For branding purposes this is actually a good way to win a completely fucked senate map whether we like it or not
Legislatively his consensus nonsense won't work but this sort of rhetoric does actually go over better with voters in purple/red states
Don't forget the Michelob Ultra!Join us on the Warren train, we got snacks and a golden retriever
got more traction than he would have otherwise because of Russian meddling
I do remember seeing some stories about Russian bots having a side "boost Bernie" objective, but honestly, I doubt it had much to do with his popularity in 2016 compared to serving as a) a progressive policy voice and b) a "not Hillary" vote accumulator.
Did you... miss all of that? That Russia was in the tank for Sanders? This has been well documented.
I'm not denying that Sanders had his own message to carry, but it's a fact that Russia used him and his supporters to damage Clinton.I do remember seeing some stories about Russian bots having a side "boost Bernie" objective, but honestly, I doubt it had much to do with his popularity in 2016 compared to serving as a) a progressive policy voice and b) a "not Hillary" vote accumulator.
Here is @GovMattBevin trolling the @KyDems booth at the @kystatefair today with a jacket of President Donald #Trump's face. #KYGov
.@MattBevin says a man at the @kystatefair gave him the #Trump jacket.
"We are going to win again," he says. "I can feel it. I can sense it. The tide has turned in a big way." #KYGov
Did you... miss all of that? That Russia was in the tank for Sanders? This has been well documented.
I'm not denying that Sanders had his own message to carry, but it's a fact that Russia used him and his supporters to damage Clinton.
The one thing the President has complete control over is the military.Hot take
any of these dems as president will likely accomplish the same stuff on domestic policy unless one of them has a magic timeline were we crush the senate in a fanfic way
I mean it wasn't the only reason. I don't think anyone has said that. But it was a bit more than a "some social media ads."well you seemed to insinuate that Russian trolls were the major reason why bernie gained traction, which is bit laughable honestly
and I sort of disagree with your framing that Russia was in the tank for Sanders. yeah there were some social media ads and stuff like that. they did the same thing with BLM. doesn't mean BLM was a Russian op or something
There were legitimate journalists like Virginia Heffernan saying Sanders was a stooge/agent for the Kremlin.well you seemed to insinuate that Russian trolls were the major reason why bernie gained traction, which is bit laughable honestly
and I sort of disagree with your framing that Russia was in the tank for Sanders. yeah there were some social media ads and stuff like that. they did the same thing with BLM. doesn't mean BLM was a Russian op or something
How do you replicate the coalition when there are 100 candidates in the race now when there were very few candidates who had the guts to do it last time. How does that prove Sanders "successes" last time were a Russian creation or something worthy of smearing him with?I mean it wasn't the only reason. I don't think anyone has said that. But it was a bit more than a "some social media ads."
Bernie benefited from several things in gaining traction in 2016. He was the only non-Clinton candidate. He managed to use Hillary's ties to Obama to drive support in states such as West Virginia. He also benefited from Russia's attempts to take out Hillary from the get go. And, yes, there were some people who were into his message. But his inability to get close to replicating his 2016 coalition is proof positive of what a lot of folks have been saying.
I mostly agree, with a couple exceptions. Anybody in favor of crushing the filibuster has a much higher chance to actually get legislation passed, and there's a few candidates (Warren and Harris, most notably) who've talked a lot about what they could do solely with the executive branch. Warren in particular is going to have a very different staff setup than most of the others would have, which could do a lot to shake things up.Hot take
any of these dems as president will likely accomplish the same stuff on domestic policy unless one of them has a magic timeline were we crush the senate in a fanfic way
How do you replicate the coalition when there are 100 candidates in the race now when there were very few candidates who had the guts to do it last time. How does that prove Sanders "successes" last time were a Russian creation or something worthy of smearing him with?
Sanders is hovering around 16.5 to 17% national support along with Warren. I don't understand what coalition he does not have this time.
I mean, he is not hovering around 17% unless you only look at a handful of online only polls and ignore high quality telephone polls. The Fox News Poll, for instance, has Bernie going from 23% in March to 10% now. His trajectory is pretty clear, and is indicative that he isn't even close to activating the parts of his 2016 coalition. But, again, in poll after poll, we see Bernie isn't winning the most liberal group of voters (Warren is.) He's not winning white voters like he did in 2016. (Warren is.) It's not like he's leading with these groups at just a smaller margin...he's literally doing worse with them. Hell, he's not even winning Bernie 2016 voters. He's at 100% name recognition, and is very few voters second choice. He's a known quantity, and voters aren't interested.How do you replicate the coalition when there are 100 candidates in the race now when there were very few candidates who had the guts to do it last time. How does that prove Sanders "successes" last time were a Russian creation or something worthy of smearing him with?
Sanders is hovering around 16.5 to 17% national support along with Warren. I don't understand what coalition he does not have this time.
There aren't that many self-identifying socialists in America, you are right. Those feeling have been beaten and propagandized out of American consciousness for decades, but I would say blue dogs in red states and DINOs aren't the majority of his coalition either.His coalition last time had a lot of "anyone but Hillary" people who are not natural allies of his otherwise. The properly DemSoc portion of the Dems is still tiny (any polls which say which portion of the party are self-identified Socialists?). He gathered a coalition of Dems who are anti-DNC for varying reasons, including the blue dogs of Kentucky and WV, or why DINO's like Tulsi glommed on. It's to his credit that he was willing to stand up to Clinton in what otherwise would have been a real non-starter of a primary, but he absolutely can't replicate that.
In fact, I'd bet if you did poll the portion of the base who are self-identified socialists, it would not exceed 15% of registered Dems.
You can look at single polls and give yourself any conclusion you want. RCP has had him around 17% for a while. Sometimes ahead and sometime behind Sanders. Warren is winning the most "liberal" group of voters, if your definition of liberal is rich educated white people.I mean, he is not hovering around 17% unless you only look at a handful of online only polls and ignore high quality telephone polls. The Fox News Poll, for instance, has Bernie going from 23% in March to 10% now. His trajectory is pretty clear, and is indicative that he isn't even close to activating the parts of his 2016 coalition. But, again, in poll after poll, we see Bernie isn't winning the most liberal group of voters (Warren is.) He's not winning white voters like he did in 2016. (Warren is.) It's not like he's leading with these groups at just a smaller margin...he's literally doing worse with them. Hell, he's not even winning Bernie 2016 voters. He's at 100% name recognition, and is very few voters second choice. He's a known quantity, and voters aren't interested.
And, again, a lot of Bernie's 2016 support was based on being the only not clinton in the race. There are now a million choices, and he is not going to get those voters. West Virginia is not some liberal socialist utopia! There are fewer caucuses in 2016. His 2016 base wasn't enough, and there is zero evidence to suggest he is actually expanding his base whatsoever.
Yes. There were benefits to running against Hillary Clinton. This much is known.Also, to be clear, you do not have to be responsible for something to benefit from it. Bernie benefited from sexism among the mouth breathers who didn't want to vote for a woman. He benefited from the 30 years of bullshit the right threw at Hillary. He benefited from Russia's interference. He benefited (and was harmed by) his alienation of Obama's coalition (hence his strength in places like West Virginia.) That doesn't mean he is a sexist, Republican, Russian stooge. But you cannot pretend that there weren't benefits from running against, specifically, Hillary Clinton.
There was a way to successfully weaponize the "Anyone but clinton" vote, but he didn't do it.
Bernie has never been able to differentiate himself in a foreign policy debate lol. Remember in 2016 when he was asked a foreign policy question and immediately pivoted to millionaires/billionaires/wall street. And, no I don't think he needs to drop out right now. I think he'll never drop out and will hurt Warren because he has a history. But that's neither here nor there. And it's totally fine you support him, but the la la la everything is fine and he's really doing well and it's all going exactly as it should is exactly why he won't win this time either. But I ain't mad, you know I less than 3 you <3 :PYou can look at single polls and give yourself any conclusion you want. RCP has had him around 17% for a while. Sometimes ahead and sometime behind Sanders. Warren is winning the most "liberal" group of voters, if your definition of liberal is rich educated white people.
It's not just name recognition. And don't most polls show him as the 2nd choice for Biden voters for a long ass time? I will give you that is due to his name recognition, but he's also appealing to a more diverse pool of voters than Warren. His ideas have re-shaped the debates in the primary and the infrastructure of his campaign is built for the long haul versus last time when he was unprepared for a long race against Clinton.
He's not going away. He's in position to do well, and there are a lot of people who hope he goes away so Warren can win and compromise. I would be okay with that result, but I believe Sanders can do it this time. The Fox News poll is bad, but it's one poll and it's early.
Is anyone calling for Harris to drop out of the race or Buttigeg who are polling way worse? Sanders has the money, popularity, and message to keep going.
I look forward to a foreign policy debate where Sanders can differentiate himself even more.
That's fine. And also, I'm looking at RCP and not just one single poll.Bernie has never been able to differentiate himself in a foreign policy debate lol. Remember in 2016 when he was asked a foreign policy question and immediately pivoted to millionaires/billionaires/wall street. And, no I don't think he needs to drop out right now. I think he'll never drop out and will hurt Warren because he has a history. But that's neither here nor there. And it's totally fine you support him, but the la la la everything is fine and he's really doing well and it's all going exactly as it should is exactly why he won't win this time either.
I think he'll never drop out and will hurt Warren because he has a history.
His positions might be different, but he is very bad at talking about them. I also don't think foreign policy is a huge driver atm for the democratic electorate. That could change or be in flux of course. As to your first point, ya, Booty isn't getting the nomination either. I definitely think no one disputes that. No one is saying Bernie should drop out right now, but I do dispute the idea that he has a viable path to the nomination.Its funny how Pete has a third of Bernie's support and less than zero chance of getting PoC voters and some people here go "oh Petes nice i like Pete". At least with Kamala i get that she still has a shot.
Also the idea that 2020 Bernie wouldnt differentiate himself when it comes to a foreign policy debate is (i hope) inaccurate. His positions on Israel, Saudi arabia and others are now better than ever.
I genuinely dont know where Bernie goes from here. If he ever gets below 15% average for more than a week then i dont see him coming back from that.
Eh, I mean, there have been several polls that indicate Bernie (and Biden's) support is strongest among those who are paying very little attention at the moment. He's benefiting from name recognition among folks who couldn't care less at the minute.Warren supporters better hope Bernie stays in, because if his supporters' second choice is really Biden, then if he drops out Biden will be the one to gain the most.
The recent Pew Poll paints a different picture with second preferences in that th both Biden and Sanders' supporters don't really have them.Warren supporters better hope Bernie stays in, because if his supporters' second choice is really Biden, then if he drops out Biden will be the one to gain the most.
I mean it's pretty clear there was a very big Anyone But Clinton contingent to his rise.
A big chunk of his 2016 voters have gone to Biden.
It would have been interesting if Warren had run last time.
Also the plurality chunk of Warren's voters' second preference is Harris not Sanders.
Join us on the Warren train, we got snacks and a golden retriever
Did you... miss all of that? That Russia was in the tank for Sanders? This has been well documented.
I'm not denying that Sanders had his own message to carry, but it's a fact that Russia used him and his supporters to damage Clinton.