SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

If that's what it takes to end a republic, then best to get to work on the next one.

I'm sure the thought of the American republic falling is appealing to many who do not live there, do not care what happens to three hundred million Americans, and have the luxury of pretending that it won't harm them in a globalized world.

You mentioned that this election has the potential to end the republic. Which indicates that apparently one angry populist campaign is enough to break it and that the hallowed checks and balances aren't worth shit.

There won't be a "next one" if we lose this election.

The "next one" to which I referred was another run at a republic, maybe with actual safeguards. Something closet to a parliamentary system as opposed to the US' shambolic system.

Gandalf thinks America is evil. This isn't news to anyone.

Oh come off it. The republic has been crumbling for a while, but particularly after three-plus relentless years of Trump. This election isn't the one blow that'll finish it off- its the last chance to save it while its on life support.

[Elfdart]

There's a good distinction to be made between Sanders supporters generally, his hard core fans and the small but very vocal and very online jackasses running around.

I don't think you can tar Sanders personally that much with their behaviour, except that fair number of his staffers from the top (e.g. Sirota) to the bottom are of a similar mindset and tacitly encourage that kind of behaviour. I think there's a lot to the idea that his movement has a great deal of attraction for a certain kind of prick that you don't see aligning themselves with the other candidates.

But the whole Bernie Bro thing was bullshit. There's no evidence that Sanders' supporters are any more obnoxious than anyone else's in the primaries (2016 or 2020). Crying because (for example) David Sirota points out that Biden voted several times to cut Social Security is pathetic because Biden did in fact vote several times to cut Social Security. But what's really pathetic is the whiners who say that they were going to vote for a candidate who would try to save Type I diabetics from dying because they can't afford their insulin, but someone was rude to them on Twitter, so they'd rather let the poor die. Now I'd be charitable and assume that these people are lying and they were never going to vote for Bernie and this is just an excuse. But even if it's just a small percentage who really are willing to let poor diabetics die because somebody on Twitter dunked on them. that's a fairly large number of evil, narcissistic pricks on the loose. Personally, if it got people life-saving meds, I'd be glad to have trolls bust my chops on social media.

[The Romulan Republic]

Races to watch tomorrow:

Texas. Biden is slightly ahead on Fivethirtyeight, but its going to be a pretty heavy split of delegates, and it could be close. If Bernie pulls off a surprise win that'll dent Biden's momentum nicely.

Virginia- longer shot for Sanders, but it won't be a Biden blowout like SC, most likely.

Oklahoma-Bloomberg's one real shot at picking up a state, close race with Biden.

California- how big is Bernie's margin of victory? He needs the padding there to his delegate count to make up for recent misfortune elsewhere, and lessen the odds of a contested convention. Unfortunately right now it looks like he'll only have about forty delegates on Biden.

[The Romulan Republic]

But the whole Bernie Bro thing was bullshit. There's no evidence that Sanders' supporters are any more obnoxious than anyone else's in the primaries (2016 or 2020). Crying because (for example) David Sirota points out that Biden voted several times to cut Social Security is pathetic because Biden did in fact vote several times to cut Social Security. But what's really pathetic is the whiners who say that they were going to vote for a candidate who would try to save Type I diabetics from dying because they can't afford their insulin, but someone was rude to them on Twitter, so they'd rather let the poor die. Now I'd be charitable and assume that these people are lying and they were never going to vote for Bernie and this is just an excuse. But even if it's just a small percentage who really are willing to let poor diabetics die because somebody on Twitter dunked on them. that's a fairly large number of evil, narcissistic pricks on the loose. Personally, if it got people life-saving meds, I'd be glad to have trolls bust my chops on social media.

I remember in 2016, there were multiple incidents of female Sanders supporters being assaulted by Clinton supporters that got almost no media coverage. Can you just imagine how it would have played if it had been the reverse (Sanders supporter assault female Clinton supporter?). Recall also that more Clinton supporters voted for McCain in 2008, than Sanders supporters defected to Trump in 2016.

Yeah, there is absolutely a double standard in how Sanders' supporters are portrayed. And the "Bernie Bro" label was pretty much just a smear meant to reinforce the idea that only angry young men supported Bernie (and thereby erase the contributions and voices of his female supporters).

[The Romulan Republic]

Playing around on FiveThirtyEight:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/super-tuesday/

If I give each state to Sanders or Biden based on who the polls currently have in the lead, then the average outcome is Sanders 1,383 delegates, Biden 1,868. Biden has a 39.8% chance at a majority, Bernie is down to only 5.1%, and No one drops a bit to 55.1%.

If I give Texas to Bernie, his odds go up to 14%, Biden's fall to 17.5... but "No one" is up to 68.4. Sanders edges out Biden by an average of a mere 11 delegates.

So basically, either Bernie is fucked, or we're almost certainly going to a contested convention, and Bernie is fucked, followed by the whole party/country being fucked. Seems like basically any scenario where Sanders does well tomorrow increases the risk of a contested convention.

Honestly, if that analysis is correct, its a pretty good argument to vote for Biden, to at least reduce the odds of a contested convention. I'm honest enough to admit that. But it really sticks in my craw, for Bernie (the front runner in states and votes, with the most diverse coalition) to be the one who's likely to lose out, because Mayor Stop-and-Frisk and Senator Snake are pushing us toward a contested convention. And for Biden and the Centrists to be rewarded for scheming to get the nomination by super delegate.

Well, my vote's already sent. Nothing to do but sit back and hope for an unexpected Sanders surge and a quick Warren and Bloomberg drop out. I feel good about the prospect of a one-on-one race with Joe. We have a fair shot at winning that, and if we don't, at least we don't have to worry about a contested convention as much.

[Elfdart]

It's quite a dick move to quit the day before Super Tuesday and after absentee votes have already been cast.

Eh, risks of early voting in a race where not everyone will be in to the end.

I'm rather glad some of her's have already voted- it means they can't all follow her lead to Biden now.

Most people who vote absentee aren't vacationers, they're disabled and elderly, so ducking out and rendering the votes of your own supporters worthless is not just slimy, but cruel.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's quite a dick move to quit the day before Super Tuesday and after absentee votes have already been cast.

Eh, risks of early voting in a race where not everyone will be in to the end.

I'm rather glad some of her's have already voted- it means they can't all follow her lead to Biden now.

Most people who vote absentee aren't vacationers, they're disabled and elderly, so ducking out and rendering the votes of your own supporters worthless is not just slimy, but cruel.

Unfortunately, that's going to pretty much happen no matter when you drop out, if every contest has some mail-in voters.

The only way to avoid it would be for every candidate to stay in to the convention, which... yeah, no. Please, God, no.

[The Romulan Republic]

Breakdown of how delegates of candidates who have now dropped out are handled:

https://heavy.com/news/2020/03/what-hap ... -drops-out

What happens to a presidential candidate’s delegates after they drop out? Many people may be wondering this question now that Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar are both out of the presidential race.

Buttigieg dropped out of the presidential race on March 1, 2020. Klobuchar dropped out the next day. Both Klobuchar and Buttigieg were moderates. They are now expected to endorse Biden’s candidacy on Monday evening at a rally in Dallas, Dallas News reports.

By early March, Buttigieg had won 26 pledged delegate votes in total: 23 from the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses, and three from the Nevada caucus. He received no pledged delegate votes in South Carolina. After Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, he had received the most delegates of any candidate, by that point in the race. Klobuchar, on the other hand, had earned seven delegates by the time she dropped out.

It’s worth noting that a presidential candidate needs to earn 1,991 delegates to clench the nomination. So Buttigieg and Klobuchar’s combined 33 delegates are quite a small piece of the pie, so to speak. Even if all of those delegates were to move to another candidate, it wouldn’t be make-or-break for the race.

What it could do, though, is create a shift in momentum.

There’s another point to consider, one which will confuse the matter even further: it’s possible that Buttigieg or Klobuchar will earn even more delegates after they’ve dropped out. This is because they (and other presidential candidates, like Tom Steyer and Cory Booker) will still be on the Super Tuesday voting ballots. According to Balletopedia, the Super Tuesday ballots are determined off of a voting deadline in early January. Because Buttigieg and Klobuchar were still in the race by that time, they’ll be on the ballot for Super Tuesday.

So where do those 26 or more delegates belonging to Buttigieg go? Where do the seven or more delegates belonging to Klobuchar go?

It depends on the state.

Here’s what you need to know:

Delegates Can Go a Number of Directions, After a Presidential Candidate Drops Out

Understanding the Primaries: Delegates, Democracy, and America's Nonstop Political PartyIn which John seeks to understand the strange and labyrinthine process used by the Republican and Democratic parties to select a nominee for President, focusing on the great state of Missouri, where the races were close but the delegate counts weren't. Along the way, there's a bit of discussion about political parties in U.S. politics, congressional redistricting and gerrymandering, superdelegates, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. A little more historical background on the emergence of primaries and caucuses in American politics: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015 ... ry-system/ All the delegate math you can handle: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... e-targets/ and all the primary polls/forecasts you can handle: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... y-forecast Know your superdelegates and who (if anyone) they've pledged to support at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Unpledged.phtml Lots of information on redistricting in Missouri after the 2010 census: https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Missouri More information on how the Missouri Republican party allocates its delegates for the 2016 Republican convention in Cleveland: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MO-R Thanks to Rosianna for illustrations (http://youtube.com/rosianna) and Stan Muller for the video title and help understanding political parties in the U.S. —- Subscribe to our newsletter! http://nerdfighteria.com/newsletter/ And join the community at http://nerdfighteria.com http://effyeahnerdfighters.com Help transcribe videos – http://nerdfighteria.info John's twitter – http://twitter.com/johngreen John's tumblr – http://fishingboatproceeds.tumblr.com Hank's twitter – http://twitter.com/hankgreen Hank's tumblr – http://edwardspoonhands.tumblr.com2016-03-22T21:43:26.000Z

In most states, when a candidate drops out, his or her delegates go to the national convention uncommitted to any candidate (that’s why it means they’re “pledged” after a caucus; they haven’t actually voted, and will only officially vote at the Democratic National Convention). From there, they can technically vote for anyone they choose, like a superdelegate.

On the other hand, some states like Virginia and Nevada require that delegates vote for their pledged candidate in the first round of the convention no matter what, The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports.

However, if a candidate drops out of the race and then goes on to endorse another active presidential candidate, then those delegates are expected to vote for the candidate the person has endorsed. Again, they’re not required to vote for anyone. For example, if Buttigieg and Klobuchar both endorsed Joe Biden after they dropped out, their delegates might vote for Biden at the convention, assuming Biden was still in the race by then. It doesn’t guarantee anything, but it increases the likelihood that a candidate’s delegates will go in a specific direction.

As for what a delegate is, at all: a delegate can be a volunteer, a party chair, or even an interested citizen. They’re supposed to represent the will of the people who live in their area. According to party rules, delegates are expected to “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

—>> Buttigieg unwilling to be reason Sanders is able to get “insurmountable” delegate lead on Super Tuesday, CNN reporting.

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) March 2, 2020

The question of pledged delegates is an increasingly important one, given how many presidential candidates for the Democratic party have stayed in the race for such a long period of time. Obviously, only one candidate will clinch the Democratic nomination and go on to take on Donald Trump for the presidency — but after Super Tuesday, it’s likely that more Democratic candidates will drop out, thus leaving their delegates un-pledged for the convention.

This leaves an element of the unknown leading up to the convention, rather than if a single candidate came into the convention with an overwhelming majority of delegates.

Going into Super Tuesday, here’s a breakdown of how many delegates each presidential candidate has earned, per the Associated Press:

Bernie Sanders: 60
Joe Biden: 54
Pete Buttigieg: 26
Elizabeth Warren: 8
Amy Klobuchar: 7
Four states have voted so far… out of 50. Pete just dropped out and he was third in delegates. That's crazy how it's basically now considered as a race between Bernie, Biden, and Bloomberg, and 46 states haven't even voted yet. Our entire process is so absurdly undemocratic.

— Scott Santens (@scottsantens) March 1, 2020

Buttigieg’s decision to drop out of the race prior to Super Tuesday was directly related to his own delegates, several sources report.

CNN reports that Buttigieg didn’t want to split the moderate vote, regarding delegate numbers, and in doing so, give Sanders an “insurmountable” delegate lead.

In other words, he might have decided to fall on his sword, so to speak, so that a more viable moderate candidate like Biden could potentially pick up more pledged delegates.

If Buttigieg and Klobuchar both chose to endorse Biden, then Biden would presumably receive many of Buttigieg and Klobuchar’s pledged delegates, if not all. This would put Biden in the lead over Sanders going into Super Tuesday, reflecting a remarkable rise for Biden in the last week.

.@FiveThirtyEight’s projections had/have Warren getting more delegates than Buttigieg in literally every Super Tuesday state except Virginia. https://t.co/0J09tryUVJ

— Kevin Robillard (@Robillard) March 2, 2020

Given how spread out the delegates have been in the beginning primaries, many people have wondered what will happen if a candidate receives less than the requisite amount of delegates (1,991 are needed) to clinch the nomination, leading up to the Democratic National Convention. When no one candidate receives the requisite amount of delegates, it becomes a “contested convention.”

FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver pointed out that Buttigieg’s decision to drop out of the race might increase the likelihood of a contested convention.

He tweeted, “Buttigieg dropping out may actually increase the likelihood of a contested convention. He was polling at <15% almost everywhere on Super Tuesday, meaning he was tracking to get very few delegates, but his votes will help other candidates to get over 15% and get delegates.”

In a new memo this morning, Elizabeth Warren vows to compete through March.

After Super Tuesday, where her team is predicting she’ll earn delegates in “nearly every state,” “no candidate will likely have a path to the majority of delegates,” @RogerLau says.

— Ruby Cramer (@rubycramer) March 1, 2020

Per Politico, there are three types of delegates: pledged leaders, elected officials, and at-large delegates. Then there are the superdelegates, who are comprised of a number of types of elected officials, including: every Democratic member of Congress, Democratic governors, all former Democratic presidents and vice presidents, and more.

Per Frontloading HQ, here’s a breakdown of how those delegates differ from one another, explained in the context of Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropping out of the race:

District delegates of Buttigieg and Klobuchar when they are selected will then immediately become free agents, free to choose a candidate to back or to let candidates woo them as they might superdelegates now. They become a set of first ballot unpledged delegates.

…Things get more complicated when it comes to the ten at-large and PLEO (pledged party leaders and elected officials) delegates. However, as was the case with district delegates, if a candidate’s campaign remains in suspension through the selection process, then those delegates will be selected for that candidate and they would become free agents at the convention.

Around this time of the election cycle, it’s normal for presidential candidates to base their decision to drop out of the race on delegates. Specifically, they might have garnered so few delegates thus far that their likelihood of gaining enough delegates in future primaries is no longer even a possibility.

"Why would Elizabeth Warren at this point want to take any delegates from Bernie? Wouldn't she instead want to put her support behind Bernie? Pete is dropping out and supporting Biden. Shouldn't that be what Warren is doing for Bernie? What is her goal?" — My mom rn watching CNN

— Scott Heins (@scottheins) March 2, 2020

But there are other, more nuanced reasons for why candidates might drop out or stay in the race longer, even if they know they won’t win.

For example, as noted in the tweet above, Elizabeth Warren is expected to continue to campaign through March. Even though she has very few delegates thus far, her team expects her to pick up a few delegates in each state, which might be enough to enter a contested convention with a chance. This is assuming that no other candidate receives the necessary majority of delegates.

If I’m Klobuchar, I *don’t* drop out Sunday because I can win Minnesota Tuesday and keep some delegates from Bernie. Then I drop out Wednesday and endorse Biden. https://t.co/x4omncLIuZ

— Bill Scher (@billscher) March 1, 2020

On the other hand, a candidate might continue running and collecting delegates in order to increase their own leverage when they drop out. In other words, a candidate can choose to drop out and then endorse another candidate, giving them their delegates as a result.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democracy for America and the Nation endorse Bernie Sanders:

https://buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancb ... eth-warren

https://thenation.com/article/politics/ ... e-sanders/

If Bernie Sanders had simply demonstrated that it is possible to wage a competitive campaign for the presidency without relying on wealthy donors, corporate funders, or secretive PAC money, he would have earned his place in history.

If all Sanders had to show for his two campaigns for the presidency was the greatest leftward shift in the political discourse since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s second term—putting not just Medicare for All but also the Green New Deal, free public higher education, fair taxation, cancellation of student debt, housing as a human right, universal free child care, and an unwavering critique of the billionaire class firmly onto the political agenda—we would owe him our gratitude.

If his contribution to the debate on foreign policy never went beyond refusing to endorse trade deals that harm workers, denouncing America’s endless wars, and reasserting Congress’s control over presidential adventurism—and had not also included defying AIPAC and the Israel lobby, reminding Americans that many of those crossing our borders are fleeing dictators sustained by Washington, and maintaining his long-standing rejection of authoritarianism at home or abroad—we would still recognize Sanders as a prophetic figure.

But he has accomplished much, much more. As of this morning, Bernie Sanders—a Jewish grandfather with an indelible Brooklyn accent—is the leading contender for the Democratic nomination. He got there by forging a movement campaign that expands our understanding of what can be achieved in the electoral arena and that invites us to imagine that government of, by, and for the people might actually be possible.

The movement Sanders has helped to build—a multiracial, multiethnic movement of working-class women and men, people of all ages, all faiths, gay, straight, and trans, veterans and pacifists, teachers, farmers, bus drivers, nurses, and postal workers coming together to demand justice and redeem the endlessly deferred promise of America—deserves our enthusiastic support. Most crucially at this point in the 2020 campaign, this movement and this candidate deserve our votes.

Bernie Sanders and the movements he supports (and that support him) have created a populist moment, a vibrant and growing alternative to the tired shibboleths of austerity and market fundamentalism. They are exposing and upending the white nationalist con that promises a blue-collar boom while cutting taxes for the rich and gutting health care, environmental protection and education for the rest of us.

Four years ago, when Sanders began his battle, we supported him, arguing that in his candidacy

movements for greater equality and justice have found an ally and a champion. In contrast to the right-wing demagogues who exploit [our national crisis] to foment division, the Vermont senator has reached into a proud democratic-socialist tradition to revive the simple but potent notion of solidarity. We must turn to each other, not on each other, Sanders says, and unite to change the corrupted politics that robs us all.

A great deal has changed since then. We now have a right-wing demagogue in the Oval Office, a man credibly accused of sexual assault on the Supreme Court, an administration staffed with sycophants and corporate lackeys. Meanwhile, we’ve watched with mounting dismay as congressional Democratic leaders have pursued a narrow—and futile—quest for impeachment while failing to prevent immigrant children from being torn from the arms of their parents and put in cages. We have witnessed the daily spectacle of an administration that fudges the facts and scorns science while the planet burns.

Yet when we look beyond the corridors of power, we cannot despair. Not while we’re also in the middle of a long season of revolt, from the millions of women (and allies) in their pink pussy hats protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration to successful teachers’ strikes in West Virginia, Los Angeles, and Chicago, to demonstrations culminating in the removal of Puerto Rico’s corrupt, sexist governor—and that’s just in the United States. From Beirut to Baghdad and from Haiti to Hong Kong, people are rising up together to demand an end to corruption and the politics of divide and rule.

Sanders has made this global outcry a part of his 2020 campaign. He has gathered his forces and moved against America’s oligarchy, and this time he’s had company—and competition. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy appealed to progressives who, though they shared many of the Sanders campaign’s goals, worried that his age, his fiery manner, or his avowal of democratic socialism would be handicaps in the battle to defeat Trump. She appealed, as well, to the millions of Americans who believe that it is long past the time when this country should elect a progressive woman as its president. Along with Sanders, Warren has widened the left lane of American politics. While Sanders has popularized the idea of a political revolution, Warren’s detailed plans have given depth and meaning to proposals for Medicare for All and a wealth tax. The pair have differed on details, but Warren and Sanders have been such a potent team—especially in last summer’s debates—that some here argued they ought to form a ticket.

That still seems like an idea worth considering. For the time being, the view that Warren needs to remain in the race for as long as possible has adherents even among some Sanders backers, who recognize her ability to attract support among constituencies Sanders can’t easily reach by himself, and rack up delegates committed to a progressive candidate. But that is true only as long as her role remains constructive. If Sanders should do more to discourage his supporters from engaging in personal attacks—and we believe that he should—Warren must recognize that at this point in the race, any criticism by her of Sanders or his record only benefits their common enemies. Solidarity is a virtue that must be practiced as well as preached.

Because, while there might have once been grounds for argument about which of the two progressives would make a better president, there are now only three candidates with a realistic path to the Democratic nomination: Sanders and the two so-called moderates, Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg. We still believe that Biden would be a uniquely weak challenger to Trump, forfeiting the high ground on corruption, the Iraq War, and even #MeToo issues while being forced to defend his record on mass incarceration, bankruptcy revision, and his coziness with credit card companies and the banks. Still, the worst that can be said against Biden is that he’d probably lose the election. A Bloomberg nomination would offer Americans desperate for relief from decades of stagnant income, industrial decline, and grotesque inequality their choice of plutocrats. Even if Bloomberg were to win, the Democratic Party would be damaged beyond repair.

Fortunately, thanks to the movement that has lifted him up, Sanders offers an alternative that is more than merely credible. Sanders 2020 is possible—and with it the promise of a different future. He is running and winning as a candidate who has repeatedly shown genuine moral courage—exemplified by his steadfast support for Palestinian rights and immediate denunciation of the rush to war with Iran. This makes him the living antithesis to Trump and the president’s most formidable challenger. Sanders has already raised $167 million ($46 million from more than 2 million donors in February alone) from millions of small donors who will continue to support his campaign in the fall.

Sanders won the most votes in Iowa, the most votes and delegates in New Hampshire, and a commanding victory in Nevada—the most representative, diverse electorate of the early states—across divisions of race, class, and language. Though his second-place finish in South Carolina indicates Sanders still has work to do with African American voters, national polls show him currently leading in every demographic except voters over 55 and beating Trump convincingly in every head-to-head matchup. What is perhaps most exciting about the Sanders campaign is his commitment to expanding the electorate, which could produce a sweeping victory for his presidential campaign and congressional Democrats this fall.

That is the promise and possibility of the Sanders campaign—whether you call him a democratic socialist or a New Deal Democrat. Even as the corporate media ignores his achievements, denigrates his chances, and magnifies his every misstep, Sanders has two weapons none of his competitors can match or deflect. The first is his consistency. One reason Sanders won 67 percent of the vote in his last Senate campaign in Vermont, easily outpolling the Republican governor who was elected at the same time, is that even voters who disagree with him know he means what he says. Biden has to lie about getting arrested in support of South Africa’s black freedom struggle. Sanders was actually getting arrested in America’s black freedom struggle before Biden was old enough to vote. As we find ourselves on a hinge of history—a generation summoned to the task of redeeming our democracy and restoring our republic—no one ever has to wonder what Bernie Sanders stands for.

The other weapon is the movement, with its overwhelming appeal to young voters and its determination to mobilize the disenfranchised and the disenchanted. Movements are more important than candidates and are a greater source of power for change than election results. We live in an age of state repression and voter suppression, when a rigged system, complicit politicians and a depleted and chronically distracted press have allowed the greatest concentration of economic and political power in American history. Yet resistance is always an option. And an imperative. So long as we are many and they are few, hope remains both rational and realistic.

In this election the fundamental question is also the oldest one: Which side are you on? The Nation is on the side of hope, not fear. We’re on the side of radical change, not retrenchment and retreat. We are proud and excited to stand with the movements that have brought us to this moment and made this amazing, terrifying, exhilarating, and empowering campaign possible. And we are proud to endorse Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist with a program realistic and radical enough to meet the test of our time, for president of the United States.

[FireNexus]

I'm honest enough to admit that. But it really sticks in my craw, for Bernie (the front runner in states and votes, with the most diverse coalition) to be the one who's likely to lose out, because Mayor Stop-and-Frisk and Senator Snake are pushing us toward a contested convention.

Bernie is second place in votes. It does not surprise me that you didn’t know that.

Also, the thing you’re going through is why Bernie fans have been going completely crazy today. Because this was always going to be the outcome when the field winnowed, but it was really starting to look like that wasn’t going to happen.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm honest enough to admit that. But it really sticks in my craw, for Bernie (the front runner in states and votes, with the most diverse coalition) to be the one who's likely to lose out, because Mayor Stop-and-Frisk and Senator Snake are pushing us toward a contested convention.

Bernie is second place in votes. It does not surprise me that you didn’t know that.

If so, fair enough, but Biden just had one really good night. Time yet for Bernie to turn it around. He's leading in a LOT of states (most notably California).

Biden also has yet to show that he has more than strictly regional appeal.

Also, the thing you’re going through is why Bernie fans have been going completely crazy today. Because this was always going to be the outcome when the field winnowed, but it was really starting to look like that wasn’t going to happen.

I think you're still being a bit premature.

Tomorrow will answer a lot. Unless it answers nothing. But I'm hoping Warren is out, and Texas will be very important.

[TimothyC]

Bernie (the front runner in states and votes, with the most diverse coalition)

States, yes, Votes no. After South Carolina, that went to Biden.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Playing around on FiveThirtyEight:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/super-tuesday/

If I give each state to Sanders or Biden based on who the polls currently have in the lead, then the average outcome is Sanders 1,383 delegates, Biden 1,868. Biden has a 39.8% chance at a majority, Bernie is down to only 5.1%, and No one drops a bit to 55.1%.

If I give Texas to Bernie, his odds go up to 14%, Biden's fall to 17.5... but "No one" is up to 68.4. Sanders edges out Biden by an average of a mere 11 delegates.

Here's a thought ... what if Biden wins California?

Sanders is the favorite, but not prohibitively so. I believe that the polls have drastically overblown Sanders' potential; especially with the abrupt gravitational collapse of the Not-Sanders lane ... California voters have not done a lot of early voting this time around, so there's going to be a huge turnout of late-deciding voters. Late-deciding voters who will be going into the voting booth aware of Biden's South Carolina rampage and the resulting consolidation of the party. A lot of them will be minority voters who aren't necessarily young or progressive.

Bloomberg has spent a moderate fortune in advertising in California. If he turns out to be as bad at converting ad dollars to votes as Steyer was, Biden could see a big boost in support at Bloomberg's expense tomorrow.

If Biden pulls an upset in California, everything else is frippery. Sanders is toast. Although Sanders' path to not being immediate toast requires him to take both Texas and Virginia. if he does that, and holds California, he will have proven his ability to assemble a coalition durable enough to, you know, actually win with the wider Democratic electorate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Playing around on FiveThirtyEight:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/super-tuesday/

If I give each state to Sanders or Biden based on who the polls currently have in the lead, then the average outcome is Sanders 1,383 delegates, Biden 1,868. Biden has a 39.8% chance at a majority, Bernie is down to only 5.1%, and No one drops a bit to 55.1%.

If I give Texas to Bernie, his odds go up to 14%, Biden's fall to 17.5... but "No one" is up to 68.4. Sanders edges out Biden by an average of a mere 11 delegates.

Here's a thought ... what if Biden wins California?

Sanders is the favorite, but not prohibitively so. I believe that the polls have drastically overblown Sanders' potential; especially with the abrupt gravitational collapse of the Not-Sanders lane ... California voters have not done a lot of early voting this time around, so there's going to be a huge turnout of late-deciding voters. Late-deciding voters who will be going into the voting booth aware of Biden's South Carolina rampage and the resulting consolidation of the party. A lot of them will be minority voters who aren't necessarily young or progressive.

Can the idea that "minority"="anti-Sanders" just fucking die? It was always a bullshit narrative, which tacitly equated "minority" with "older black voter" and erased other people of colour in order to give the impression that Sanders and his supporters were all racist white men. But if nothing else, Nevada should have put that lie to bed.

Sanders has done VERY well with Latino votes. That's WHY he's clearly leading in California.

Bloomberg has spent a moderate fortune in advertising in California. If he turns out to be as bad at converting ad dollars to votes as Steyer was, Biden could see a big boost in support at Bloomberg's expense tomorrow.

If Biden pulls an upset in California, everything else is frippery. Sanders is toast. Although Sanders' path to not being immediate toast requires him to take both Texas and Virginia. if he does that, and holds California, he will have proven his ability to assemble a coalition durable enough to, you know, actually win with the wider Democratic electorate.

If Biden wins Cali, sure, its pretty much over. And if Sanders sweeps the deep South tomorrow its pretty much over. Neither scenario is terribly likely, however.

I don't necessarily agree that Sanders has to win both Virginia and Texas. He pretty much does have to win Texas, but I think a narrow loss in Viriginia combined with a Texas win would be an alright outcome for him in the short-term (although a high risk of contested convention).

[FireNexus]

Biden just has to get to viability in California if he wins Texas and Virginia. It’s going to be close in Texas, so he may not even have to win their if he can be viable in California and not too-too far back.

Sanders has to prove that he can compete when He’s not working a divide and conquer strategy. I don’t think he can.

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden just has to get to viability in California if he wins Texas and Virginia. It’s going to be close in Texas, so he may not even have to win their if he can be viable in California and not too-too far back.

Sanders has to prove that he can compete when He’s not working a divide and conquer strategy. I don’t think he can.

I love how the guy who's won more states and delegates has to basically win everywhere tomorrow to be considered viable, but Biden is the sure winner if he just wins nothing but the South.

I mean, maybe, yeah, because Bloomberg and Warren are also pulling in delegates, and a contested convention basically means "Fuck the voters, we're picking Biden". But if Bernie only wins the states where he's currently favored, we still get:

Bernie:

New Hampshire.
Nevada.
California.
Maine.
Vermont.
Massachusetts.
Minnesota.
Colorado.
Utah.

Biden:

South Carolina.
Tennessee.
Virigina.
Texas.
Arkansas.
Oklahoma.
American Samoa.
Alabama.

Sanders in that scenario has more states, the biggest state, and wins in every region of the nation. Biden's support is largely limited to the South. And yet in that scenario, Biden is considered the sure winner, and Sanders the sure loser, and I'm sure you'll be howling for Bernie to drop out immediately, and accusing him and all his supporters of helping Trump if he doesn't.

And sure, maybe it works that way, because if Bernie doesn't utterly dominate, we get contested convention and they hand it to Biden. But its fucked up that the candidate with more wins, more delegates, and a more diverse coalition would emerge the loser, while Biden just has to win the South and register a presence outside it and he's the golden boy.

It sure as hell isn't a sign of Bernie's weakness compared to Biden if he doesn't win Texas and Virginia. It just means Biden's weaknesses don't matter, because if Sanders has anything less than a clear majority, the super delegates will give it to Biden.

[FireNexus]

Can the idea that "minority"="anti-Sanders" just fucking die? It was always a bullshit narrative, which tacitly equated "minority" with "older black voter" and erased other people of colour in order to give the impression that Sanders and his supporters were all racist white men. But if nothing else, Nevada should have put that lie to bed.

Sanders just got a 30 point, 150,000 vote dick smack from Joe Biden the first time black people got a chance to vote. And he didn’t clean up the young black vote, either. He did win under 30 black voters, but it was close enough to a tie that it makes his case for the diversity of his coalition pretty iffy.

Regardless, Sanders’ black voter problem is still very real. It was less of an issue when there were so many “not Sanders” choices.

Sanders has done VERY well with Latino votes. That's WHY he's clearly leading in California.

That’s fair. We’ll see if that holds up when he’s not using a divide and conquer strategy. Remember, given the new playing field, Bernie doesn’t just need to win in California. He needs to fucking STOMP Biden. And he needs Bloomberg to do well at the same time. And he needs to win in Texas by a lot more than looks very likely. And he needs to keep it close in Virginia.

I think it’s within the realm of possibility that all those things happen. But I’d have thought it a lot more if Petey and Klobuchar didn’t drop out and endorse the guy who was the presumptive frontrunner until 60 days ago.

I don't necessarily agree that Sanders has to win both Virginia and Texas. He pretty much does have to win Texas, but I think a narrow loss in Viriginia combined with a Texas win would be an alright outcome for him in the short-term (although a high risk of contested convention).

This all assumes Biden isn’t kinda close in California. If Biden keeps it close in Cali, without winning, he can absorb a narrow loss in Texas. He probably takes Virginia by a sizable margin, though unlikely one nearly as big as S.C. Short of a Corona Day Miracle, Bernie will get delegates out of it.

[FireNexus]

I love how the guy who's won more states and delegates has to basically win everywhere tomorrow to be considered viable, but Biden is the sure winner if he just wins nothing but the South.

That’s because if he doesn’t run the board tomorrow, a d Bloomberg does what the smart money is on, he’s got to deal with a one-on-one matchup against a popular moderate Democrat who performs very well with black voters. And he got his ass beat four years ago by an unpopular less-moderate Democrat.

Sanders as a frontrunner requires moderate Democrats to be fractured. If they’re not, Sanders needs to win some of their voters. And you may not have noticed, but he polled much worse in SC after his decisive win in Nevada. That combined with the sudden clearing of the way for Biden reads to me like most Democrats realizing what a mistake we were about to make and fixing it.

[Gandalf]

So what will Biden 2020 do that Clinton 2016 didn't?

[Jub]

So what will Biden 2020 do that Clinton 2016 didn't?

Point to Trump's time in office rather than a hypothetical, beyond that...

[FireNexus]

So what will Biden 2020 do that Clinton 2016 didn't?

Not being Hillary Clinton all on its own is probably worth the .5% needed to flip a few close states.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can the idea that "minority"="anti-Sanders" just fucking die? It was always a bullshit narrative, which tacitly equated "minority" with "older black voter" and erased other people of colour in order to give the impression that Sanders and his supporters were all racist white men. But if nothing else, Nevada should have put that lie to bed.

Sanders just got a 30 point, 150,000 vote dick smack from Joe Biden the first time black people got a chance to vote. And he didn’t clean up the young black vote, either. He did win under 30 black voters, but it was close enough to a tie that it makes his case for the diversity of his coalition pretty iffy.

And again, there's a tacit equation of "diversity" with "older black people". And the accompanying erasure of the views and contributions of other people of colour.

Biden has a diversity problem too- he has yet to prove he can win anyone except older voters, or that he can win anywhere outside the South. For all Hillary's faults as a nominee, she won big states in multiple regions outside the South. Biden has yet to show that he can do that, and he doesn't look likely to show it tomrrow either (well, maybe Texas, and maybe that counts as "Southwest" instead of South). Which to me makes Biden seem very weak, especially as the states where he appeals are mostly states that are likely to go Republican in the general regardless of who our nominee is.

Regardless, Sanders’ black voter problem is still very real. It was less of an issue when there were so many “not Sanders” choices.

His older black voter problem, presuming that SC is reflective of how the rest of the South ultimately votes (I expect Biden to win across the South, but not always by SC margins).

That’s fair. We’ll see if that holds up when he’s not using a divide and conquer strategy. Remember, given the new playing field, Bernie doesn’t just need to win in California. He needs to fucking STOMP Biden. And he needs Bloomberg to do well at the same time. And he needs to win in Texas by a lot more than looks very likely. And he needs to keep it close in Virginia.

So now Sanders has to not just win the two biggest states (and, if he takes Texas, likely every state outside the South)- he has to win both by a wide margin too? Just to be viable. While all Biden has to do to have a lock on it is to win the South, because if Sanders doesn't win an outright majority of a crowded field, the superdelegates will just hand it to Biden.

Can you at least understand WHY this pisses Sanders supporters off?

I'm also not sure how a strong Bloomberg helps Sanders. Sure, it takes votes from Biden, but doesn't it also increase the risk of a contested convention, which barring a miracle means the superdelegates give it to Biden primary results be damned?

I think it’s within the realm of possibility that all those things happen. But I’d have thought it a lot more if Petey and Klobuchar didn’t drop out and endorse the guy who was the presumptive frontrunner until 60 days ago.

Maybe. For the record, I'm glad they did, because while I want Sanders to win, above all I want to avoid a contested convention.

This all assumes Biden isn’t kinda close in California. If Biden keeps it close in Cali, without winning, he can absorb a narrow loss in Texas. He probably takes Virginia by a sizable margin, though unlikely one nearly as big as S.C. Short of a Corona Day Miracle, Bernie will get delegates out of it.

Fair enough.

[The Romulan Republic]

So what will Biden 2020 do that Clinton 2016 didn't?

Have a penis.

[The Romulan Republic]

I love how the guy who's won more states and delegates has to basically win everywhere tomorrow to be considered viable, but Biden is the sure winner if he just wins nothing but the South.

That’s because if he doesn’t run the board tomorrow, a d Bloomberg does what the smart money is on, he’s got to deal with a one-on-one matchup against a popular moderate Democrat who performs very well with black voters. And he got his ass beat four years ago by an unpopular less-moderate Democrat.

Sanders as a frontrunner requires moderate Democrats to be fractured. If they’re not, Sanders needs to win some of their voters. And you may not have noticed, but he polled much worse in SC after his decisive win in Nevada. That combined with the sudden clearing of the way for Biden reads to me like most Democrats realizing what a mistake we were about to make and fixing it.

The counterpoint is that now is not 2016, that Sanders started the 2016 race much less well-known and with much fewer resources than he now commands, that Biden did not come into this race as basically presumptive nominee the way Clinton did, his views are now more mainstream than they were then, that Sanders likely has a more diverse coalition than he did then, and that Sanders has done better in the early contests than he did in 2016.

I'm also not at all sure Bloomberg dropping out will hurt Sanders. Oh, sure, a lot of his votes will go to Biden- but his staying in ups the odds of a contested convention, which is all but a sure Biden win.*

Which is why I think the miserable old fucker will stay in until the convention (he has more than enough money for it), just to fuck over Sanders.


*I'll say- as much as I'd prefer Sanders, I'm actually okay, relatively, with a Biden win. But what I really want is for us to come to the convention with a nominee. I regard a contested convention as all but a coronation for Trump. Bring on the one-on-one race!

[The Romulan Republic]

The Guardian does a post-mortem evisceration of Buttigieg's campaign:

https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2 ... igieg-2020

The idea of Pete Buttigieg was so much better in the original Norwegian.

The nation’s favorite small-town Indiana mayor looked and sounded so much like the part of a presidential candidate. His debate delivery was flawless, like his stubble. His intonation was measured, like his intelligence.

All that was missing was a reason for being: a purpose, a mission. Something with more meaning than a talented youngish man who was on the rise. Something more meaningful than a preternatural prescience that the former vice-president would implode.

When Joe Biden failed to do so, there was no reason for Pete Buttigieg.

Mayor Pete, as he was branded, was more of a symptom than a cure: a sign of a party’s desperate need for a new generation of leaders and ideas, especially from the spiritual center of successful politics: the actual center.

But having managed a small town of 102,000 souls, Pete’s best claim to becoming commander-in-chief was that he lived in something close to the center of the country. Geography is rarely destiny, especially if it involves a place called South Bend.

Pete wanted Washington to be “like our best-run communities” but that folksy, gauzy vision sounded both small and intangible in the fight to fire a corrupt and racist president.

Still, the Buttigieg campaign achieved several remarkable feats that initially seemed as unlikely as his last name.

He broke through as the first openly gay candidate for president with a claim to the top tier. In fact he smashed that barrier for anyone who follows, including himself in any future presidential cycle.

Unlike the candidate he clearly modeled himself on, Buttigieg had even less Washington experience than Barack Obama when he ran for president as a freshman senator: which is to say, none at all. His ability to rise close to the top of the 2020 pack spoke volumes about his political talent and the team of staffers and consultants around him.

Like Obama, Mayor Pete had one shot at winning the nomination and it started and ended in Iowa. Remarkably Buttigieg edged out a win there, but Iowa’s democratic party did its best to walk all over his win through a catastrophic case of vote-tallying incompetence.

The lack of clarity about the Iowa caucuses effectively destroyed the rocket from South Bend while it was on the launchpad. It also probably destroyed the Iowa caucuses forever.

It is traditional to gloss over the flaws of candidates when they finally reach the sad state of their own demise. But at this time, when the political world is promising such a bright future for Mayor Pete, it’s also worth remembering the bright future of Beto O’Rourke, which never came to pass.

To understand Mayor Pete’s limitations, you need look no further than the last Democratic debate, staged in such chaos last week in South Carolina.

When asked whether Mike Bloomberg’s embrace of stop-and-frisk policing was racist, Buttigieg said yes. He went on to explain, in nuanced and perfectly constructed sentences, how that judgement was not judgmental, and how he entirely understood something he could never fully understand.

“I’m not here to score points,” he began, notching up the points. “I come at this with a great deal of humility, because we have had a lot of issues, especially when it comes to racial justice and policing in my own community.”

Somehow that humility sounded less humble when he said it out loud.

“And I come to this with some humility because I’m conscious of the fact that there are seven white people on this stage talking about racial justice,” he continued. “None of us – none of us have the experience, the lived experience of, for example, walking down the street, or in a mall, and feeling eyes on us, regarding us as dangerous, without knowing the first thing about us just because the color of our skin.”

Without this experience of being African-American, Buttigieg still sounded so experienced. It was even more remarkable when he white-mansplained what it was like to be a woman of color.

“None of us had the experience that black women have had that drives that maternal mortality gap that we are all rightly horrified by, of going into a doctor, and being less likely to have your description of being in pain believed because of your race,” he said, sounding both wonkish and wokish at the same time.

“Since we don’t have the experience, the next best thing we can do,” he told the voters of South Carolina, “is actually listen to those who do.”

He spoke so many words, so perfectly, as he told us all to listen to someone else.

And so, in keeping with the flawless rise of his own campaign, Pete Buttigieg shuffled off this presidential stage with flawless timing and flawlessly emotive language. Just before Super Tuesday, so he could keep his vice-presidential ambitions alive.

“We walk on in the knowledge that better leadership is possible,” he wrote to his supporters. “One day we will stand in the future we create, a future where every American is empowered and everyone belongs.”

Is it truly possible? Can we really walk on in the belief that we can one day stand in the future we create?

For we might still be sitting, awed by the sight and sound of this tale, told by a Rhodes scholar, full of hope and rhetoric, signifying nothing.

Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist