SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[FireNexus]

More seriously, if she endorses Biden you can expect her to be the VP pick I think. She doesn’t like Joe Biden, and wouldn’t endorse without a big promise. Biden didn’t call her a liar to her face on national television, of course, and that wound is fresher than the bankruptcy law. So who knows?

[Coop D'etat]

More seriously, if she endorses Biden you can expect her to be the VP pick I think. She doesn’t like Joe Biden, and wouldn’t endorse without a big promise. Biden didn’t call her a liar to her face on national television, of course, and that wound is fresher than the bankruptcy law. So who knows?

Succession is on most people's minds when it comes to Biden, and Warren has an age problem for later elections. Knowing Warren, her endorsement probably will be traded for influence on the platform, which she cares about way more than other people because Warren cares about government more than she does about politics.

I know everyone on the stage is older than her. People know that's a problem and want to fix it.

[FireNexus]

You praise her for remaining in a race she can't win, misleading her supporters and donors, to split the vote of the progressive movement she claimed to support in order to get a Centrist elected?

From your word choice and long familiarity with your self-righteous hysteria, I can tell that you expect me to argue with something other than “Yes”. But, as described, yes. I support extraordinary efforts to stop an unqualified asshole, especially when those efforts would be doomed to failure in a world where his primary argument for his electability was not disproven on Tuesday. (The further refutation of this argument also once again proved that his strategy to implement his policy agenda would fail, since they’re the same thing.)

Sanders is a bad choice. Warren is smart, so she can see it. You are stupid and think your left-wing blog addiction makes you a political strategist, so you can’t. But that’s fine. I absolutely support Warren if she intended to crater Bernie, because I absolutely consider Bernie as nominee to be as ultimately harmful to progressivism in particular as America in general.

I'd have thought the last two weeks, hell, the last four years, would have taught everyone the dangers of getting cocky about the results of an election.

No, the last two weeks told me that I should have stayed the course and not panicked. Bernie is terrible and bad at politics. I knew that, but I thought the centrists we’re just bad enough at politics to let him win with his high-floor/low-ceiling coalition. I’m now once again confident Bernie will never be the nominee, because he doesn’t have the coalition

Actually, when asked about whether he'd reached out to Warren by a reported, her confirmed that he had (there is no indication that the conversation was supposed to be confidential), that she had not made a decision, and asked everyone to respect her right to make her own choice in her own time.

When asked in one interview he said people should let her make her own choice. When asked in a press conference he revealed details which had the effect of throwing shade. Bernie acts like an asshole but then pretends he’s gracious all the time. Color me fucking shocked that he did it again.

This, naturally, is him trying to "pressure her to drop out". Also, Freedom is Slavery, 2 plus 2 is 5, and Big Brother is Doubleplusgood.

It’s almost as if actions speak louder than words.

And how has Sanders "spent months" trying to "destroy" Warren?

He accused her of lying on national television, then characteristically let his surrogates, spokespeople and supporters (including yourself) call her a snake and a traitor and worse names without comment or rebuke until the day he tried to get her to drop and endorse him. Because Bernie is bad at politics, so he doesn’t grasp that his failure to stop them is a tacit endorsement of shitty behavior.

You're just flat-out lying here, and in the most hypocritical fashion imaginable.

No, I’m just treating Bernie’s strategy of good-cop bad-cop dirty politics like what it is. It’s a strategy. Either he’s a huge asshole, which I favor as the explanation given his reputation for being an asshole in congress, or he’s fully incompetent at running a campaign that can build bridges.

No, what worries me most is that Biden is showing what seem to be clear indications of early dementia.

And yet Bernie lost embarrassingly to him on Tuesday.

Now comes the part of the election where TRR explains why Bernie’s opponent is unelectable, all the while not realize that it serves as a much stronger argument that Bernie's inability to beat him is an indictment of his claim to being the strongest general election candidate.

I wonder what happens if one candidate wins the most delegates, but then by the convention (or worse, during the general) turns out to be medically unfit to run. What's the procedure there? Because leaving aside Biden's mental state, the possibility of a coronavirus pandemic makes that a really relevant question.

The obvious thing, I'd think, would be for the nomination to go to the person with the second most votes.

Why is this obvious? Is there a runner up prize I’m not aware of? Does the person with the second most votes become President if the President-elect dies before inauguration? My understanding is that party bylaws let the party decide outright who the replacement is, and my hope would be that they wouldn’t be dumb enough to choose someone who is terrible. More importantly, they wouldn’t choose someone who might very well be in the same boat just a few weeks later, and Bernie is definitely that.

God, I almost forgot what an insufferable fucking dumbass you are. Thanks for the reminder.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

And, just like that, what some have called the most diverse primary field in Democratic history has collapsed into a pair of old white guys. Like everything else that's happened since Jim Clyburn's hard-carry of the Biden campaign last Saturday, it can only benefit Biden. Elizabeth Warren's bread and butter was well-educated suburban voters; and many of them aren't going to be Sanders voters.

Elizabeth Warren is currently not endorsing anyone. With the former Senator of the DuPont Corporation's chumminess with Corporate America, and the toxic misogyny of the sorts of Bernie Bros who follow Warren around on Twitter tweeting snake emojis at her (and the souring of their personal relationship since she and Sanders accused each other of lying, a few debates ago) I completely understand why.

It may be premature to ask this question; but does Bernie Sanders still have a viable path to the nomination? There is no more divided field to mask Sander's diminished ceiling of support (I can hear cries of "but, California" from the Sandersistas in the crowd; but Bernie Sanders spent an awful lot of time (years), money, and organization in California to get his third of the vote. Even then, his skin was only saved by early voting.)

Compared to 2016, he looks weak, and he lost back then too, to the only candidate with more negatives than one he's losing to right now! Next week doesn't look so good for him. In Florida, he's down by so much that Biden is very likely to get 100% of the delegates. In Michigan, Super Tuesday is likely to push Biden over the top. And now that Bloomberg realized there are better things to spend his money on than his personal vanity, and his massive organization remains in place, Sanders may be about to face the Granddaddy of All Super-PACs.

[Gandalf]

No, what worries me most is that Biden is showing what seem to be clear indications of early dementia.

And yet Bernie lost embarrassingly to him on Tuesday.

Wait. How are you getting from A to B here?

Now comes the part of the election where TRR explains why Bernie’s opponent is unelectable, all the while not realize that it serves as a much stronger argument that Bernie's inability to beat him is an indictment of his claim to being the strongest general election candidate.

Or it's an indictment of the Democratic party and their processes. Evidently they think that the only way to beat a seedy old white guy is... a seedy old white guy.

[Coop D'etat]

No, what worries me most is that Biden is showing what seem to be clear indications of early dementia.

And yet Bernie lost embarrassingly to him on Tuesday.

Wait. How are you getting from A to B here?

Now comes the part of the election where TRR explains why Bernie’s opponent is unelectable, all the while not realize that it serves as a much stronger argument that Bernie's inability to beat him is an indictment of his claim to being the strongest general election candidate.

Or it's an indictment of the Democratic party and their processes. Evidently they think that the only way to beat a seedy old white guy is... a seedy old white guy.

He ended up being the seedy old white guy the voters were going for, so if its wrong, its because the people are wrong.

[FireNexus]

Wait. How are you getting from A to B here?

“Biden seems to have dementia” is an argument that indicates Bernie can’t get a majority of the vote when the alternative to him is dementia whose vote is being split by Mike Bloomberg. It’s hard to argue Bernie is electable when he gets a smaller share of the vote than Alzheimer’s disease.

Or it's an indictment of the Democratic party and their processes. Evidently they think that the only way to beat a seedy old white guy is... a seedy old white guy.

The Democratic Party’s process didn’t give Joe Biden more votes than Bernie Sanders. Voters did. Bernie can’t convince the most friendly possible electorate to give him the nomination. But I am told by many Bernie Stans that he is the most electable candidate.

[Elfdart]

The idea of attacking Biden for his senility is so stupid that have to wonder if those in the media who think it's a good strategy aren't also demented. Democrats tried that on Reagan and lost two landslides. It arouses sympathy for the one being attacked and hatred for the ones attacking.

[Ralin]

The idea of attacking Biden for his senility is so stupid that have to wonder if those in the media who think it's a good strategy aren't also demented. Democrats tried that on Reagan and lost two landslides. It arouses sympathy for the one being attacked and hatred for the ones attacking.

Reagan was a Republican

[Darth Yan]

And, just like that, what some have called the most diverse primary field in Democratic history has collapsed into a pair of old white guys. Like everything else that's happened since Jim Clyburn's hard-carry of the Biden campaign last Saturday, it can only benefit Biden. Elizabeth Warren's bread and butter was well-educated suburban voters; and many of them aren't going to be Sanders voters.

Elizabeth Warren is currently not endorsing anyone. With the former Senator of the DuPont Corporation's chumminess with Corporate America, and the toxic misogyny of the sorts of Bernie Bros who follow Warren around on Twitter tweeting snake emojis at her (and the souring of their personal relationship since she and Sanders accused each other of lying, a few debates ago) I completely understand why.

It may be premature to ask this question; but does Bernie Sanders still have a viable path to the nomination? There is no more divided field to mask Sander's diminished ceiling of support (I can hear cries of "but, California" from the Sandersistas in the crowd; but Bernie Sanders spent an awful lot of time (years), money, and organization in California to get his third of the vote. Even then, his skin was only saved by early voting.)

Compared to 2016, he looks weak, and he lost back then too, to the only candidate with more negatives than one he's losing to right now! Next week doesn't look so good for him. In Florida, he's down by so much that Biden is very likely to get 100% of the delegates. In Michigan, Super Tuesday is likely to push Biden over the top. And now that Bloomberg realized there are better things to spend his money on than his personal vanity, and his massive organization remains in place, Sanders may be about to face the Granddaddy of All Super-PACs.

I'd give Bernie a 1/3 chance of turning it around in Michigan. If he makes it to the debates those odds go up.

Arab Americans overwhelmingly support Sanders (in part because he has the balls to call out Netanyahu as the monstrous shitbag he is). That MAY count for something. And Biden's tweet about Warren came off as rather condescending (Saying she should stay in the senate).

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The idea of attacking Biden for his senility is so stupid that have to wonder if those in the media who think it's a good strategy aren't also demented. Democrats tried that on Reagan and lost two landslides. It arouses sympathy for the one being attacked and hatred for the ones attacking.

Reagan was a Republican

I'm pretty sure he knows that. Carefully re-read what he wrote.

[Ralin]

I'm pretty sure he knows that. Carefully re-read what he wrote.

Not sure what you're getting at. But our current president is famous for similar and much worse bullying and mockery and it anything it has helped him. What prompts a backlash when its aimed at a Republican is business as usual when done to a Democrat.

[The Romulan Republic]

And, just like that, what some have called the most diverse primary field in Democratic history has collapsed into a pair of old white guys. Like everything else that's happened since Jim Clyburn's hard-carry of the Biden campaign last Saturday, it can only benefit Biden. Elizabeth Warren's bread and butter was well-educated suburban voters; and many of them aren't going to be Sanders voters.

That's a big assumption. Some of Warren's voters will go Bernie, some will go Biden. At worst, I expect it'll split even.

Elizabeth Warren is currently not endorsing anyone. With the former Senator of the DuPont Corporation's chumminess with Corporate America, and the toxic misogyny of the sorts of Bernie Bros who follow Warren around on Twitter tweeting snake emojis at her (and the souring of their personal relationship since she and Sanders accused each other of lying, a few debates ago) I completely understand why.

Warren is neutral. That's disappointing, but its not an endorsement of Biden either.

Also, give the Bernie Bro crap a rest, okay? Its just flame bait at this point. And it is as "divisive" as anything that has ever come out of the Sanders camp.

If we're going to demand civility and unity between Democrats, that has to work both ways. "Unity" does not mean "You get to constantly piss on us and we have to just shut up and know our place".

It may be premature to ask this question; but does Bernie Sanders still have a viable path to the nomination? There is no more divided field to mask Sander's diminished ceiling of support (I can hear cries of "but, California" from the Sandersistas in the crowd; but Bernie Sanders spent an awful lot of time (years), money, and organization in California to get his third of the vote. Even then, his skin was only saved by early voting.)

It is premature. If Biden was behind by... currently 69 delegates, nobody would be suggesting that he had no viable path to the nomination.

Sanders won 2.5-3 of the first four contests. He won California, and not by a razor-thin margin. In any normal race, a candidate who could claim all that would be the winner, full stop. Biden has a slight lead in delegates, but only slight. Sanders has excellent fundraising, and Biden has flaws that have yet to come fully to light (and he will get more scrutiny, now that he's the only other one on the debate stage).

Compared to 2016, he looks weak, and he lost back then too, to the only candidate with more negatives than one he's losing to right now! Next week doesn't look so good for him. In Florida, he's down by so much that Biden is very likely to get 100% of the delegates. In Michigan, Super Tuesday is likely to push Biden over the top. And now that Bloomberg realized there are better things to spend his money on than his personal vanity, and his massive organization remains in place, Sanders may be about to face the Granddaddy of All Super-PACs.

How do you get that he's weaker than 2016? He didn't win California in 2016. He didn't win Nevada in 2016. He had several hundred superdelegates poised to vote against him at this point in 2016. Sanders supporters would have been thrilled to be within 70 delegates of Hillary after Super Tuesday 2016.

Florida, Biden will win, of course. But next Tuesday has several possible pickups for Sanders. We also have to see what the effects of the next debate are.

If nothing else, I'd say Sanders has a better chance than Biden did two weeks ago.

Anyway, Bernie has confirmed that he believes Biden should be the nominee if he comes to the convention with a plurality:

https://realclearpolitics.com/video/202 ... minee.html

As compared to Biden saying he will fight it out at the convention even if he's behind. Clearly, this is proof of how divisive Sanders is!

[The Romulan Republic]

Like, let's be clear about what all this talk about Sanders and his supporters being "divisive" really means, okay?

Its not about our behaviour, or insults on the internet, because none of the people decrying "Bernie Bros", here or in the mainstream media, batted an eye when multiple news anchors compared Sanders and his supporters to the Nazis. Its not about racism or sexism, because his opponents are happy to erase the contributions of female and minority supporters of Sanders (also, see comparing a Jewish candidate who lost family in the Holocaust to Hitler). Its not about his being unwilling to concede a hopeless race, because he's had several large wins (which are ignored), he's a few dozen delegates behind with thousands left to be counted, and he (unlike Biden) has said that he believes the person who comes to the convention with the most delegates should be the nominee.

No, what is "divisive" about Sanders is the fact that he is in the race at all. To many Democrats, Sanders is just an outsider, an interloper. He is seen as inherently divisive, simply for running, and in that warped perspective, any attacks on him and his supporters are therefore justified to preserve party unity... even if it means attacking a block of millions of mostly Democratic voters you will need in November.

I'll try to dial back the nasty rhetoric, out of respect for what Senator Sanders has requested of his supporters, and because at the end of the day, everyone not a Trumper needs to be on the same team here. But it would be nice if more of Sanders' opponents were willing to meet Bernie halfway, and show some civility themselves.

[TimothyC]

even if it means attacking a block of millions of mostly Democratic voters you will need in November.

There is a saying so old and overused that it is cliche at this point.

Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

If that block of which you speak wants to have someone other than Trump-Pence in the White House come this time next year, they will need to learn to fall in line, and accept that Sen. Santa ain't coming.

Oh, and I love how talk of how many people have gone for each candidate just got dropped from your talking points once V.P. Biden started being up by about 25% over Sen. Sanders. Ooops.

[The Romulan Republic]

even if it means attacking a block of millions of mostly Democratic voters you will need in November.

There is a saying so old and overused that it is cliche at this point.

Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

If that block of which you speak wants to have someone other than Trump-Pence in the White House come this time next year, they will need to learn to fall in line, and accept that Sen. Santa ain't coming.

Oh, and I love how talk of how many people have gone for each candidate just got dropped from your talking points once V.P. Biden started being up by about 25% over Sen. Sanders. Ooops.

I mean, anyone who reads your posts can tell you're a Republican. Obvious troll is obvious.

But this is a good example of exactly the response not to have if you actually want to see a united Democratic Party.

[Ralin]

I have never heard that saying in my life.

[Mr Bean]

I have never heard that saying in my life.

You mean...

Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

It's a very common saying it is however one belonging to the left as you won't hear it on Fox News or Rush or Glenn Beck, you will hear it from Cable pundits on CNN and MSNBC, in fact it was one of the now former host Christ Matthews favorite sayings he loved to break out every 5 minutes in 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and before he got kicked out 2020. Other pundits would parrot it all the time.

[Ralin]

Well, I don't watch TV news. So I guess that explains it.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

And, just like that, what some have called the most diverse primary field in Democratic history has collapsed into a pair of old white guys. Like everything else that's happened since Jim Clyburn's hard-carry of the Biden campaign last Saturday, it can only benefit Biden. Elizabeth Warren's bread and butter was well-educated suburban voters; and many of them aren't going to be Sanders voters.

That's a big assumption. Some of Warren's voters will go Bernie, some will go Biden. At worst, I expect it'll split even.

The political talking-head class broadly agrees with you, so I'll give you that. Of course, getting half of twelve percent doesn't help Sanders all that much; when his opponent has the support of most of the Democratic middle.

Elizabeth Warren is currently not endorsing anyone. With the former Senator of the DuPont Corporation's chumminess with Corporate America, and the toxic misogyny of the sorts of Bernie Bros who follow Warren around on Twitter tweeting snake emojis at her (and the souring of their personal relationship since she and Sanders accused each other of lying, a few debates ago) I completely understand why.

Warren is neutral. That's disappointing, but its not an endorsement of Biden either.

A Warren non-endorsement of Biden at this time was not unexpected. As I understand it, they''re not on good personal terms, and she very much doesn't agree with his politics.

The fact that she didn't endorse Sanders is much more likely to be seen as a rebuke of him, given that they've been portrayed as occupying the same lane. The alternative narrative is that Warren is playing it smart, waiting to see if the Party's consolidation sticks before she endorses Biden. The cynic would suggest that Warren is waiting for Biden to offer her a particularly plum Cabinet post; but Biden is much less liberal than Obama was, so maybe not so much.

Also, give the Bernie Bro crap a rest, okay? Its just flame bait at this point. And it is as "divisive" as anything that has ever come out of the Sanders camp.

Pointing out the misogyny of a camp that publicly calls a woman a "snake" is hardly divisive. And if it rankles misogynists by even a tiny degree, then by all means, let's get our divisiveness on.

It may be premature to ask this question; but does Bernie Sanders still have a viable path to the nomination? There is no more divided field to mask Sander's diminished ceiling of support (I can hear cries of "but, California" from the Sandersistas in the crowd; but Bernie Sanders spent an awful lot of time (years), money, and organization in California to get his third of the vote. Even then, his skin was only saved by early voting.)

It is premature. If Biden was behind by... currently 69 delegates, nobody would be suggesting that he had no viable path to the nomination.

Given the makeup of Super Tuesday states, if Joe Biden was behind after the drubbing he delivered in South Carolina, and the sudden collapse of the Not-Sanders lane that produced, then every assumption about the preferences of Democratic voters would be out the window.

Also, mail-in votes are still being tallied in California; and there's every indication that there's a sizeable Biden surge hidden in the ones dropped off on election day. Biden's delegate lead will only grow.

Sanders won 2.5-3 of the first four contests.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, he got a quarter of the votes, and mainly "won" because the rest of the field was busy taking shots at one-another.
In Nevada, he got a smaller proportion of votes and delegates than he did in 2016, and mainly "won" because the rest of the field was busy taking shots at one-another.
In South Carolina, he got his ass beat so hard that his argument for "electability" evaporated as 75% of the Not-Sanders field that wasn't Joe Biden dropped out.

He won California, and not by a razor-thin margin.

He got a third of the vote. Among late-deciding voters, Sanders got romped by a margin of 44-22. What saved him was A) California early-voting, where he held a big advantage (and a lot of those voters also wasted votes on people who dropped out,) and B) Mike Bloomberg.
I would also like to point out that he got a bigger fraction of the vote in 2016. Which is to say he spent a lot of time on outreach, to get 13% fewer votes.

In any normal race, a candidate who could claim all that would be the winner, full stop. Biden has a slight lead in delegates, but only slight. Sanders has excellent fundraising, and Biden has flaws that have yet to come fully to light (and he will get more scrutiny, now that he's the only other one on the debate stage).

I'd say the same thing about Bernie Sanders. Sanders did not look good in the first hour of the South Carolina debate. People got under his skin, and he became the sort of old man who yells at clouds. He won't have Elizabeth Warren with her deft debate skills to help him out, and he'll be the only target on stage in Phoenix.

Bernie Sanders' reality-bending ability to stay on-message is going to be his greatest weakness. All Biden his to do is ask: "How much is it gonna cost Bernie?" If his handlers are feeling ambitious (I will concede that this is Joe "Unforced Error" Biden we're talking about here,) he might also ask: "How are you gonna get it done Bernie?"

Compared to 2016, he looks weak, and he lost back then too, to the only candidate with more negatives than one he's losing to right now! Next week doesn't look so good for him. In Florida, he's down by so much that Biden is very likely to get 100% of the delegates. In Michigan, Super Tuesday is likely to push Biden over the top. And now that Bloomberg realized there are better things to spend his money on than his personal vanity, and his massive organization remains in place, Sanders may be about to face the Granddaddy of All Super-PACs.

How do you get that he's weaker than 2016? He didn't win California in 2016. He didn't win Nevada in 2016. He had several hundred superdelegates poised to vote against him at this point in 2016. Sanders supporters would have been thrilled to be within 70 delegates of Hillary after Super Tuesday 2016.

It's simple. His polling and vote performances are worse than they were in 2016, even though he has much more favorable press coverage (insofar as I recall it was difficult to get the press to even acknowledge his existence, let alone his candidacy,) a fractured Democratic establishment (their coalescence around Joe Biden happened, basically, by accident; compared to their near-lockstep march to the coronation of Clinton,) four years to build up a ground game that he didn't really have in 2016.

I feel like a broken record for having to repeat this, but in poll after poll in the pre-voting stages of the contest had Sanders at the roughly 20-25% support. Biden did much better (and much worse as well.) He got 43% of the popular vote in 2016 in spite of being a practical unknown in a quixotic assault on the would-be Clinton dynasty. A candidate with Sanders' fundraising strengths, a solid core of support, and four years to build out an organization to take on Trump should've in a "normal" political environment, been the prohibitive favorite to take the Democratic nomination.

The fact that he he ended up practically tied by the former mayor of South Bend in Iowa and New Hampshire at around a quarter of the vote foreshadowed the fact that once the other Democrats got their act together, he'd be in serious trouble.

And now look what's happened.

nyway, Bernie has confirmed that he believes Biden should be the nominee if he comes to the convention with a plurality:

That, at least, is an improvement over 2016, and is, at least, consistent with his position when he had an apparent shot at coming to the convention with a plurality.

As compared to Biden saying he will fight it out at the convention even if he's behind. Clearly, this is proof of how divisive Sanders is!

This was said back in the days when Sanders was "winning" because the rest of the field was busy taking shots at one-another. Then, as is the case now, the clear majority of Democratic voters wanted someone other than Sanders, and his plurality was expected to be a comparatively small one.

[Coop D'etat]

Warren is neutral. That's disappointing, but its not an endorsement of Biden either.

A Warren non-endorsement of Biden at this time was not unexpected. As I understand it, they''re not on good personal terms, and she very much doesn't agree with his politics.

The fact that she didn't endorse Sanders is much more likely to be seen as a rebuke of him, given that they've been portrayed as occupying the same lane. The alternative narrative is that Warren is playing it smart, waiting to see if the Party's consolidation sticks before she endorses Biden. The cynic would suggest that Warren is waiting for Biden to offer her a particularly plum Cabinet post; but Biden is much less liberal than Obama was, so maybe not so much.

[/quote]

Biden isn't really any less left or liberal than Obama, the difference in perception is probably down to biography and demography rather than ideology. Both are roughly in the centre of the Democratic party and Biden's platform is to the left of Obama's platform (reflecting the recent leftward swing the Democratic party has gone through). Biden has had a long career as a party man and has more or less moved with where the party is, factoring in whatever idiosyncrasies that come with the job he was holding at the time (Senator from Delaware and VP).

I doubt Warren is going to go for a job for an endorsement, her current job is one of the best she can have and the better one like VP are going to a designated successor. Knowing her, the thing she'd probably want most is a big say on the platform.

[Darth Yan]

The Bernie Bro myth has been overplayed. I've seen Biden supporters go apeshit if you point out his flaws (one guy told me to eat glass). So cut it out with this "only bernie supporters are sexist". It's absolute horseshit


My stance is this. Fundamentally Bernie Sanders is right in that things need to change. Our health care, criminal justice system etc are jokes and the claims that socialized health care are bad are easily disproven. Going back to the way things were before Trump is not going to fix anything. Trump arose in large part because of that and expecting a return to absolute normalcy is as naive as believing the easter bunny exists.

The problem with Bernie is that compromise IS needed at some level. Too much compromise is obviously a bad thing (the dems tried "bipartisanship" for years that basically ended with them getting fucked by the republicans) and there is a sense that Joe Biden is one of those idiots who thinks negotiation is possible. But at the same time he refused to compromise when he should have. Jim Clyburn wasn't approached because Bernie didn't like him taking pharmaceutical money. Thing is Clyburn is liberal overall and his endorsement is critical. Bernie compromising wouldn't have been a massive betrayal.

[Jub]

The Bernie Bro myth has been overplayed. I've seen Biden supporters go apeshit if you point out his flaws (one guy told me to eat glass). So cut it out with this "only bernie supporters are sexist". It's absolute horseshit


My stance is this. Fundamentally Bernie Sanders is right in that things need to change. Our health care, criminal justice system etc are jokes and the claims that socialized health care are bad are easily disproven. Going back to the way things were before Trump is not going to fix anything. Trump arose in large part because of that and expecting a return to absolute normalcy is as naive as believing the easter bunny exists.

The problem with Bernie is that compromise IS needed at some level. Too much compromise is obviously a bad thing (the dems tried "bipartisanship" for years that basically ended with them getting fucked by the republicans) and there is a sense that Joe Biden is one of those idiots who thinks negotiation is possible. But at the same time he refused to compromise when he should have. Jim Clyburn wasn't approached because Bernie didn't like him taking pharmaceutical money. Thing is Clyburn is liberal overall and his endorsement is critical. Bernie compromising wouldn't have been a massive betrayal.

When you draw a line between yourself and the rest of your party you're not that far from running as a 3rd party candidate.

[The Romulan Republic]

The political talking-head class broadly agrees with you, so I'll give you that. Of course, getting half of twelve percent doesn't help Sanders all that much; when his opponent has the support of most of the Democratic middle.

Every bit helps. But what happens next Tuesday, and in the next debate, will be significantly more important, I think.

A Warren non-endorsement of Biden at this time was not unexpected. As I understand it, they''re not on good personal terms, and she very much doesn't agree with his politics.

So kind of the reverse of her relationship with Bernie, where she seems to now be on poor terms with him personally, but agrees with much of his politics?

The fact that she didn't endorse Sanders is much more likely to be seen as a rebuke of him, given that they've been portrayed as occupying the same lane. The alternative narrative is that Warren is playing it smart, waiting to see if the Party's consolidation sticks before she endorses Biden. The cynic would suggest that Warren is waiting for Biden to offer her a particularly plum Cabinet post; but Biden is much less liberal than Obama was, so maybe not so much.

My guess is that Warren is waiting to see who comes out ahead/who gives her the better deal. Or just holding a grudge. In any case, she hasn't made a decision either way.

Of course, you basically spin "no endorsement" as "but she really endorsed Biden", which is... well, frankly typical of the distortions of reality and outright lies throughout your post to make Sanders look weaker, and discredit any achievement by his campaign.

Pointing out the misogyny of a camp that publicly calls a woman a "snake" is hardly divisive. And if it rankles misogynists by even a tiny degree, then by all means, let's get our divisiveness on.

How is "snake" a misogynist insult? Its not a gendered insult. She's not being called a snake because she's a woman. You have to stretch quite a bit to claim that it invokes any particular gender stereotype, in and of itself. Its an allusion to the view that she is duplicitous, and betrayed Sanders/progressives. Its not nice, its the kind of behaviour I don't intend to engage in in the future, but how is it misogynist? Or is any insult of a woman inherently misogynist, in your view?

Or is it only "misogynist" because Sanders supporters said it?

In any case, it is not, as you pretend, representative of either Senator Sanders (who has repeatedly urged his supporters to respect Senator Warren, and who's requests I will henceforth respect), nor of all of his supporters. So, you know, maybe lay off constantly calling a third to a half of the Democratic party misogynists because they support a different candidate than you?

Given the makeup of Super Tuesday states, if Joe Biden was behind after the drubbing he delivered in South Carolina, and the sudden collapse of the Not-Sanders lane that produced, then every assumption about the preferences of Democratic voters would be out the window.

Also, mail-in votes are still being tallied in California; and there's every indication that there's a sizeable Biden surge hidden in the ones dropped off on election day. Biden's delegate lead will only grow.

We'll see. It won't be a huge lead, anyway, given how many votes remain to be counted.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, he got a quarter of the votes, and mainly "won" because the rest of the field was busy taking shots at one-another.
In Nevada, he got a smaller proportion of votes and delegates than he did in 2016, and mainly "won" because the rest of the field was busy taking shots at one-another.
In South Carolina, he got his ass beat so hard that his argument for "electability" evaporated as 75% of the Not-Sanders field that wasn't Joe Biden dropped out.

You actually put "won" in scare quotes, implying that Nevada wasn't a real win. I remember you singing a different tune that night. Would you like me to post quotes?

I can't believe that this is a point we have to argue, but Sanders won Nevada. About the same number of votes/delegates as in 2016, but with a diverse coalition, and with a huge lead over any opponent. Everyone knew it was a win. Everyone acknowledged it was a win, and a landslide at that. Plenty of mainstream outlets were talking about how Sanders was the front runner, some even basically assuming he'd be the victor after that.

But now he only "won" it, and actually did worse than in 2016, when he lost it. Because alternative facts. Because its not enough to beat Sanders, oh no. You can't bear the thought that he ever won anywhere. That he ever had support anywhere. Especially support which disproves the "racist white male Bernie Bros" narrative.

But remember, we're the "divisive" ones.

He got a third of the vote. Among late-deciding voters, Sanders got romped by a margin of 44-22. What saved him was A) California early-voting, where he held a big advantage (and a lot of those voters also wasted votes on people who dropped out,) and B) Mike Bloomberg.
I would also like to point out that he got a bigger fraction of the vote in 2016. Which is to say he spent a lot of time on outreach, to get 13% fewer votes.

A win is a win is a win. Also, comparing Sanders' percent of the vote in a year where there were only two candidates to his percentage in a year where there is a crowded field is absurdly disingenuous. No other campaign is told that it only counts as a win if they get over 50% in a crowded field.

But we all know, truth doesn't matter. Fairness doesn't matter. Absolutely any lie or slander to put down Sanders and his supporters is justified. But if we make even the most mild or reasoned criticism in response, its "divisive".

I'd say the same thing about Bernie Sanders. Sanders did not look good in the first hour of the South Carolina debate. People got under his skin, and he became the sort of old man who yells at clouds.

Ageist stereotyping. But remember, we're the divisive ones.

He won't have Elizabeth Warren with her deft debate skills to help him out, and he'll be the only target on stage in Phoenix.

He'll be the only target? In a debate with two people?

Bernie Sanders' reality-bending ability to stay on-message is going to be his greatest weakness. All Biden his to do is ask: "How much is it gonna cost Bernie?" If his handlers are feeling ambitious (I will concede that this is Joe "Unforced Error" Biden we're talking about here,) he might also ask: "How are you gonna get it done Bernie?"

All Bernie has to do is stay on message while Biden can't get an articulate sentence out.

It's simple. His polling and vote performances are worse than they were in 2016, even though he has much more favorable press coverage (insofar as I recall it was difficult to get the press to even acknowledge his existence, let alone his candidacy,) a fractured Democratic establishment (their coalescence around Joe Biden happened, basically, by accident; compared to their near-lockstep march to the coronation of Clinton,) four years to build up a ground game that he didn't really have in 2016.

I feel like a broken record for having to repeat this, but in poll after poll in the pre-voting stages of the contest had Sanders at the roughly 20-25% support. Biden did much better (and much worse as well.) He got 43% of the popular vote in 2016 in spite of being a practical unknown in a quixotic assault on the would-be Clinton dynasty. A candidate with Sanders' fundraising strengths, a solid core of support, and four years to build out an organization to take on Trump should've in a "normal" political environment, been the prohibitive favorite to take the Democratic nomination.

The fact that he he ended up practically tied by the former mayor of South Bend in Iowa and New Hampshire at around a quarter of the vote foreshadowed the fact that once the other Democrats got their act together, he'd be in serious trouble.

Sanders was leading national polls for a while, until Biden's momentum put him back in the lead. Even lead some by double digits. But I guess that's another fact that's conveniently forgotten so we can pretend that not only is the race over, but that Bernie never had any support to begin with outside of a small fringe of white male Bernie Bros. But remember, we're the divisive ones.

And now look what's happened.

Favorite? Yeah. No one's arguing that. But Bernie was the favorite two weeks ago, which should serve as a reminder of how fleeting momentum can be.

Of course, as we see here, Biden supporters are already in the process of rewriting history so that Biden was always the front-runner and Bernie never had support outside a fringe of racist misogynist Bernie Bros. That's an "interesting" approach to unity- pretend the dissenting voices in your party never existed!

But remember, we're the divisive ones.

That, at least, is an improvement over 2016, and is, at least, consistent with his position when he had an apparent shot at coming to the convention with a plurality.

You mean like he still does?

Even you admit that most of the "talking heads" are calling the race yet, so why do you dishonestly insist on doing so, based on a delegate lead of less than a hundred with thousands left to count?

Its exactly the right thing for Bernie to do here, but you can't even acknowledge that without tacking on an insult. Because we're the divisive ones! And its more than Biden has promised if he has only a plurality. But remember, we're the divisive ones!

This was said back in the days when Sanders was "winning" because the rest of the field was busy taking shots at one-another. Then, as is the case now, the clear majority of Democratic voters wanted someone other than Sanders, and his plurality was expected to be a comparatively small one.

And the rewrite continues.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Bernie Bro myth has been overplayed. I've seen Biden supporters go apeshit if you point out his flaws (one guy told me to eat glass). So cut it out with this "only bernie supporters are sexist". It's absolute horseshit


My stance is this. Fundamentally Bernie Sanders is right in that things need to change. Our health care, criminal justice system etc are jokes and the claims that socialized health care are bad are easily disproven. Going back to the way things were before Trump is not going to fix anything. Trump arose in large part because of that and expecting a return to absolute normalcy is as naive as believing the easter bunny exists.

The problem with Bernie is that compromise IS needed at some level. Too much compromise is obviously a bad thing (the dems tried "bipartisanship" for years that basically ended with them getting fucked by the republicans) and there is a sense that Joe Biden is one of those idiots who thinks negotiation is possible. But at the same time he refused to compromise when he should have. Jim Clyburn wasn't approached because Bernie didn't like him taking pharmaceutical money. Thing is Clyburn is liberal overall and his endorsement is critical. Bernie compromising wouldn't have been a massive betrayal.

When you draw a line between yourself and the rest of your party you're not that far from running as a 3rd party candidate.

So now Bernie is running as a third party candidate, even when he's running as a Democrat and has just pledged to support Biden if he comes to the convention with a plurality, even if he doesn't have a majority.

There's no point trying to argue with this level of dishonesty. Its simply part of an alternative world, where Bernie is a third party white supremacist misogynist Nazi/Commie candidate who never won a single state. It certainly has nothing to do with the actual behaviour of Sanders and his supporters. Sanders is "divisive" and the enemy, simply for existing, and all of his supporters are fair game too.

But remember, we're the divisive ones!