Pointgod wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:Trump winning the nomination forced the "mainstream" Republicans to concede power to the radical right wing of their party, they held their noses and voted for Trump and won themselves a two year one party dictatorship. That worked out better than they could have possibly hoped. Trump got his base riled up and out of their seats and into the voting booth.
I'm not a huge Bernie fan but honestly a Bernie win would 1) penalize all the plutocrats who raided the government coffers for the two years the GOP was running amok with no oversight 2) teach the Dems to pay attention to their progressive "base" (instead of being purple Republicans like Biden is) although a candidate that represented African Americans would accomplish that better than Bernie I think. Also if a big Bernie surge gets his followers off their keisters and out to the voting booth they might help us win the Senate. I'd support Tulsi Gabbard if it meant winning the senate.
thank God we’ll never have to find out.
You can’t compare Trump grabbing the GOP by the pussy to the anyone on the left. The right wing is a bunch of morally bankrupt grifters who don’t care about racism and want tax cuts and loud and proud racists who want tax cuts. There’s little distinction between the right. It’s why Trump can at the same time say government is corrupt, yet funnel money from the government to his gold clubs while still supported by the same morons that voted him in to fight corruption. Long as Trump cuts taxes, appoints unqualified right wing judges and remains openly racist Republicans will fall in line.
I’ve mentioned this before but I’ve been listening to some podcasts that speak with Democratic primary voters. Happy to recommend them, but I don’t think enough people realize there are huge blind spots with Bernie. The man is an uncompromising ideologue and has not managed to rebrand his policies away from socialism. For example, when a supporter who worked for an insurance company asked him about job loss with Medicare for all he told her that yes people will lose their jobs. That’s it. I get that Medicare long term Medicare for all is better long term than the current system, but I don’t know how the hell he’ll convince non hardcore Bernie supporters to vote for him when his basic pitch is your taxes will go up and if you work in healthcare you’ll most likely lose your job. I have no idea why she’s fallen, Elizabeth Warren is better messenger for Bernie’s policies than Bernie. You get 95% of what Bernie is offering, but someone willing to get rid of the filibuster, appoint a committee to investigate Trump’s corruption and will lay out a plan to get things done. I think she could better speak to the non Progressives who don’t want to burn it all down.
I can't pin down one reason why Elizabeth Warren has fallen (and as you stated before who knows if the polls are accurate) but I can speculate why she has.
- Warren's surge came from strong debate performances against poor ones mediocre candidates like John Delaney and a slew of others. Candidates like Biden also struggled. This coincided with Sanders health issues (a sore throat debate performance as well as a heart attack). Now I think several Sanders supporter switched to Warren during this time frame especially when pundits on MSNBC/CNN stated that Warren was more electable.
- That being said, Sanders support still stayed within striking distance. He has the most passionate supporters out of all the candidates, while many dislike him, those that like him, like Sanders a lot. I think it reminds me of fans of a sports team that often drive the narrative such as LA. One can't also discount the fact Sanders has much higher name recognition than Warren especially for those who are not following the debates closely given that he was a candidate in 2016. Not to mention a few weeks after his heart attack, Bernie Sanders received the endorsement of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez which help shed the label of Bernie Sanders as being too white (in fact I believe CNN/MSNBC now criticized Sanders as being "too urban")
- Back to Warren, once she became in the top 2, she started to receive attacks on not only the progressive side but also publications like the Washington Post (columnist like Jennifer Rubin which Democratic relatives have forwarded me that basically attack Warren as too liberal).
- In the next time frame, Warren was no longer the surging candidate and attempted to appear more moderate perhaps in an attempt to attract Harris's supporters as well as Mayor Pete and Amy Kloubacher. She stated that medicare for all would only be addressed in the 3rd year of her term. While this may be a good strategy for a general election, in a democratic primary, a majority of voters prefer medicare for all over the status quo. This allowed Sanders an opening to gain even more of her supporters which he may have previously lost and at the same time didn't seem to budge any moderate voters.
- Overall, Warren's debate performances no longer seemed as impressive especially as the field improved. Even Biden's debate performances improved enough. Warren's wine cave debate with Mayor Pete probably hurt both candidates- especially since it seemed hyperbolic since she she had received big money donation from her previous senatorial campaign which she was using for her presidential run. Sanders in the meantime may have peeled off some supporters.
- Again one can't underestimate the base of support that Sanders established in 2016. He has people more likely to volunteer for him, give money to him. I also think the result of him having more passionate supporters is a double edge sword, they can be toxic but they can attract voters who are undecided on who to vote for.
- Warren's attack on Sanders prior to the last debate appears to come up flat (Sanders doesn't think a female president could win). I think Warren's attempt to subtly imply Sanders is sexist hasn't done much to convince any non Sanders/Warren supporters I know to support her. At the same time, campaign supporters like Michael Moore made a podcast about "The downfall of Elizabeth Warren" (
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/michael-moore-4/rumble-with-michael-moore/e/66581238).
- Warren also shifted to a more moderate position of supporting the new trade deal while Sanders was against it. Pod Save America cited that even Democrats back in 2008 voted against trade deals because they believed that the Democrats would write better legislation (I even think Biden implied this in his debate answer but would have to double check). This would appear to help Sanders a lot more with Iowa voters who may be anti-trade.
- The last debate was also the one that did not feature Andrew Yang. Some polling in late 2019 suggested that Yang was actually the candidate of choice for young males (18-22) than Bernie Sanders- perhaps some of that support shifted to Sanders. Although now Yang stronger polling has qualified him for the New Hampshire debate.
- Finally Hillary Clinton attacking Sanders may have helped Sanders more than anything. I don't think people who were already supporting Sanders were going to switch.
But who knows what is going to happen. I am interested to see how accurate the polls are in regards to the actual elections.