OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[Clyde_Style]

The question remains: Why stay on the ballot if you don't wait for the votes to be counted?

His campaign surely has exit polling numbers and a fairly accurate idea of the outcome in Wisconsin already. That's probably the answer.

[GONYK]

The question remains: Why stay on the ballot if you don't wait for the votes to be counted?

His campaign surely has exit polling numbers and a fairly accurate idea of the outcome in Wisconsin already. That's probably the answer.

I guess.

It's interesting that this was the line in the sand though.

Perhaps it was the risk of further voting to people's health that accelerated the decision.

[Clyde_Style]

The question remains: Why stay on the ballot if you don't wait for the votes to be counted?

His campaign surely has exit polling numbers and a fairly accurate idea of the outcome in Wisconsin already. That's probably the answer.

I guess.

It's interesting that this was the line in the sand though.

Perhaps it was the risk of further voting that accelerated the decision.

It was almost certainly both. In his speech he pretty much said that he had no clear path to victory and thus he didn't want to endanger voters any further.

I'm not going to quibble over his timing though. He could have stayed in and he didn't.

The only thing I'd say is a mistake is the idea that collecting delegates gives him more leverage. It does not. He verbally minted Biden as the nominee and there's no taking that back. Having additional delegates does not buy him more at the policy cash register. This is not politically astute at all.

His real leverage is right now. He should be meeting with Biden and hammering out concessions already, not waiting for a convention that may not even gather publicly. By promising to support Biden in full now he can get more in return.

[GONYK]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[robillionaire]

His campaign surely has exit polling numbers and a fairly accurate idea of the outcome in Wisconsin already. That's probably the answer.

I guess.

It's interesting that this was the line in the sand though.

Perhaps it was the risk of further voting that accelerated the decision.

It was almost certainly both. In his speech he pretty much said that he had no clear path to victory and thus he didn't want to endanger voters any further.

I'm not going to quibble over his timing though. He could have stayed in and he didn't.

The only thing I'd say is a mistake is the idea that collecting delegates gives him more leverage. It does not. He verbally minted Biden as the nominee and there's no taking that back. Having additional delegates does not buy him more at the policy cash register. This is not politically astute at all.

His real leverage is right now. He should be meeting with Biden and hammering out concessions already, not waiting for a convention that may not even gather publicly. By promising to support Biden in full now he can get more in return.

the delegates vote to draft the party platform at the convention

of course it's ultimately meaningless and the nominee is under no obligation to follow any of it

[Clyde_Style]

Since we already know his brain is scrambled eggs, the real takeaway from that is his allies told him mail-in voting works against him and the GOP. The rest is his feeble brain trying to demonize it.

[Clyde_Style]

I guess.

It's interesting that this was the line in the sand though.

Perhaps it was the risk of further voting that accelerated the decision.

It was almost certainly both. In his speech he pretty much said that he had no clear path to victory and thus he didn't want to endanger voters any further.

I'm not going to quibble over his timing though. He could have stayed in and he didn't.

The only thing I'd say is a mistake is the idea that collecting delegates gives him more leverage. It does not. He verbally minted Biden as the nominee and there's no taking that back. Having additional delegates does not buy him more at the policy cash register. This is not politically astute at all.

His real leverage is right now. He should be meeting with Biden and hammering out concessions already, not waiting for a convention that may not even gather publicly. By promising to support Biden in full now he can get more in return.

the delegates vote to draft the party platform at the convention

of course it's ultimately meaningless and the nominee is under no obligation to follow any of it

Sure, it will be largely symbolic. Since there will not be a bloc of delegates that can force their issues on to the ballot procedurally, it is better to cash in political favors now. I think I'm correct you get a bigger seat at the table NOW, not later, but that is just my opinion, not a statement of fact.

[j4remi]

All that context is irrelevant to my question. I never accused Bernie of pushing in person turn out strategies.

The question remains: Why stay on the ballot if you don't wait for the votes to be counted?

If you're only wondering why Bernie would drop out prior to all the votes being tallied, it's just exit polling. We called some races minutes after the polls closed in prior states. You don't have to wait for the official count to have a good idea what the result wille be. But if you begin it by framing health concerns (which your original question did), then the context I just provided addresses Bernie's handling of the health concerns going in; Biden's handling; and also the GOP's handling on it.

Plus I just think it's a great example of manufactured narratives and consent...health concerns made their way into the conversation to get Bernie to drop out but nobody gives a damn that Biden didn't use his voice to address the concerns until after the vote and in the primary prior to that his supporters encouraged turn out by downplaying the health risks.

[robillionaire]

It was almost certainly both. In his speech he pretty much said that he had no clear path to victory and thus he didn't want to endanger voters any further.

I'm not going to quibble over his timing though. He could have stayed in and he didn't.

The only thing I'd say is a mistake is the idea that collecting delegates gives him more leverage. It does not. He verbally minted Biden as the nominee and there's no taking that back. Having additional delegates does not buy him more at the policy cash register. This is not politically astute at all.

His real leverage is right now. He should be meeting with Biden and hammering out concessions already, not waiting for a convention that may not even gather publicly. By promising to support Biden in full now he can get more in return.

the delegates vote to draft the party platform at the convention

of course it's ultimately meaningless and the nominee is under no obligation to follow any of it

Sure, it will be largely symbolic. Since there will not be a bloc of delegates that can force their issues on to the ballot procedurally, it is better to cash in political favors now. I think I'm correct you get a bigger seat at the table NOW, not later, but that is just my opinion, not a statement of fact.

In 2016 even after conceding defeat his delegates got a few things added to the platform, so I suppose he has the same goal for this platform. Biden's delegates might want to include some of it in hopes that a progressive platform would convince people to vote for them

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12281022/the-democratic-party-platform

[j4remi]

:roll:

Since we already know his brain is scrambled eggs, the real takeaway from that is his allies told him mail-in voting works against him and the GOP. The rest is his feeble brain trying to demonize it.

This is what drives me crazy about people concern trolling Bernie over in-person voting when he was the only voice in the race suggesting against it and has spent weeks turning his campaign focus entirely to the pandemic (including raising millions toward that end).

The reality is that we just watched the GOP push a voter suppression tactic with the goal of locking up a State Supreme Court seat. The GOP is literally putting people's health at risk as a political calculation when alternatives are available. That's the conversation that needs to be had and it's a failing of our media and leadership if that message is being drowned out by more Bernie concern trolling (CNN literally had a panel focused on Bernie's concession not being nice enough to Biden ).

[Clyde_Style]

:roll:

Since we already know his brain is scrambled eggs, the real takeaway from that is his allies told him mail-in voting works against him and the GOP. The rest is his feeble brain trying to demonize it.

This is what drives me crazy about people concern trolling Bernie over in-person voting when he was the only voice in the race suggesting against it and has spent weeks turning his campaign focus entirely to the pandemic (including raising millions toward that end).

The reality is that we just watched the GOP push a voter suppression tactic with the goal of locking up a State Supreme Court seat. The GOP is literally putting people's health at risk as a political calculation when alternatives are available. That's the conversation that needs to be had and it's a failing of our media and leadership if that message is being drowned out by more Bernie concern trolling (CNN literally had a panel focused on Bernie's concession not being nice enough to Biden ).

Biden is guilty of not pushing back enough, I agree, but neither him nor Sanders were in the position to stop the Wisconsin GOP. I don't blame either of them for the situation though so I have no skin in the game re: anyone blaming Sanders. I know it was out of their hands and I also assume Sanders still would have lost by a similar margin by a mail-in ballots only vote.

Biden was basically taking the position of reassuring people they would be OK if they voted (i.e. stay six feet away, wipe down the machines, etc.) as he clearly stated the matter was in the hands of Wisconsin and no one else.

On the other hand, Sanders did not to my knowledge tell people to stay at home so even if he said it was bad to have people voting in person he did not ask his supporters to stay home.

That to me would be the true line in the sand. But Bernie did not do that so let's not overstate it as if he was great and Biden was bad. Bernie still stayed in the contest until he got the exit polls (which were only possible with a public vote) so let's not overstate his heroism vs. Biden's less vocal stance. They were both stuck in a mutually bad situation.

[GONYK]

All that context is irrelevant to my question. I never accused Bernie of pushing in person turn out strategies.

The question remains: Why stay on the ballot if you don't wait for the votes to be counted?

If you're only wondering why Bernie would drop out prior to all the votes being tallied, it's just exit polling. We called some races minutes after the polls closed in prior states. You don't have to wait for the official count to have a good idea what the result wille be. But if you begin it by framing health concerns, then the context I just provided addresses Bernie's handling of the health concerns going in; Biden's handling; and also the GOP's handling on it.

Plus I just think it's a great example of manufactured narratives and consent...health concerns made their way into the conversation to get Bernie to drop out but nobody gives a damn that Biden didn't use his voice to address the concerns until after the vote and in the primary prior to that his supporters encouraged turn out by downplaying the health risks.

Well, let me clarify something. I am not criticizing Bernie or blaming him for people putting their health at risk. I mentioned it because it is simply an undeniable fact that people put their health at risk to vote, and that the potential of that was known, to varying degrees, before the election.

I could write a long-form article on all the ways I feel about the SC wading into this (though I understand that they may have wanted to prevent a bad precedent being set) and the GOP's overall pattern on voter suppression.

I also understand exit polling.

Let me rephrase the question:

Bernie saw Wisconsin as worth staying in for. When health concerns became part of the calculus, he still decided to stay in (and encourage voting by mail), and now he has suspended his campaign before the official votes are tallied. The truth is though that:

-He was probably never going to win WI
- If he did win it, it wouldn't matter at all in the big scheme of things

So why was WI the last hurrah? Why stay on the ballot in these conditions if it doesn't alter the overall trajectory? And if you feel like having the vote in WI was worth it, what makes it different from any other future primary?

I am not casting any aspersions on Bernie in either direction. I am simply asking the question objectively to get a sense of his rationale.

[j4remi]

Biden is guilty of not pushing back enough, I agree, but neither him nor Sanders were in the position to stop the Wisconsin GOP. I don't blame either of them for the situation though so I have no skin in the game re: anyone blaming Sanders. I know it was out of their hands and I also assume Sanders still would have lost by a similar margin by a mail-in ballots only vote.

Biden was basically taking the position of reassuring people they would be OK if they voted (i.e. stay six feet away, wipe down the machines, etc.) as he clearly stated the matter was in the hands of Wisconsin and no one else.

On the other hand, Sanders did not to my knowledge tell people to stay at home so even if he said it was bad to have people voting in person he did not ask his supporters to stay home.

That to me would be the true line in the sand. But Bernie did not do that so let's not overstate it as if he was great and Biden was bad. Bernie still stayed in the contest until he got the exit polls.

IOW, Bernie still was open to seeing where he stood and thus open to people voting in public where he could actually collect exit polls, so let's not overstate his heroism vs. Biden's less vocal stance.

Nah this ain't me stressing Bernie's heroism. There's nothing heroic about common sense which Bernie and his staff practiced by stressing the CDC guidelines.

Timeline: His press secretary raised the CDC guidelines with regards to in person voting on March 15th, that was because a Biden surrogate mistakenly claimed that the CDC said it would be safe. She was accused of voter suppression and the false statement was not corrected.

In the lead up to Wisconsin, Bernie called to postpone by pointing to the health threat in his public statement. Biden did not request that the vote be postponed at all.

So let's not exaggerate the statement here. Bernie's no hero for pointing people to CDC guidelines, but Biden didn't lead. And we need him to lead. Cuomo shouldn't be the voice on the pandemic and Bernie shouldn't be the voice of reason in a primary when Biden is the face of the party right now. THAT'S what matters here.

[j4remi]

Well, let me clarify something. I am not criticizing Bernie or blaming him for people putting their health at risk. I mentioned it because it is simply an undeniable fact that people put their health at risk to vote, and that the potential of that was known, to varying degrees, before the election.

I could write a long-form article on all the ways I feel about the SC wading into this (though I understand that they may have wanted to prevent a bad precedent being set) and the GOP's overall pattern on voter suppression.

I also understand exit polling.

Let me rephrase the question:

Bernie saw Wisconsin as worth staying in for. When health concerns became part of the calculus, he still decided to stay in (and encourage voting by mail), and now he has suspended his campaign before the official votes are tallied. The truth is though that:

-He was probably never going to win WI
- If he did win it, it wouldn't matter at all in the big scheme of things

So why was WI the last hurrah? Why stay on the ballot in these conditions if it doesn't alter the overall trajectory? And if you feel like having the vote in WI was worth it, what makes it different from any other future primary?

I am not casting any aspersions on Bernie in either direction. I am simply asking the question objectively to get a sense of his rationale.

So getting to the nitty gritty:
1. So why was WI the last hurrah? Why stay on the ballot in these conditions if it doesn't alter the overall trajectory? And if you feel like having the vote in WI was worth it, what makes it different from any other future primary?

Clyde has astutely mentioned that delegates don't always equal leverage all the same. But for Bernie, running up the delegate numbers tied in to some of his impact on the platform last time and helped cut Super Delegates out of the first round of voting in future primaries. He may also have hoped to see improved numbers with a shift to a more voter friendly option like mail-in ballots. This would make the exit polling after a mail-in focused campaign attempt more important for his forward outlook as if he saw a path to drive up his delegate margins, he could leverage more changes.

But I'll note that I removed entirely the health implications because, it ignores that Bernie did in fact take steps to address the health concerns...

- Most states had postponed their polling and Bernie was actively calling for Wisconsin to do the same (as did the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and the Governor)

- The health implications should be used to highlight the value of mail-in ballots. Bernie literally encouraged Wisconsin to convert fully to mail-in ballots and then encouraged his voters to use that option:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/politics/bernie-sanders-wisconsin-primary/index.html

People should not be forced to put their lives on the line to vote, which is why 15 states are now following the advice of public health experts and delaying their elections," Sanders said in a statement on Wednesday. "We urge Wisconsin to join them."
He also called on the state to extend early voting, once the election has been pushed back, and "work to move entirely to vote-by-mail." In the meantime, Sanders encouraged his supporters to cast their ballots through the mail.

- And beyond that, it looked like we'd get the postponed election up until a last minute decision. Which means there was a way to get this election done safely and it looked like a viable option right until the eve of the election.

So to cliff's notes all that (the rationale is probably along these lines):
1. Bernie has a successful track record of using his delegate counts to insert progressive goals into the Democratic Platform.
2. He'd taken precaution in warning his voters about the health implications and pushed to postpone.
3. The postponement was an uncertainty right until the election started, so he may have believed the health implications were going to be averted.
4. He also may have thought that mail-in focus would give him a bump from his specific contingent of voters.

And last bit: Bernie dropping out this quickly is probably a combination of bad exit polling and looking at the amount of people that risked their health. He took steps to encourage vote by mail, it didn't have the sort of impact he'd hoped for (from both a health and polling perspective) and that leaves him with a quick exit to consolidate what leverage he has left and try to get some changes.

[Clyde_Style]

Biden is guilty of not pushing back enough, I agree, but neither him nor Sanders were in the position to stop the Wisconsin GOP. I don't blame either of them for the situation though so I have no skin in the game re: anyone blaming Sanders. I know it was out of their hands and I also assume Sanders still would have lost by a similar margin by a mail-in ballots only vote.

Biden was basically taking the position of reassuring people they would be OK if they voted (i.e. stay six feet away, wipe down the machines, etc.) as he clearly stated the matter was in the hands of Wisconsin and no one else.

On the other hand, Sanders did not to my knowledge tell people to stay at home so even if he said it was bad to have people voting in person he did not ask his supporters to stay home.

That to me would be the true line in the sand. But Bernie did not do that so let's not overstate it as if he was great and Biden was bad. Bernie still stayed in the contest until he got the exit polls.

IOW, Bernie still was open to seeing where he stood and thus open to people voting in public where he could actually collect exit polls, so let's not overstate his heroism vs. Biden's less vocal stance.

Nah this ain't me stressing Bernie's heroism. There's nothing heroic about common sense which Bernie and his staff practiced by stressing the CDC guidelines.

Timeline: His press secretary raised the CDC guidelines with regards to in person voting on March 15th, that was because a Biden surrogate mistakenly claimed that the CDC said it would be safe. She was accused of voter suppression and the false statement was not corrected.

In the lead up to Wisconsin, Bernie called to postpone by pointing to the health threat in his public statement. Biden did not request that the vote be postponed at all.

So let's not exaggerate the statement here. Bernie's no hero for pointing people to CDC guidelines, but Biden didn't lead. And we need him to lead. Cuomo shouldn't be the voice on the pandemic and Bernie shouldn't be the voice of reason in a primary when Biden is the face of the party right now. THAT'S what matters here.

Fair enough, but I would not say Biden was against postponing. The distinction is he did not come out against the live vote like Bernie did which I did acknowledge. I'm already past it as the outcome was not ultimately affected by either man. The voters who were going to show up were going to do so regardless of what either one said.

[j4remi]

Fair enough, but I would not say Biden was against postponing. The distinction is he did not come out against the live vote like Bernie did which I did acknowledge. I'm already past it as the outcome was not ultimately affected by either man. The voters who were going to show up were going to do so regardless of what either one said.

I'm just waiting to see Biden actually fight for something. He can be strategic and smart about it, but now he's solely in Trump's crosshairs and the apparatus that propels Trump too. He has to be able to drive a narrative against that machine now and they'll do whatever they can to pin every catastrophe we're facing on the Dems. The least he can do is start to stand up and back the party, he could have started with Evers.

[Clyde_Style]

Fair enough, but I would not say Biden was against postponing. The distinction is he did not come out against the live vote like Bernie did which I did acknowledge. I'm already past it as the outcome was not ultimately affected by either man. The voters who were going to show up were going to do so regardless of what either one said.

I'm just waiting to see Biden actually fight for something. He can be strategic and smart about it, but now he's solely in Trump's crosshairs and the apparatus that propels Trump too. He has to be able to drive a narrative against that machine now and they'll do whatever they can to pin every catastrophe we're facing on the Dems. The least he can do is start to stand up and back the party, he could have started with Evers.

I agree. I'd give it a minute though. Now that the nomination is settled they are getting their team assembled. As the nominee he'll start to get the air time. Biden can be feisty so I don't think he's going to roll over. Like you, I think now is not the time to play it safe in regards to either policy or strategy. You got the nod, now run hard with it.

[Stannis]

Thank you Bernie Sanders!!!

[Stannis]

If you are not with Biden, you are clearly a Russian asset.

[Clyde_Style]

If you are not with Biden, you are clearly a Russian asset.