OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

You know this post just goes to show you why Bernie wasn’t able to build a greater coalition. If supporters are a reflection of the candidate then you’re just showing exactly why Warren was right to not back Bernie.

[Pointgod]

Trump is gonna destroy Biden IMO. They are both mumbling idiots but...Joe is shot. He snapped barely finish a thought most days.

That is the only thing you have posted multiple times. We get it. Got anything more substantial to contribute?

Yeah. You are a dee bag when it comes to politics. You act like you know it all and you don't. You bleat like a party line sheep. You are as out of touch with the voting base as Hillary and Joe are. Why isn't Obama endorsing Biden? Pretty strange if you ask me....and damaging.

Bernie fought like a pussy. That's why he lost. He jumped on the gravy train and went out with a whimper twice. Much like most of his career.

Biden is going to get roasted by Trump. Watch and see. I'm waiting for them to debate. That should be terribly entertaining. This will be the bigger joke than last election.

Wow with astute political observations like this, who needs Clyde’s know it all contributions. Have you ever considered being a national campaign manager?

[Clyde_Style]

There is very little evidence in this election cycle so far that says any more than that is necessary

I think history shows more than that is necessary, because it failed in 2016. But we are in a crucial moment so this isn't going to be a typical election. I fear people may "rally around the flag" in a crisis like they did in 2004.

Perhaps, but Biden is way more favorable to people than Hillary (as his performance in a place like Michigan demonstrated) and Trump is wildly underperforming as a "rally around the flag" President.

Trump's approval ratings are peaking around 48%. Bush was in the low 90's during 9/11.

Jimmy Carter had a higher bounce during the Iran Hostage Crisis, and still lost his re-election.

Is it possible we are overestimating Trump?

The stats have already shown Trump's crisis approval ratings bump was probably the smallest margin of increase among all leadership globally during this crisis. Other nations saw 20-40% increases in approval ratings. Trump got 4-5% which is literally a blip and he is already giving that small gain back. As historical data shows, that is actually really quite bad.

As I posted earlier, when he starts to poll below 40% (hard numbers, not adjusted %), the GOP will start to show signs of cracking even more between 38% and 35% approval. If he hits 35% it will be every GOP rat for themselves as they scurry away from any association with Trump prior to November.

I'm not predicting those numbers, but if they happen I am predicting how it will play out within the GOP where any honor among thieves is conditional on keeping those ratings up.

[Stannis]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

You know this post just goes to show you why Bernie wasn’t able to build a greater coalition. If supporters are a reflection of the candidate then you’re just showing exactly why Warren was right to not back Bernie.

Thing is, that line of thinking only applies to Bernie Sanders.

Should people not back Biden because the BidenBros called his sexual assault accuser a "lyin bitch" on Twitter? Should we not vote for him because his surrogate (a white woman) told Nina Tuner (a black woman) that she doesn't have the right to quote MLK? Then later referring to her as an "angry black woman" in her "apology" (if you want to call it that).

[Stannis]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Stannis, if Bernie was actually committed to winning the nomination he would have made a broader coalition, but he wanted to maintain the purity of his message at the expense of doing the political work that actually would have won him more votes. That was always his choice and it appears that his hard core supporters were also uninterested in tailoring their message to win the ballot box.

This bitterness you're displaying that consistently implies the election was stolen from Bernie as the rightful nominee is simply false. To now attack Warren as a back stabber is beyond petty and just wrong.

You want to be unadulterated about your demands for reform then accept the loss when the voting numbers don't fall in your lap.

Biden won because he knows how to build bridges to other candidates and get their support. Blaming Bernie's loss on a conspiracy that coalesced after the SC vote is sour grapes. Bernie cast himself as the anti-establishment figure and to win he had to draw in members of the establishment to build a coalition of voters that would have put him over the top. He did not.

Blaming Warren of all people for Bernie's strategic shortcomings is absurd. She is not the Ralph Nader or Jill Stein who took your guy down because she drew votes from him. She was the other legit progressive in the race and had every right to be in contention for the nomination. You're outright crapping on her now.

The tweet was mostly funny. I don't blame Sanders loss solely on Warren.

But I am disappointed in her.

Her thread was giving off this "progressives unite" message; but unlike the moderates that dropped out and united/endorsed the candidate that aligned with them the most, Warren did not. And that's what matters.

[Stannis]

Is it too early to blame dems defeat on the green party?

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[HarthorneWingo]

There is very little evidence in this election cycle so far that says any more than that is necessary

I think history shows more than that is necessary, because it failed in 2016. But we are in a crucial moment so this isn't going to be a typical election. I fear people may "rally around the flag" in a crisis like they did in 2004.

Perhaps, but Biden is way more favorable to people than Hillary (as his performance in a place like Michigan demonstrated) and Trump is wildly underperforming as a "rally around the flag" President.

Trump's approval ratings are peaking around 48%. Bush was in the low 90's during 9/11.

Jimmy Carter had a higher bounce during the Iran Hostage Crisis, and still lost his re-election.

Is it possible we are overestimating Trump?

The polling numbers on the enthusiasm level for Biden are worse than Clinton's in '16.

[GONYK]

I think history shows more than that is necessary, because it failed in 2016. But we are in a crucial moment so this isn't going to be a typical election. I fear people may "rally around the flag" in a crisis like they did in 2004.

Perhaps, but Biden is way more favorable to people than Hillary (as his performance in a place like Michigan demonstrated) and Trump is wildly underperforming as a "rally around the flag" President.

Trump's approval ratings are peaking around 48%. Bush was in the low 90's during 9/11.

Jimmy Carter had a higher bounce during the Iran Hostage Crisis, and still lost his re-election.

Is it possible we are overestimating Trump?

The polling numbers on the enthusiasm level for Biden are worse than Clinton's in '16.

Well, he has until November to fix it

Don't know if he needs a ton of enthusiasm. He just needs 15k more votes in MI, OH, and PA than Hillary.

[Jeff Van Gully]

so, who do you think will get the VP nod?

[HarthorneWingo]

Perhaps, but Biden is way more favorable to people than Hillary (as his performance in a place like Michigan demonstrated) and Trump is wildly underperforming as a "rally around the flag" President.

Trump's approval ratings are peaking around 48%. Bush was in the low 90's during 9/11.

Jimmy Carter had a higher bounce during the Iran Hostage Crisis, and still lost his re-election.

Is it possible we are overestimating Trump?

The polling numbers on the enthusiasm level for Biden are worse than Clinton's in '16.

Well, he has until November to fix it

Don't know if he needs a ton of enthusiasm. He just needs 15k more votes in MI, OH, and PA than Hillary.

C'mon, every election is different. We don't start off with the results of the last election. In any event, this is a bad sign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-consolidates-support-trails-badly-enthusiasm-poll/story?id=69812092

There’s déjà vu in these results: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found herself in largely the same position four years ago. She, too, had a slim lead among Democrats for the nomination and ran essentially evenly with Trump among registered voters. And she lagged in enthusiasm, with a low of 32% very enthusiastic in September 2016. Biden is 8 points under that mark now.

[Stannis]

so, who do you think will get the VP nod?

Amy

[GONYK]

The polling numbers on the enthusiasm level for Biden are worse than Clinton's in '16.

Well, he has until November to fix it

Don't know if he needs a ton of enthusiasm. He just needs 15k more votes in MI, OH, and PA than Hillary.

C'mon, every election is different. We don't start off with the results of the last election. In any event, this is a bad sign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-consolidates-support-trails-badly-enthusiasm-poll/story?id=69812092

There’s déjà vu in these results: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found herself in largely the same position four years ago. She, too, had a slim lead among Democrats for the nomination and ran essentially evenly with Trump among registered voters. And she lagged in enthusiasm, with a low of 32% very enthusiastic in September 2016. Biden is 8 points under that mark now.

It's not a bad sign in April. It's essentially meaningless now.

From Nate Silver:

But basically: I don’t think enthusiasm is a terribly meaningful indicator above and beyond what is already reflected in polls.

Sanders’s voters were more enthusiastic than Biden’s in the primaries. But he’s actually tended to underperform his polls. Sometimes higher enthusiasm means you have a narrower base, and the other candidate has more room to turn out undecideds, etc.

An important qualification to all of this is that most of the polls so far are conducted among registered voters when really we want to see likely voter polls, which won’t really be reliable for another several months.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/so-about-that-supposed-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-biden/

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Stannis, if Bernie was actually committed to winning the nomination he would have made a broader coalition, but he wanted to maintain the purity of his message at the expense of doing the political work that actually would have won him more votes. That was always his choice and it appears that his hard core supporters were also uninterested in tailoring their message to win the ballot box.

This bitterness you're displaying that consistently implies the election was stolen from Bernie as the rightful nominee is simply false. To now attack Warren as a back stabber is beyond petty and just wrong.

You want to be unadulterated about your demands for reform then accept the loss when the voting numbers don't fall in your lap.

Biden won because he knows how to build bridges to other candidates and get their support. Blaming Bernie's loss on a conspiracy that coalesced after the SC vote is sour grapes. Bernie cast himself as the anti-establishment figure and to win he had to draw in members of the establishment to build a coalition of voters that would have put him over the top. He did not.

Blaming Warren of all people for Bernie's strategic shortcomings is absurd. She is not the Ralph Nader or Jill Stein who took your guy down because she drew votes from him. She was the other legit progressive in the race and had every right to be in contention for the nomination. You're outright crapping on her now.

The tweet was mostly funny. I don't blame Sanders loss solely on Warren.

But I am disappointed in her.

Her thread was giving off this "progressives unite" message; but unlike the moderators that united and endorsed the candidate that aligned with them the most after dropping out; Warren did not do the same for the progressive.

OK, is is not for me to tell you what's funny or what to post, but as tweets go that's pretty much pure acid without tongue in cheek so I'll have to accept you meant it as sarcasm.

As far as the rest, I actually think you reinforce my points indirectly. As I said, Bernie did not build the bridges WITHIN the party (which is necessary, not just trying to target voter demographics). Well, Warren has done that and continues to do that in ways Bernie or his base refuse to consider a part of the game of winning the nomination. It was strictly a get out the vote approach and when that failed to manifest a lot of finger pointing resulted. Warren was amicable in defeat and she made it clear she wants to beat Trump.

Now, why didn't she endorse Bernie immediately? I can't speak for her, but I see her choice to step back as the Woody Guthrie option which goes like this:

Guthrie was friends with a young radical. This guy was a very industrious political organizer who didn't know what to put on the brakes. He ran himself into the ground. He was on the verge of becoming tubercular which was a real danger for a person with a compromised immune system in those days. Woody said to him, "You're no use to any revolution if you go and die on us, so go home and rest up so you live to fight another day."

Warren saw a massive tidal shift in SC. It prompted her to soon drop out. She has real political capital to spend. Her base does not fully overlap Bernie's base. She was not going to spend that capital on what already looked like it could be a losing bet in Bernie. She wouldn't have made a difference for him if she had, because if even half of her voters went to him based on her recommendation, the other half was still going to Biden. You have to understand this is the truth. I'm a Warren supporter so I know something about that personally as well.

She was not going to save Bernie's campaign EVER. Not a chance of that. And even if you think there was a Jim Carrey level of "you mean there's still a chance?" she had no reason to gamble like that, because she is pragmatic, a word some now hate, but it's the reality. Warren sees the existential threat of Trump clearly and was not going to waste her clout on a losing proposition.

She was never going to pick either one until the dust cleared. Warren was the one candidate who had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by taking sides.

Just because she is a progressive does not mean she owes Sanders anything, because if you don't win this election you've got nothing to show for it and Warren deduced that sidelining her endorsement was the prudent political move that will result in a win in November. She throws away her support on Sanders and it amounts to nothing is a symbolic gesture and she's not interested in that. She wants the Democratic party to win, not WARREN OR NOTHING and that's a big difference.

She has a small chance of being the VP. It probably won't happen, but if it did that would the greatest victory of all because odds would then be massive she would become president after Biden stepped down. How would that not be a great victory for progressive politics? Well, the odds of her being VP were greater than her support of Sanders giving him the edge so her math was perfectly rational when it comes to further the chances of a progressive being president.

But since she probably won't be the VP, she has a much bigger role to play in a Biden administration than Bernie probably will even if only for the reason of age and health. She may remain a leading Senator or she may become a Secretary in the Cabinet, but whatever role she plays she is going to be doing it with the Democratic nominee which was not likely to be Sanders by the time she had to make her choices.

She had nothing gain and progressive politics had nothing to gain by her endorsing Sanders. She's playing an entirely different game than Bernie and I think she plays smarter and did the right thing.

And before anyone else chimes in by saying Bernie had more votes than Warren, thus she should align with him, I'd rebut that by saying he ran in 2016 and had a built-in base, lots of money and an already existing campaign infrastructure. If this was his first run, then it could have been Warren became the leading progressive in 2020. She had a huge uphill battle and did as well as she could.

[HarthorneWingo]

so, who do you think will get the VP nod?

Amy

I'm sure Biden's African-American supporters will just love that.

[DOT]

so, who do you think will get the VP nod?

Been talking about it with the folks on the CA board

Most of us seem to be in agreeance that he should pick a progressive, and that the best candidate would be Warren if the measuring stick is, who would be the best if they needed to step in and take over as president

Some people think she'd turn people off from voting for Biden, but I disagree. But I've also been a big Warren guy from the start, so I'm a bit biased

I've heard names like Stacey Abrams or Kloubuchar being floated, but a lot of people think it's gonna be Kamala Harris, which I'm not a huge fan of cause again, I want it to be someone more progressive

[DOT]

Well, he has until November to fix it

Don't know if he needs a ton of enthusiasm. He just needs 15k more votes in MI, OH, and PA than Hillary.

C'mon, every election is different. We don't start off with the results of the last election. In any event, this is a bad sign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-consolidates-support-trails-badly-enthusiasm-poll/story?id=69812092

There’s déjà vu in these results: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found herself in largely the same position four years ago. She, too, had a slim lead among Democrats for the nomination and ran essentially evenly with Trump among registered voters. And she lagged in enthusiasm, with a low of 32% very enthusiastic in September 2016. Biden is 8 points under that mark now.

It's not a bad sign in April. It's essentially meaningless now.

From Nate Silver:

But basically: I don’t think enthusiasm is a terribly meaningful indicator above and beyond what is already reflected in polls.

Sanders’s voters were more enthusiastic than Biden’s in the primaries. But he’s actually tended to underperform his polls. Sometimes higher enthusiasm means you have a narrower base, and the other candidate has more room to turn out undecideds, etc.

An important qualification to all of this is that most of the polls so far are conducted among registered voters when really we want to see likely voter polls, which won’t really be reliable for another several months.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/so-about-that-supposed-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-biden/

I don't think it means much this time, cause this is a special election

But if we were running Biden against any other Republican in any other year when there's not an incumbent, he'd be toast

Which is what we're gonna see in 2024 when the race is Buttigieg v Paul Ryan, who's gonna stomp him, which is my main worry right now. Biden should be able to win easily, but we need to pivot towards building for the future

[HarthorneWingo]

Well, he has until November to fix it

Don't know if he needs a ton of enthusiasm. He just needs 15k more votes in MI, OH, and PA than Hillary.

C'mon, every election is different. We don't start off with the results of the last election. In any event, this is a bad sign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-consolidates-support-trails-badly-enthusiasm-poll/story?id=69812092

There’s déjà vu in these results: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found herself in largely the same position four years ago. She, too, had a slim lead among Democrats for the nomination and ran essentially evenly with Trump among registered voters. And she lagged in enthusiasm, with a low of 32% very enthusiastic in September 2016. Biden is 8 points under that mark now.

It's not a bad sign in April. It's essentially meaningless now.

From Nate Silver:

But basically: I don’t think enthusiasm is a terribly meaningful indicator above and beyond what is already reflected in polls.

Sanders’s voters were more enthusiastic than Biden’s in the primaries. But he’s actually tended to underperform his polls. Sometimes higher enthusiasm means you have a narrower base, and the other candidate has more room to turn out undecideds, etc.

An important qualification to all of this is that most of the polls so far are conducted among registered voters when really we want to see likely voter polls, which won’t really be reliable for another several months.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/so-about-that-supposed-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-biden/

Silver hates progressives and hates Bernie. He's a partisan hack for the establishment. You might as well have quoted ‎Markos Moulitsas.

[GONYK]

C'mon, every election is different. We don't start off with the results of the last election. In any event, this is a bad sign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-consolidates-support-trails-badly-enthusiasm-poll/story?id=69812092

It's not a bad sign in April. It's essentially meaningless now.

From Nate Silver:

But basically: I don’t think enthusiasm is a terribly meaningful indicator above and beyond what is already reflected in polls.

Sanders’s voters were more enthusiastic than Biden’s in the primaries. But he’s actually tended to underperform his polls. Sometimes higher enthusiasm means you have a narrower base, and the other candidate has more room to turn out undecideds, etc.

An important qualification to all of this is that most of the polls so far are conducted among registered voters when really we want to see likely voter polls, which won’t really be reliable for another several months.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/so-about-that-supposed-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-biden/

Silver hates progressives and hates Bernie. He's a partisan hack for the establishment. You might as well have quoted ‎Markos Moulitsas.

...because he accurately forecasted Bernie not winning?

I have no idea who Markos is, but it's not like you've been posting completely objective sources throughout this thread

[GONYK]

C'mon, every election is different. We don't start off with the results of the last election. In any event, this is a bad sign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-consolidates-support-trails-badly-enthusiasm-poll/story?id=69812092

It's not a bad sign in April. It's essentially meaningless now.

From Nate Silver:

But basically: I don’t think enthusiasm is a terribly meaningful indicator above and beyond what is already reflected in polls.

Sanders’s voters were more enthusiastic than Biden’s in the primaries. But he’s actually tended to underperform his polls. Sometimes higher enthusiasm means you have a narrower base, and the other candidate has more room to turn out undecideds, etc.

An important qualification to all of this is that most of the polls so far are conducted among registered voters when really we want to see likely voter polls, which won’t really be reliable for another several months.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/so-about-that-supposed-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-biden/

I don't think it means much this time, cause this is a special election

But if we were running Biden against any other Republican in any other year when there's not an incumbent, he'd be toast

Which is what we're gonna see in 2024 when the race is Buttigieg v Paul Ryan, who's gonna stomp him, which is my main worry right now. Biden should be able to win easily, but we need to pivot towards building for the future

My main concern is Trump's removal. I'll deal with 2024 in 2024.

So much can happen between now and then. I agree that I hope that the Dems building a future coalition is a part of that.

[Clyde_Style]

I think history shows more than that is necessary, because it failed in 2016. But we are in a crucial moment so this isn't going to be a typical election. I fear people may "rally around the flag" in a crisis like they did in 2004.

Perhaps, but Biden is way more favorable to people than Hillary (as his performance in a place like Michigan demonstrated) and Trump is wildly underperforming as a "rally around the flag" President.

Trump's approval ratings are peaking around 48%. Bush was in the low 90's during 9/11.

Jimmy Carter had a higher bounce during the Iran Hostage Crisis, and still lost his re-election.

Is it possible we are overestimating Trump?

The polling numbers on the enthusiasm level for Biden are worse than Clinton's in '16.

Since you're right that every election is different, then it bears mentioning that she was not running against Trump after he had run the country into the ground.

We're coming off of one term of Trump. They were competing off of two terms of Obama. Trump tapped into xenophobia and racism. Since he no longer has the economy to brag about, his first term racist closed borders chip is going to cash in for a lesser value at the cashier.

Context does matter