Trump though. Trumpers are there for the pain and suffering he causes to others. Sanders supporters are there because of the pain and suffering they're experiencing right now in the broken system we have today.

Click to shrink...

Damn, this is a great post.

 

[Prodigal Son]

This is a particular flavor of bullshit that I see coming towards Sanders that I don't see with any other candidate. There's an exceeding level of intellectual dishonesty in the way he gets attacked.

Click to shrink...

i cant believe sady doyle said something batshit

 

[HipsterMorty]

i cant believe sady doyle said something batshit

Click to shrink...

I'm not too familiar with Sady so maybe this isn't surprising coming from her. Still a ridiculous comment though.

 

[bricewgilbert]

You can either vote blue no matter who this election, 2022, and every election after, or every major ecosystem will collapse.

Click to shrink...

You really think the candidates who aren't for a green new deal type bill will be able to stop this? A revolution is going to be required not just in the US but across the planet.

 

[Steel]

They only have to worry about their tiny district or state. The presidential nominee needs to worry about far more territory. Sure maybe if you had a blue dog candidate you lose by slightly less to Trump or even eke out a victory in that state, but that candidate would depress democratic turnout across the entire country.

Click to shrink...

Oh, I'm not saying you run the candidate you would in red states or swing districts, nobody running would qualify other than Klobs and Bloomer.

 

[V_Arnold]

You can either vote blue no matter who this election, 2022, and every election after, or every major ecosystem will collapse.

Click to shrink...

And you can make sure the party does not elect a Republican in power so even with "vote Blue no matter who", the major ecosystems will still collapse because he aint going to do shit to fix it.

I love how people think that Bloomberg will be a progressive or even moderately democrat candidate. He was still a republican at policy last tuesday.

 

[Poodlestrike]

You're not making sense here. Bernie supporters saying they think Bernie drives out new voters and you risk losing them if you don't nominate him isn't different than moderates saying they think you need to appeal to moderates to get their vote. They are both trying to make an argument as to why their candidate has the better chance of winning the GE. You're jumping to the conclusion that only Bernie supporters saying that are simultaneously talking about themselves.
And I'll add that I have absolutely met these never Bernie people, in real life no less. I work with them and discuss every damn day. I've never met a Bernie or Buster in real life. Doesn't mean they aren't there, but hey anecdotes and you seem to believe these never Bernie people aren't real.

Click to shrink...

I started off saying that the "if Bernie isn't the nominee a bunch of people will stay home so you should vote for Bernie" comes off as threatening coming from Bernie supporters because it's really easy to read as "vote for my pick or else" in the first reply in the chain, and I actually explicitly say that again in that post you're quoting, so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying that I'm treating them differently.

The centrist case for nominating a centrist and the leftist case for nominating a leftist are both ultimately "you must appeal to me or else you'll lose." If you're just a regular ass middle-of-the-road Democratic voter making an argument one way or the other, it's not really the same thing.

Click to shrink...

People in the swing voter camp who say that if you don't nominate a candidate who appeals to swing voters you'll lose so you better == people in the Bernie voter camp who say that if you don't nominate a candidate who appeals to Bernie voters (Bernie) you'll lose.

This also sort of implicitly agrees that yes, there are people who would stay home if Bernie is the nominee. They tend not to be mainstream Dem party people, though. Some from the right flank of the party, maybe, but like, even Joe Manchin only goes so far as to equivocate, so I can't imagine that die hard Bernie haters are any signficant share of the party. Literally every mainstream Democratic personality I follow on Twitter and elsewhere is pretty explicit about voting for anybody who gets the nom, even if they'd prefer it not be Bernie. Those guys tend to be pundits, cable news guys, and "nonpartisan" people who somehow mysteriously keep finding reasons to support Republicans.

 

[Deleted member 4614]

And you can make sure the party does not elect a Republican in power so even with "vote Blue no matter who", the major ecosystems will still collapse because he aint going to do shit to fix it.

I love how people think that Bloomberg will be a progressive or even moderately democrat candidate. He was still a republican at policy last tuesday.

Click to shrink...

As a qualifier, I'm definitely not voting for Bloomberg in the primary.

But...have you read up on his climate policy? Like in any detail?

 

[V_Arnold]

I started off saying that the "if Bernie isn't the nominee a bunch of people will stay home so you should vote for Bernie" comes off as threatening coming from Bernie supporters because it's really easy to read as "vote for my pick or else" in the first reply in the chain, and I actually explicitly say that again in that post you're quoting, so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying that I'm treating them differently.

Click to shrink...

You can interpret that as a threat, but it is politics 101. If your candidate who represents your needs does not get elected in the process, you are more than likely to lose faith in going to vote, knowing full well that the candidate that won has no interest at actually enacting powerful, progressive policies. I do not get why some people think that the dems are owed a vote when political reality is that there is a large chunk of population in every country on earth who do not feel that politics can help them, or are disenfranchised enough to vote. No matter the amount of scold, these people will not turn out on election day for Bloomberg, and the reasons are very self-explanatory.

 

[Poodlestrike]

You can interpret that as a threat, but it is politics 101. If your candidate who represents your needs does not get elected in the process, you are more than likely to lose faith in going to vote, knowing full well that the candidate that won has no interest at actually enacting powerful, progressive policies. I do not get why some people think that the dems are owed a vote when political reality is that there is a large chunk of population in every country on earth who do not feel that politics can help them, or are disenfranchised enough to vote. No matter the amount of scold, these people will not turn out on election day for Bloomberg, and the reasons are very self-explanatory.

Click to shrink...

Literally the entire point of my post is to talk about why the argument, as presented in the way it was presented, is read as a threat, and is reacted to poorly. Because people don't like being threatened. I'm not saying that Bloomberg is going to have better turnout. I've in fact said the opposite. The correctness or incorrectness of it is irrelevant.

 

[Kyra]

Damn, this is a great post.

Click to shrink...

It is a great post and i think it highlights what the conflict here is when it comes to the pros and cons of running Bernie and what hurdles it presents when it comes to a path to victory. The take from the midterms proves that increasing turnout will net gains for Dems no matter who the candidate is because of Trump being a factor. I feel that in November that will remain largely unchanged. The difference is there is a EC map to consider which complicates things. One has to weigh the gains of pushing Bernie's usual narriative against how thos positions are received in the states needed to win. Bernie has to sell his positions and garner support in those areas above all others and thats the calculus. A grassroots campaign in each state drumming up as much support is whats needed from a candidate with a fanatical following. And i think Bernie fits the bill. The questions is are there enough votes to rally in the first place. I dont totally subscribe to the notion that there are no voters on the fence about Voting for Bernie based on how left he is. The question is where are these voters and can they be persuaded? If it means victory I dont give a shit what Bernie has to say. Just do it.

 

[HipsterMorty]

Oh, I'm not saying you run the candidate you would in red states or swing districts, nobody running would qualify other than Klobs and Bloomer.

Click to shrink...

The thing about Klobuchar is she constantly argues that she's electable because she's a moderate dem who is successful in her state and could win swing states, but she polls the worst in a number of key swing states compared to other Democrats. She polls the worst against Trump in; North Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, and I'd bet a couple others if we had the data on it. Sanders is the strongest candidate in swing states with maybe the exception of Joe who polls marginally better in some swing states. But I wouldn't bet on joe because of that, I think he'd depress turnout which is really the thing that is way more important than polls of who "likely voters" prefer.

 

[Vector]

Joe Biden tends to poll well then collapse on election day due to 0 enthusiasm. Running him in the general would be a major risk.

 

[Skatterd]

I think the hope/expectation is that we get results today (or by midnight at least), but they're messaging the worst in case anything goes wrong and so they can "beat expectations"

 

[jviggy43]

1. Centrist moderate numbers are vastly overrated. See analysis from Geoffrey Skelly on 538 here. That same study links to another of his that points out how they mostly went to Trump last cycle and he only won by a few hundred thousand votes in a few select swing states that had very poor Dem turnout.

2. Per Rachel Bitecofer, a professor who specializes in electoral prediction models and largely nailed the mid-terms, they no longer decide elections.

3. Even allowing the moderate undecideds a seat at the table requires one to acknowledge who they are. 538 has another great study showing that they already have polarized views, they just don't associate strongly with a party despite sharing some non-trivial core ideology.

4. The entire Trump campaign that worked in 2016 was to make the race so distasteful as to keep most moderates from even showing up. Bannon has spoken about this at length so I won't give any of the conservative rags he did so the clicks for covering it. The entire strategy was to mobilize a largely untapped base of alt-right shitheads while making the "moderate" suburban white voters stay home because of how unpleasant politics had become. It worked very, very well.

The Democratic party won the mid-terms because they got moderate dems AND a larger segment of the base than in 2016 to show up.

All polling shows that moderate dems are, like they did in '18, going to show up specifically to vote against Trump, regardless of the Dem candidate. "Moderate" independents broke hard for Trump in '16 already. So either they caught a cup of reality since then or they're already lost regardless of the Dem candidate.

The only candidate with a meaningful X factor to turn out voters is Sanders. There is a massive wealth of <40 voters to be tapped into. If Sanders can do that, which all polling says he and only he can, that is a paradigm shift. He doesn't need to to massively move the needle either.

<30's turned out at about 50% in 2016, as compared to about 58% across the whole field. They'll account for an even larger share of the electorate in 2020. Clinton lost this group in two ways:
1. she got worse turnout than Obama did in both '08 and '12.
2. when <30's did turn out they were far more likely to vote 3rd party. Third party candidates combined for 3% of the vote in 2012. That was up to 8% in 2016. A lot of that went to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The former was the "conservative moderate" and libertarian alternative to Donald Trump. Sanders, the longest tenured anti-foreign engagement politician in the country, plays well to that audience even if they don't care for his healthcare policies. The Stein voters were a huge loss for Clinton and likely were a big part of deciding at least two or three swing states. Sanders would almost certainly bring most of them back in the fold.

Conventional political strategy at this point is a both-sides-ism. To believe it you need to believe that there is a vast ocean of moderate undecideds, when all assessments prove the opposite. That those moderates are willing to swing based on candidates and aren't going to instead vote on a single personal issue, like immigration, abortion rights/lack thereof, etc.. That even if some margin of them could be swung they're going to be swung by anything but the economy.

Its wishful, naive thinking. Unless the economy tanks before the election the Dem path to victory is running a candidate who energizes untapped left voters, which amounts to the youth and hispanic voters. Sanders leads both by a wide margin.

That candidate also needs to be unflappable and unwavering in the face of political criticism. The major news networks, CNN and MSNBC included, put far more time digging into Clinton's shit than Trump's shit in '16. That will happen again. They did this because for every "its over" story they had on Trump his support would bounce back within a week and it wouldn't matter. Telling the truth about Trump had less media draw than telling stories about Clinton.

Sanders is that guy too. No one in the Dem Primary has been able to make anything stick to him. Nothing from MSNBC or CNN either. How Fox News covers him is irrelevant because their viewership is already in lockstep with the Trump agenda.

Chuck Todd putting a conservative op-ed on a podium by calling Sanders supporters brownshirts shows the flaw at MSNBC. They went for the Nazi imagery over the actual part that had merit: To win now you need a higher floor of support than ever before as that makes you teflon from the disingenuous reporting we get from for profit media. Sanders is the only candidate on the left who has that.

His supporters are the polar opposite of Trump though. Trumpers are there for the pain and suffering he causes to others. Sanders supporters are there because of the pain and suffering they're experiencing right now in the broken system we have today.

Click to shrink...

Best post on this entire forum

And you can make sure the party does not elect a Republican in power so even with "vote Blue no matter who", the major ecosystems will still collapse because he aint going to do shit to fix it.

I love how people think that Bloomberg will be a progressive or even moderately democrat candidate. He was still a republican at policy last tuesday.

Click to shrink...

I love how people think that anyone but sanders, warren and steyer are going to save the planet as well.

The results are in. The official #Climate2020 scorecard | Greenpeace USA

Find out where your candidate is on a #GreenNewDeal and saying #NoToFossilFuels

www.greenpeace.org

 

[darkside]

It is a great post and i think it highlights what the conflict here is when it comes to the pros and cons of running Bernie and what hurdles it presents when it comes to a path to victory. The take from the midterms proves that increasing turnout will net gains for Dems no matter who the candidate is because of Trump being a factor. I feel that in November that will remain largely unchanged. The difference is there is a EC map to consider which complicates things. One has to weigh the gains of pushing Bernie's usual narriative against how thos positions are received in the states needed to win. Bernie has to sell his positions and garner support in those areas above all others and thats the calculus. A grassroots campaign in each state drumming up as much support is whats needed from a candidate with a fanatical following. And i think Bernie fits the bill. The questions is are there enough votes to rally in the first place. I dont totally subscribe to the notion that there are no voters on the fence about Voting for Bernie based on how left he is. The question is where are these voters and can they be persuaded? If it means victory I dont give a shit what Bernie has to say. Just do it.

Click to shrink...

Dems had some of the highest turnout ever in 2018 in FL and got completely shellacked.

Gillum's entire campaign fell apart in the last week mainly because he got slapped with the "socialist" tag. Desantis ended up winning 26 of the top 30 counties in terms of turnout.

I really can't fathom a scenario where Bernie wins FL honestly. I know the polling says its a tie or hes slightly behind in a h2h trump but I think come November that matchup wouldn't even be competitive.

That said I'd rather lose with Bernie (although he's not even my 1st choice) than have to vote for Bloomberg who honestly I think would have a better shot in FL given the unique circumstances here in the state.

 

[Kirblar]

this is kind of personal to me because i bought into the bullshit of "electability" in 2016. i was one of the people on gaf who preferred hillary over bernie even though i liked the latter's policies more

but i was proven wrong by events when hillary lost. so i did the rational thing when you're proven wrong by events and made a mea culpa and changed my stance

similarly, i have a hard time accepting certain arguments as having been made in good faith when they turn out to be wrong and people then don't come out and say "my bad". it's not my fault that those people didn't choose to amend their stances to fit reality. they are the people making themselves look bad. it's not on me to unmake their mistakes. that's squarely on them.

Click to shrink...

That it doesn't occur to people that both were suboptimal candidates as an explanation blows my mind.

 

[Steel]

The thing about Klobuchar is she constantly argues that she's electable because she's a moderate dem who is successful in her state and could win swing states, but she polls the worst in a number of key swing states compared to other Democrats. She polls the worst against Trump in; North Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, and I'd bet a couple others if we had the data on it. Sanders is the strongest candidate in swing states with maybe the exception of Joe who polls marginally better in some swing states. But I wouldn't bet on joe because of that, I think he'd depress turnout which is really the thing that is way more important than polls of who "likely voters" prefer.

Click to shrink...

Klobs does have a really good track record in her state. Like, on paper her ability to flip things electorally is amazing. The problem is that, outside of paper, she's not a particularly good speaker and the country is pretty sexist. And, honestly, she has been outperforming her polling numbers despite being low name rec.

Personally, my take is all the candidates are bad electorally, only reason Joe and Bernie are polling well nationally is because of just how shit Trump is. Any other pub in this economy would be up in the sky sailing to re-election.

I mean, this is how voters poll on the economy:

Click to shrink...

Click to shrink...

Only 8% of voters view the economy as poor atm from these polls, 59% view the economy as getting better with 33% view it as getting worse.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1609/consumer-views-economy.aspx

And pretty much every pollster shows similar numbers. It's just that Trump's shittiness has overridden that in the minds of most voters in 2018 and this year.

Also, random addendum, just look at how those economic anxiety numbers go away without the black man in office despite the fact that we're going at no faster a rate than we were under Obama.

 

[Mekanos]

Dick van dyke is awesome

Click to shrink...

Has this been posted yet

(I hate how crowded this primary is, good god)

 

[Kirblar]

Klobs does have a really good track record in her state. Like, on paper her ability to flip thing electorally is amazing. The problem is that, outside of paper, she's not a particularly good speaker and the country is pretty sexist.

Personally, my take is all the candidates are bad electorally, only reason Joe and Bernie are polling well nationally is because of just how shit Trump is. Any other pub in this economy would be up in the sky sailing to re-election.

I mean, this is how voters poll on the economy:


Only 8% of voters view the economy as poor atm from these polls, 59% view the economy as getting better with 33% view it as getting worse.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1609/consumer-views-economy.aspx

And pretty much every pollster shows similar numbers. It's just that Trump's shittiness has overridden that in the minds of most voters in 2018 and this year.

Click to shrink...

On the Trump polling stuff and more specifically why he tends to poll the same regardless of matchup while the other number varies-

 

[kambaybolongo]

Bloomberg is doctoring teeets again

 

[Kyra]

Dems had some of the highest turnout ever in 2018 in FL and got completely shellacked.

Gillum's entire campaign fell apart in the last week mainly because he got slapped with the "socialist" tag. Desantis ended up winning 26 of the top 30 counties in terms of turnout.

I really can't fathom a scenario where Bernie wins FL honestly. I know the polling says its a tie or hes slightly behind in a h2h trump but I think come November that matchup wouldn't even be competitive.

That said I'd rather lose with Bernie (although he's not even my 1st choice) than have to vote for Bloomberg who honestly I think would have a better shot in FL given the unique circumstances here in the state.

Click to shrink...

Thankfully we wont need FL to win but it sure would make things a lot easier. And id rather not lose with Bernie tbh. That is unacceptable. This is why i dont take umbrage with vote blue no matter who sentiment. It is my mantra an I embrace it proudly because I feel opposition to Trump with any candidate.. even fucking Bloomberg gives you the moral high ground. And it isnt because im a Dem cheerleader. I have this view based on merit. At the same time I think, like Dreks post explains, Bernie is most equipped to turnout the vote to its maximum in any place where he works to build to coalition he has right now. But his runaway freight train of a primary campaign will meet with a pretty steep hill once hes the nominee and FLorida absolutly embodies that. As far as im concerned. WI, PA, AZ, NC and FL pretty much becomes America when a nominee is picked and whoever it is needs a plan.

 

[V_Arnold]

Literally the entire point of my post is to talk about why the argument, as presented in the way it was presented, is read as a threat, and is reacted to poorly. Because people don't like being threatened. I'm not saying that Bloomberg is going to have better turnout. I've in fact said the opposite. The correctness or incorrectness of it is irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

Okay. Lets turn this around.
Lets say: that is a threat. Now, I would wager that for people who cant afford medicine, cannot go to the doctor, are in sectors that will see devastating effects of automation, and are most suspectible when a recession hits, electing someone other than a truly progressive candidate is an existential threat. You are free to disagree with my standpoint on this, of course, but given what I have just stated as my belief, it makes total sense to me that one would "threaten" with not voting for just about anyone with a name D alongside its name. It has not worked out for these people in the past, so there is no incentinve to continue doing so.

 

[HipsterMorty]

Joy Reid with a rare good take.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

IT'SSSSSSSSSS NEEEVADA TIME

 

[V_Arnold]

Joy Reid with a rare good take.

Click to shrink...

This.... is actually a good take.

 

[Mekanos]

Thankfully we wont need FL to win but it sure would make things a lot easier. And id rather not lose with Bernie tbh. That is unacceptable. This is why i dont take umbrage with vote blue no matter who sentiment. It is my mantra an I embrace it proudly because I feel opposition to Trump with any candidate.. even fucking Bloomberg gives you the moral high ground. And it isnt because im a Dem cheerleader. I have this view based on merit. At the same time I think, like Dreks post explains, Bernie is most equipped to turnout the vote to its maximum in any place where he works to build to coalition he has right now. But his runaway freight train of a primary campaign will meet with a pretty steep hill once hes the nominee and FLorida absolutly embodies that. As far as im concerned. WI, PA, AZ, NC and FL pretty much becomes America when a nominee is picked and whoever it is needs a plan.

Click to shrink...

If Bloomberg is the nomination the Dems 100% lose anyway, Florida or otherwise, so I don't think it's worth humoring too much.

1984 electric boogaloo.

 

[lmcfigs]

Joy Reid with a rare good take.

Click to shrink...

wtf Joy Reid is right?

 

[Addie]

Yeah, that's a 100% correct take, both by Joy and by Bernie. It's also succinct and devoid of nuance, because the statement doesn't need nuance.

 

[Kyra]

If Bloomberg is the nomination the Dems 100% lose anyway, Florida or otherwise, so I don't think it's worth humoring too much.

1984 electric boogaloo.

Click to shrink...

Honestly I shouldn't have even mentioned him simply because Warren gave him the killshot (hopefully) And I've been must more optimistic thinking that he has no chance to be the nominee.

 

[sphagnum]

lol Bernie is straight up trolling Warren by holding a 4 day music festival in MA called Berniepalooza

BERNIEPALOOZA: A Four-Day Festival Of Music And Canvassing · Bernie 2020

*Four days *Multiple acts *Canvassing, canvassing, canvassing IT IS BERNIEPALOOZA. Join folks from around the country for BERNIEPALOOZA. It is the most fun and helpful way to support Bernie 2020 in Massachusetts on Super Tuesday. Come for one days, two days, four days. WE ARE FRESH OUT OF...

events.berniesanders.com