OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[DOT]

Obama has to be calling all the shots from behind the curtain.

Obama's shadow third term >>> Joe Biden is actually leading as narratives heading into a general election imo...not even kidding.

There's actually nothing stopping Biden from naming Obama as VP, from a legal standpoint

Of course, Obama would never agree to that, it would come off as pretty disrespectful

[Phish Tank]

All about coalitions in the end of the day.

Organizing -> Educating -> Registering -> Voting -> Evaluating (return on investment - i.e. your vote)

Rinse and repeat.

That's why I feel most of the conversations had around black agendas is just too late and ill-informed. Those conversations have to happen in the primary and coalitions should be formed to create an agenda and pressure the leaders to comply to our agenda. Don't have an employee/employer relationship with the candidates, it should be vice versa. Thing with Biden is that he has an established coalition setup, but he also needs to expand and follow up on how he'll make these promises.

But the messages relayed by Diddy & Charlamagne - and other people on Twitter and in the media - is ill-informed.

I watch Roland Martin Unfiltered quite some because Roland often brings in a diversity of people to talk about black issues. They do a better job explaining things here

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[HarthorneWingo]

LOL. The DNC strategy now just keep Biden away from the camera and microphone from here on in (out?). Sounds like a great strategy to me.

[HarthorneWingo]

Obama has to be calling all the shots from behind the curtain.

Obama's shadow third term >>> Joe Biden is actually leading as narratives heading into a general election imo...not even kidding.

There's actually nothing stopping Biden from naming Obama as VP, from a legal standpoint

Of course, Obama would never agree to that, it would come off as pretty disrespectful

Either way, here comes Obama’s third term.

[j4remi]

I'm not. Any Dem would get the black vote in a general. I'm just speaking to why Biden is the nominee right now and Bernie isn't, and pushing back against the claim that it was old, middle class white people who buoyed him. The black vote was the single most powerful voting bloc in the primaries, and Joe captured almost all of it.

I think it sells him short as a candidate to dismiss that.

Except my only claim was "Bernie was the more electable candidate vs Trump." Which isn't dismissing his victory with black voters except to say that, he won a voting bloc that had no ill will toward Bernie and would have comfortably voted for him. Hell, they chose his policies in the exit polls but prioritized "beats Trump" which is why I find the electability discussion so fascinating.

I don't disagree. What you are saying makes sense if the Dems just sit in a room and decide on a candidate without any voter interaction, from a pure potential activation standpoint.

Well no, what I'm saying is activation should be a key focal point in the electability conversation specifically. I think this is especially true when moderates sell themselves as most electable but build primary strategies around red states that they have no shot at winning in a general. Is our goal "beat Trump at all costs" or "win the primary" because it feels like that becomes disjointed if South Carolina becomes the decisive vote for who the party unifies around.

I just don't think it is worth much to apply general election strategy if you can't win the primary.

You need to win the base to win the primary. That is basically who the primary is for.

I think this is too oversimplified, it ignores the importance of expanding your base. What good is a primary strategy if it wins at the expense of disillusion from a potential voting bloc? Bernie had clear edges over Biden with virtually every other marginalized community (Hispanic, Muslim and LGBT for sure with Asian margins being closer but I think Bernie won them too). He dominated with Millenial and Gen Z voters. His success with those groups might help inform an activation strategy moving forward.

What I don't want to see is the "take it or leave it" nature of Biden's rhetoric when his guard's down become the nature of his whole campaign. I've seen him tell way too many voters to "vote for the other guy" when confronted with his record, the limitations of his current proposals or even just coming back on a radio show to talk to the constituents that won him the primary. It's a concern for me and one that I think could hurt in future elections moreso than this one. At least he's got Trump to bail him out.

[GONYK]

I'm not. Any Dem would get the black vote in a general. I'm just speaking to why Biden is the nominee right now and Bernie isn't, and pushing back against the claim that it was old, middle class white people who buoyed him. The black vote was the single most powerful voting bloc in the primaries, and Joe captured almost all of it.

I think it sells him short as a candidate to dismiss that.

Except my only claim was "Bernie was the more electable candidate vs Trump." Which isn't dismissing his victory with black voters except to say that, he won a voting bloc that had no ill will toward Bernie and would have comfortably voted for him. Hell, they chose his policies in the exit polls but prioritized "beats Trump" which is why I find the electability discussion so fascinating.

Well I wasn't disputing the merits of your claim. I wasn't even disputing you. I was pushing back against something K-DOT said

That being said, I think there is some static to your claim, which is why I don't think Bernie is as much of a slam dunk as you do, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't disagree. What you are saying makes sense if the Dems just sit in a room and decide on a candidate without any voter interaction, from a pure potential activation standpoint.

Well no, what I'm saying is activation should be a key focal point in the electability conversation specifically. I think this is especially true when moderates sell themselves as most electable but build primary strategies around red states that they have no shot at winning in a general. Is our goal "beat Trump at all costs" or "win the primary" because it feels like that becomes disjointed if South Carolina becomes the decisive vote for who the party unifies around.

The goal should be to win the primary until you win the primary.

If you want to overhaul the primary process, I'm all for it, starting with deferring places like Iowa and NH. I'm not sure the current process is what did Bernie in though. The lack of black vote was coming for him one way or another. If you want to push back when the majority of the black vote weighs in because they are in the South, I'd wonder where the balance would be struck where they still feel like they have been represented in the process.

I just don't think it is worth much to apply general election strategy if you can't win the primary.

You need to win the base to win the primary. That is basically who the primary is for.

I think this is too oversimplified, it ignores the importance of expanding your base. What good is a primary strategy if it wins at the expense of disillusion from a potential voting bloc? Bernie had clear edges over Biden with virtually every other marginalized community (Hispanic, Muslim and LGBT for sure with Asian margins being closer but I think Bernie won them too). He dominated with Millenial and Gen Z voters. His success with those groups might help inform an activation strategy moving forward.

Sure, but you can't just paper over that the base and majority of voters preferred someone over Bernie as their primary option when given the choice.

That result is certainly informed by the campaign he chose to run and election strategy he chose to pursue. He didn't court the base because he that thought the primary would stay fractured long enough that he didn't need them. He never expanded his base.

I know it is a fun meme that black people only like Biden because of Obama, but he has pretty deep roots in places like South Carolina that he's established over decades. That counts for something.

A large criticism of the Bernie campaign from black community is that Bernie didn't do the "retail politics". You can make the argument that you don't have to do that when you are drawing in massive crowds, but it's something that the black community he desperately needed values.

Like I keep saying, you have to win the primary before you can win the general. For better or worse.

What I don't want to see is the "take it or leave it" nature of Biden's rhetoric when his guard's down become the nature of his whole campaign. I've seen him tell way too many voters to "vote for the other guy" when confronted with his record, the limitations of his current proposals or even just coming back on a radio show to talk to the constituents that won him the primary. It's a concern for me and one that I think could hurt in future elections moreso than this one. At least he's got Trump to bail him out.

Well, I certainly want to see Joe extend the olive branch, I think he's done that in a lot of ways people didn't expect so far. I'm hoping he picks a Veep that does that even more.

I do think the people who are pushing him to just adopt Bernie's platform wholesale are entirely unreasonable though, and he has the right to push back on that.

I never really got around to asking you how you felt about Bitecofer being leery of Bernie. Here is what she said:

But even without a big assist from the looming recession, by avoiding a Sanders nomination, and with it, total party meltdown, Democrats are well-positioned for the fall general election. The changes to my original ratings from July 2019 reflect this reality and are universally positive for Democrats. When the original forecast was released, I said that the party’s nominee did not matter at all unless the nominee ended up being Bernie Sanders, and the reason that a Sanders nomination mattered was that it would be “disruptive.”

To illustrate what I mean by that, under a Sanders nomination, it is my belief that the traditionally nonhierarchical and, shall we say, strategically challenged Democratic Party would easily have been pushed both by their well-meaning consultant class and naturally moderate and well-read candidates and by a shrewd, calculating GOP into turning the 2020 cycle into a referendum on socialism instead of what it needs to be for the negative partisanship model to function at capacity: a referendum on Trump. With Sanders as the nominee, most, if not all, of the Democratic Party’s “frontline” candidates would have ended up with a muddled message- liable to spend as much time contrasting themselves with Sanders (and socialism) as their GOP opponents and Trump.

As GOP strategist Rick Wilson aptly points out in his latest book, and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele and I painfully poke fun at in his podcast, Democrats already seem to struggle with the concept of referendum effects and, specifically, the power of tapping into or exploiting them. Due to their deep-rooted (seemingly unshakable) belief in the “median voter theory,” Democratic candidates/consultants/strategists would have fractured into chaos over a Sanders nomination. It would have been an unmitigated disaster the GOP was already positioning themselves to capitalize on. And although the many progressives reading this see Biden’s nomination as an unmitigated disaster, citing his bland moderation, this or that policy from 30 years ago, or general lack of what might be called “stump agility,” I can assure you, Biden fills the role of “generic Democrat” perfectly fine, and that is all that is really required from Democrats to win this election. Because as Sanders supporters are just now coming to learn, while 2016 was about revolution, 2020 is about one thing and one thing only: making the scary, bad man go away.

[j4remi]

Well I wasn't disputing the merits of your claim. I wasn't even disputing you. I was pushing back against something K-DOT said

That being said, I think there is some static to your claim, which is why I don't think Bernie is as much of a slam dunk as you do, but that's neither here nor there.

Ah, I see now that you were more focused on who the Dems are focused on appealing to portion of the post rather than the top part which comported with my main line of thinking on that thread of discussion, my bad

I can see an interesting direction for that discussion in asking "how are the Dems attempting to appeal to each demographic." Biden may have won the black vote, but his appeal to black voters was based heavily on his connections rather than promises moving forward (as a disclaimer this section is purely speculative). For clarity's sake, what I'm saying here is Biden's focus has been more about comparison to Trump than what he's actually promising to black voters.

Lot's of "I believe's" incoming. I feel like that's why Biden did a better job of addressing criticisms than looking forward in the Charlemagne interview; he's not nearly as polished at expressing the material benefits of his platform with any real detail. I bet if he'd gotten into a bit of detail about his plan for HBCU's, Charlemagne's interview on Joy Reid might have taken a different tone.

I also think that's why we see the Charlemagne's and the Diddy's of the world attempting to leverage their votes for answers on how Biden intends to help their communities. Biden can coast on "better than Trump," hell that was Clyburn's handling of the gaffe. He said "I cringed...but Trump" and that's Biden's line for every person of color (I identify my concerns with latinx voters and most specifically Puerto Ricans) "...but Trump." Vague answers about doing more just don't work for me and I understand why they don't convince Diddy or Charlemagne. This is why I really think Biden should adopt Booker's baby bonds proposal and platform the hell out of it's potential benefits toward income inequality.

The goal should be to win the primary until you win the primary.

If you want to overhaul the primary process, I'm all for it, starting with deferring places like Iowa and NH. I'm not sure the current process is what did Bernie in though. The lack of black vote was coming for him one way or another. If you want to push back when the majority of the black vote weighs in because they are in the South, I'd wonder where the balance would be struck where they still feel like they have been represented in the process.

I don't blame the process for Bernie's loss, hell, Obama had to step in and every moderate involved had to quit in the same narrow window just to stop Bernie from winning. Bernie lost to networking and machine politics.

But I do look at the process as one that puts outsized value on states that don't bring as much value in a general election. NY/NJ votes are marginalized this time around regardless of race, but South Carolina became the flashpoint in deciding an election. I'm not positive of the best way to address that, but it doesn't really add up to me.

Sure, but you can't just paper over that the base and majority of voters preferred someone over Bernie as their primary option when given the choice.

That result is certainly informed by the campaign he chose to run and election strategy he chose to pursue. He didn't court the base because he that thought the primary would stay fractured long enough that he didn't need them. He never expanded his base.

I know it is a fun meme that black people only like Biden because of Obama, but he has pretty deep roots in places like South Carolina that he's established over decades. That counts for something.

A large criticism of the Bernie campaign from black community is that Bernie didn't do the "retail politics". You can make the argument that you don't have to do that when you are drawing in massive crowds, but it's something that the black community he desperately needed values.

Like I keep saying, you have to win the primary before you can win the general. For better or worse.

To reiterate though, my focus up to this point has been on taking the "Joe Biden's more electable" topic and exploring it. In this instance, I'd paper over preferred choice in the primary because my focus comes down to "will vote for against Trump." I take your point more broadly, but where I was coming at this, it's neither here nor there.

My concern with Biden's deep roots is I wonder how much is symbolic and how much is based on material benefits. The man doesn't have a great answer for "what have you done for black people" nor does he have a great answer for "what will you do for black people." I have even less faith in his ability to appeal to my constituency. Not after PROMESA or the deportations of the Obama administration. Bernie isn't great on the marketing to black voters tip either, but I'd wager his platform to bring more material benefit to ALL marginalized communities over Biden's.

Well, I certainly want to see Joe extend the olive branch, I think he's done that in a lot of ways people didn't expect so far. I'm hoping he picks a Veep that does that even more.

I do think the people who are pushing him to just adopt Bernie's platform wholesale are entirely unreasonable though, and he has the right to push back on that.

Has he done anything that's material or is it all symbolic? We saw the "working group" thing with Tom Perez. We got crumbs and the the unity commission was used as a type of shield for processes that they hadn't even proposed or agreed on.

I never really got around to asking you how you felt about Bitecofer being leery of Bernie. Here is what she said:

But even without a big assist from the looming recession, by avoiding a Sanders nomination, and with it, total party meltdown, Democrats are well-positioned for the fall general election. The changes to my original ratings from July 2019 reflect this reality and are universally positive for Democrats. When the original forecast was released, I said that the party’s nominee did not matter at all unless the nominee ended up being Bernie Sanders, and the reason that a Sanders nomination mattered was that it would be “disruptive.”

To illustrate what I mean by that, under a Sanders nomination, it is my belief that the traditionally nonhierarchical and, shall we say, strategically challenged Democratic Party would easily have been pushed both by their well-meaning consultant class and naturally moderate and well-read candidates and by a shrewd, calculating GOP into turning the 2020 cycle into a referendum on socialism instead of what it needs to be for the negative partisanship model to function at capacity: a referendum on Trump. With Sanders as the nominee, most, if not all, of the Democratic Party’s “frontline” candidates would have ended up with a muddled message- liable to spend as much time contrasting themselves with Sanders (and socialism) as their GOP opponents and Trump.

As GOP strategist Rick Wilson aptly points out in his latest book, and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele and I painfully poke fun at in his podcast, Democrats already seem to struggle with the concept of referendum effects and, specifically, the power of tapping into or exploiting them. Due to their deep-rooted (seemingly unshakable) belief in the “median voter theory,” Democratic candidates/consultants/strategists would have fractured into chaos over a Sanders nomination. It would have been an unmitigated disaster the GOP was already positioning themselves to capitalize on. And although the many progressives reading this see Biden’s nomination as an unmitigated disaster, citing his bland moderation, this or that policy from 30 years ago, or general lack of what might be called “stump agility,” I can assure you, Biden fills the role of “generic Democrat” perfectly fine, and that is all that is really required from Democrats to win this election. Because as Sanders supporters are just now coming to learn, while 2016 was about revolution, 2020 is about one thing and one thing only: making the scary, bad man go away.

I like that her evaluation is built on Democrats being terrible strategically and actively pushing against their presidential candidate, because that's where the backfire threat is with Bernie. I'd be curious to see if opportunism beats out kamikaze'ing the party's chances though; we already got a glimpse of typically moderate Congress members moving left of leadership to save their own seats in swing states through the Jayapal Paycheck Guarantee fight. So in this case I can follow Bitcofer's logic and concerns completely, but I think she's underestimating the survival instincts of "frontline" candidates kicking in.

To put it another way, I think the moderate wing would give in to "...But Trump" and align behind Bernie sooner than the progressives will behind Biden (disclaimer though: I do think that progressives and marginalized peoples will broadly accept that argument when it comes time to vote...but they'll be playing for leverage longer).

[GONYK]

Well I wasn't disputing the merits of your claim. I wasn't even disputing you. I was pushing back against something K-DOT said

That being said, I think there is some static to your claim, which is why I don't think Bernie is as much of a slam dunk as you do, but that's neither here nor there.

Ah, I see now that you were more focused on who the Dems are focused on appealing to portion of the post rather than the top part which comported with my main line of thinking on that thread of discussion, my bad

I can see an interesting direction for that discussion in asking "how are the Dems attempting to appeal to each demographic." Biden may have won the black vote, but his appeal to black voters was based heavily on his connections rather than promises moving forward (as a disclaimer this section is purely speculative). For clarity's sake, what I'm saying here is Biden's focus has been more about comparison to Trump than what he's actually promising to black voters.

Lot's of "I believe's" incoming. I feel like that's why Biden did a better job of addressing criticisms than looking forward in the Charlemagne interview; he's not nearly as polished at expressing the material benefits of his platform with any real detail. I bet if he'd gotten into a bit of detail about his plan for HBCU's, Charlemagne's interview on Joy Reid might have taken a different tone.

I also think that's why we see the Charlemagne's and the Diddy's of the world attempting to leverage their votes for answers on how Biden intends to help their communities. Biden can coast on "better than Trump," hell that was Clyburn's handling of the gaffe. He said "I cringed...but Trump" and that's Biden's line for every person of color (I identify my concerns with latinx voters and most specifically Puerto Ricans) "...but Trump." Vague answers about doing more just don't work for me and I understand why they don't convince Diddy or Charlemagne. This is why I really think Biden should adopt Booker's baby bonds proposal and platform the hell out of it's potential benefits toward income inequality.

It's all good man . Good discussion is good discussion, even when it's borne out of some crossed wires.

I don't disagree with anything you said above. I do think Biden's biggest appeal to the older black voters who carried him is that he's not Trump and they trust him. Like I've said, I don't think the majority of people have policy or the future at the top of their mind. Just remove the cancer currently in office, and we'll deal with everything else later. I know that is where my head is at this election cycle.

I do think that people like Diddy and Charlemagne should keep Biden honest though, and push for their agenda as well. In the long run, it makes Biden a better candidate when he's challenged, and it should inform him on what people really want when he's looking for a VP to strengthen his ticket.

I do think there is a difference between keeping Biden honest and pushing him as a candidate, and acting like he's someone with no political strengths and a complete rudderless failure (I'm not saying you've done this).

I was making the case that Biden's appeal and what he brings to the table is necessary, even if it is not novel. If we are just picking ciphers to push into the White House for 4 years, I think Biden is better than a lot of the other candidates that he beat in this cycle.

The goal should be to win the primary until you win the primary.

If you want to overhaul the primary process, I'm all for it, starting with deferring places like Iowa and NH. I'm not sure the current process is what did Bernie in though. The lack of black vote was coming for him one way or another. If you want to push back when the majority of the black vote weighs in because they are in the South, I'd wonder where the balance would be struck where they still feel like they have been represented in the process.

I don't blame the process for Bernie's loss, hell, Obama had to step in and every moderate involved had to quit in the same narrow window just to stop Bernie from winning. Bernie lost to networking and machine politics.

But I do look at the process as one that puts outsized value on states that don't bring as much value in a general election. NY/NJ votes are marginalized this time around regardless of race, but South Carolina became the flashpoint in deciding an election. I'm not positive of the best way to address that, but it doesn't really add up to me.

I don't know the answer either, other than letting the battleground states go first. That makes the most sense on paper, but I'm sure it raises a bunch of questions as well.

Sure, but you can't just paper over that the base and majority of voters preferred someone over Bernie as their primary option when given the choice.

That result is certainly informed by the campaign he chose to run and election strategy he chose to pursue. He didn't court the base because he that thought the primary would stay fractured long enough that he didn't need them. He never expanded his base.

I know it is a fun meme that black people only like Biden because of Obama, but he has pretty deep roots in places like South Carolina that he's established over decades. That counts for something.

A large criticism of the Bernie campaign from black community is that Bernie didn't do the "retail politics". You can make the argument that you don't have to do that when you are drawing in massive crowds, but it's something that the black community he desperately needed values.

Like I keep saying, you have to win the primary before you can win the general. For better or worse.

To reiterate though, my focus up to this point has been on taking the "Joe Biden's more electable" topic and exploring it. In this instance, I'd paper over preferred choice in the primary because my focus comes down to "will vote for against Trump." I take your point more broadly, but where I was coming at this, it's neither here nor there.

My concern with Biden's deep roots is I wonder how much is symbolic and how much is based on material benefits. The man doesn't have a great answer for "what have you done for black people" nor does he have a great answer for "what will you do for black people." I have even less faith in his ability to appeal to my constituency. Not after PROMESA or the deportations of the Obama administration. Bernie isn't great on the marketing to black voters tip either, but I'd wager his platform to bring more material benefit to ALL marginalized communities over Biden's.

I get what you're saying. I don't even disagree with it. I fully acknowledge that I think Biden's deep roots is almost entirely symbolic. I do think that is important though when people's main criteria is that they just don't want to be embarrassed by their president. It's an extremely low bar, but it's the one that people value over taking a shot at reorienting how government operates in this country.

Once again, it's no secret that I want Biden to go bold with his VP. Someone who can advocate for all the future initiatives the 40 and under minorities truly value. Biden can't do that. He's incapable both in his worldview and possibly in his mental state (though I think this is overblown). He needs someone that pushes the party forward. I think most Dems understand the truce between moderates and progressives. He needs to pick someone who makes the moderates a little uncomfortable.

Well, I certainly want to see Joe extend the olive branch, I think he's done that in a lot of ways people didn't expect so far. I'm hoping he picks a Veep that does that even more.

I do think the people who are pushing him to just adopt Bernie's platform wholesale are entirely unreasonable though, and he has the right to push back on that.

Has he done anything that's material or is it all symbolic? We saw the "working group" thing with Tom Perez. We got crumbs and the the unity commission was used as a type of shield for processes that they hadn't even proposed or agreed on.

He's getting some progressive kudos for his tax plan. Not perfect, but much better than what people were expecting from him.

I don't really know though TBH, because I've stopped focusing on this stuff as much since the nomination has been determined, and I have no expectations of Biden policy wise.

I never really got around to asking you how you felt about Bitecofer being leery of Bernie. Here is what she said:

But even without a big assist from the looming recession, by avoiding a Sanders nomination, and with it, total party meltdown, Democrats are well-positioned for the fall general election. The changes to my original ratings from July 2019 reflect this reality and are universally positive for Democrats. When the original forecast was released, I said that the party’s nominee did not matter at all unless the nominee ended up being Bernie Sanders, and the reason that a Sanders nomination mattered was that it would be “disruptive.”

To illustrate what I mean by that, under a Sanders nomination, it is my belief that the traditionally nonhierarchical and, shall we say, strategically challenged Democratic Party would easily have been pushed both by their well-meaning consultant class and naturally moderate and well-read candidates and by a shrewd, calculating GOP into turning the 2020 cycle into a referendum on socialism instead of what it needs to be for the negative partisanship model to function at capacity: a referendum on Trump. With Sanders as the nominee, most, if not all, of the Democratic Party’s “frontline” candidates would have ended up with a muddled message- liable to spend as much time contrasting themselves with Sanders (and socialism) as their GOP opponents and Trump.

As GOP strategist Rick Wilson aptly points out in his latest book, and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele and I painfully poke fun at in his podcast, Democrats already seem to struggle with the concept of referendum effects and, specifically, the power of tapping into or exploiting them. Due to their deep-rooted (seemingly unshakable) belief in the “median voter theory,” Democratic candidates/consultants/strategists would have fractured into chaos over a Sanders nomination. It would have been an unmitigated disaster the GOP was already positioning themselves to capitalize on. And although the many progressives reading this see Biden’s nomination as an unmitigated disaster, citing his bland moderation, this or that policy from 30 years ago, or general lack of what might be called “stump agility,” I can assure you, Biden fills the role of “generic Democrat” perfectly fine, and that is all that is really required from Democrats to win this election. Because as Sanders supporters are just now coming to learn, while 2016 was about revolution, 2020 is about one thing and one thing only: making the scary, bad man go away.

I like that her evaluation is built on Democrats being terrible strategically and actively pushing against their presidential candidate, because that's where the backfire threat is with Bernie. I'd be curious to see if opportunism beats out kamikaze'ing the party's chances though; we already got a glimpse of typically moderate Congress members moving left of leadership to save their own seats in swing states through the Jayapal Paycheck Guarantee fight. So in this case I can follow Bitcofer's logic and concerns completely, but I think she's underestimating the survival instincts of "frontline" candidates kicking in.

To put it another way, I think the moderate wing would give in to "...But Trump" and align behind Bernie sooner than the progressives will behind Biden (disclaimer though: I do think that progressives and marginalized peoples will broadly accept that argument when it comes time to vote...but they'll be playing for leverage longer).

Very fair. I don't think Bernie would lose this election. To be honest, I think he would have won in 2016 as well for the same reasons you do.

I think Rachel's analysis just coincides what I've observed anecdotally. It's 4th down and people believe we're in the field goal range. They'd rather take the guaranteed 3 points than risk it all and go for the TD (though I understand you don't see it as risky).

[GONYK]

Thought experiment: if Biden does not pick a progressive VP, where does that hurt him other than NY, CA, OR, and WA?

Is there a proven progressive stronghold anywhere else?

[DOT]

Thought experiment: if Biden does not pick a progressive VP, where does that hurt him other than NY, CA, OR, and WA?

Is there a proven progressive stronghold anywhere else?

It's not about not hurting him as much as it is building the coalition. Like, if he picks a moderate VP, who does that get him? He already has the moderate vote as well as the AA vote, the progressives are probably the next biggest block of voters that he could realistically get. Plus, picking a progressive VP really won't turn anyone away from him who was already gonna vote for him

It raises his potential ceiling of voters everywhere. There's no progressive strongholds, but there are sizeable enough chunks of progressive voters in a lot of states to make an impact. Last election Clinton lost because of 80,000 votes, and while there are a number of reasons why she lost (and most of the Bernie supporters in those states who flipped weren't progressives but union people disillusioned with the Dems), there were definitely progressive votes left on the table

Biden's whole shtick is that he's a unifier, and it really plays into it if he brings in a progressive VP. I don't think there's one single state (besides Texas, but nobody Biden could pick would guarantee Texas anyways) which the Dem strategy should focus on, history has shown that the best way for them to win is to get people out to vote. Whoever brings you the best opportunity to get the most people out to vote should be it.

[CharlesOakley]

Biden needs Oprah as a VP if he is going to win while displaying this level of mental decline. The more he speaks, the worse it gets. How do his handlers protect him from himself until the finish line?

[HarthorneWingo]

Has Biden addressed the Floyed murder in public yet? Has he called for their murder prosecutions?

[Phish Tank]

Has Biden addressed the Floyed murder in public yet? Has he called for their murder prosecutions?

he spoke on it several times and asked for justice to be served.

[HarthorneWingo]

Has Biden addressed the Floyd murder in public yet? Has he called for their murder prosecutions?

he spoke on it several times and asked for justice to be served.

Just that "justice be served"? That's it?

Smh, no. He should show some balls and call for the cop's arrest on a first degree murder charge.

THIS is the guy who says "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black"?

[HarthorneWingo]

I have a serious question to ask.

Spoiler:

Is there anybody here who doesn't think that Donald Trump tongue-kissed his daughter Ivanka when she was underage? How about a hand job?

[Phish Tank]

Has Biden addressed the Floyd murder in public yet? Has he called for their murder prosecutions?

he spoke on it several times and asked for justice to be served.

Just that "justice be served"? That's it?

Smh, no. He should show some balls and call for the cop's arrest on a first degree murder charge.

THIS is the guy who says "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black"?

Wingo, I wish some of what I wanted became reality

[GONYK]

Thought experiment: if Biden does not pick a progressive VP, where does that hurt him other than NY, CA, OR, and WA?

Is there a proven progressive stronghold anywhere else?

It's not about not hurting him as much as it is building the coalition. Like, if he picks a moderate VP, who does that get him? He already has the moderate vote as well as the AA vote, the progressives are probably the next biggest block of voters that he could realistically get. Plus, picking a progressive VP really won't turn anyone away from him who was already gonna vote for him

It raises his potential ceiling of voters everywhere. There's no progressive strongholds, but there are sizeable enough chunks of progressive voters in a lot of states to make an impact. Last election Clinton lost because of 80,000 votes, and while there are a number of reasons why she lost (and most of the Bernie supporters in those states who flipped weren't progressives but union people disillusioned with the Dems), there were definitely progressive votes left on the table

Biden's whole shtick is that he's a unifier, and it really plays into it if he brings in a progressive VP. I don't think there's one single state (besides Texas, but nobody Biden could pick would guarantee Texas anyways) which the Dem strategy should focus on, history has shown that the best way for them to win is to get people out to vote. Whoever brings you the best opportunity to get the most people out to vote should be it.

I guess this is my question, if I'm playing devil's advocate. Do we know this to be true?

White working class voters, which are said to be the people who swung the election for Trump, mostly deserted Bernie in the primaries. Especially in the rust belt states.

I guess I'm just wondering if there is any data that shows they wouldn't be put off by a potential VP candidate pulling Biden further left. Are there enough progressives in the rust belt to make it a worthwhile trade off?

[j4remi]

I guess this is my question, if I'm playing devil's advocate. Do we know this to be true?

White working class voters, which are said to be the people who swung the election for Trump, mostly deserted Bernie in the primaries. Especially in the rust belt states.

I guess I'm just wondering if there is any data that shows they wouldn't be put off by a potential VP candidate pulling Biden further left. Are there enough progressives in the rust belt to make it a worthwhile trade off?

Data-wise, I don't think there's a rock solid piece but I'd point to the fact that they were fine voting Bernie in 2016. One thing the Biden success suggests is that a chunk of Bernie's support was legitimately the "anti-Hillary" vote; people who likely stayed home or made up the 10% (disclaimer: rough estimate here, I don't feel like searching for the exact figure but it fell within statistical norms) that swung to Trump after voting Bernie in the primary.

Those heads picked Bernie over Hillary before migrating to Trump or staying home and they then picked Biden over Bernie. I don't think they'd be turned off by a progressive VP, but it's absolutely speculative.

That said, I don't think there's silver bullet proof in any direction on this. I would argue though that I think this VP pick is more important to Progressives and Independents (the ones who don't like Biden) than it is to moderates (who don't have a problem with Biden). Biden has the moderates, he doesn't need to reinforce that and the most he'll gain is possibly a bit more certainty in one-off states depending on the moderate (Whitmer...maybe Klobuchar).

[DOT]

I guess this is my question, if I'm playing devil's advocate. Do we know this to be true?

White working class voters, which are said to be the people who swung the election for Trump, mostly deserted Bernie in the primaries. Especially in the rust belt states.

I guess I'm just wondering if there is any data that shows they wouldn't be put off by a potential VP candidate pulling Biden further left. Are there enough progressives in the rust belt to make it a worthwhile trade off?

I don't know it, but I think of it like, how many people are there that would vote for someone for president, but would decide not to if they choose a certain VP? Like, as long as that person's not a trainwreck, I don't think many people would go "yeah, I was gonna vote for Biden, but he picked Warren as his VP so I can't support him any more."

The case could be made that you could pick up more of those middle class, white rust belt voters by going with another moderate, but if you're specifically targeting geographically, then political philosophy isn't gonna make that much of a difference. Like, if there was a moderate from Ohio or Pennsylvania who was pretty popular, I'd say go for it, but I don't think someone like Klobuchar or Whitmer is really gonna turn out those people in those states. Sure, they'll bring their own states, but neither state is enough to win on its own. And if you're targeting them because they're moderate, if they're not already voting for Biden, I can't see a moderate VP bringing them in anyways

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Why isn’t the title of the article called anyone but Amy? Lol. No matter who’s picked, there’s a narrative some group is left out. If he picks Harris or Abrams Progressives will say he abandoned them. If he picks Warren black women and Bernie supporters will be pissed. If he selects an older running mate young people will be mad... so on and so forth. The big picture is that he’s not going to please everybody and there’s way too much emphasis put on a position that traditionally doesn’t have that much power or responsibility. No matter the pick, people need to show up and vote blue down the ticket.

I think Harris and Abrams are seen as progressive enough to bridge the gap in this article (though I don't agree on Harris).

I think Warren is the strongest, but very unlikely, choice

Bernie supporters absolutely despise Kampala Harris for some reason. The issue I have with Abrams is the same one I have with Whitmer, Demmings, Pressley. They’re way too green to be next in line if Biden has to step down for some reason. I can just see the right wing attack ads and unfortunately for a woman candidate they have to be near flawless. And Abrams has not held statewide office.

I’d be interested to learn more about some of the Governors on his list, but it seems like Harris or Warren are absolutely at the top. Klobachar seems like a toxic pick, especially with what’s happening with George Floyd.