SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Elfdart]

Personally I think Bernie can go to the grave satisfied. He might not be president but he forced the democrats to actually start accepting progressive ideas and if history shows anything the genie can't be put in the bottle

He did? The younger voters, maybe but the boomers still get out and vote and they want no part of anything that might benefit others. The DNC and the media have about as much use for Bernie's ideas as the pope has for a box of French ticklers. They've already started with the smarmy platitudes, but their actions give them away. They're not just kneecapping Sanders. The DNC is also trying to put the screw to other, more left-leaning pols like Sen. Ed Markey in Massachusetts. They're also trying to knock off at least three members of The Squad by trying to foist primary challengers against Omar and Tlaib, and getting rid of Ocasio-Cortez's district altogether.

Sanders had a serious flaw in that he simply would not attack other candidates like Biden, and worse still, promised to back whatever furball the DNC coughed up. By refusing to play rough, he wasn't going to get the outright knockout he had to have. Krystal Ball lays it out here:

TYT

[Darth Yan]

And if the squad wins it won’t matter. I’m also curious how they’ll be able to get rid of her district. The pendulum swung to the right 40 years ago. Now it’ll swing to the left

[The Romulan Republic]

Personally I think Bernie can go to the grave satisfied. He might not be president but he forced the democrats to actually start accepting progressive ideas and if history shows anything the genie can't be put in the bottle

He did? The younger voters, maybe but the boomers still get out and vote and they want no part of anything that might benefit others. The DNC and the media have about as much use for Bernie's ideas as the pope has for a box of French ticklers. They've already started with the smarmy platitudes, but their actions give them away. They're not just kneecapping Sanders. The DNC is also trying to put the screw to other, more left-leaning pols like Sen. Ed Markey in Massachusetts. They're also trying to knock off at least three members of The Squad by trying to foist primary challengers against Omar and Tlaib, and getting rid of Ocasio-Cortez's district altogether.

Do you have sources for all that? Would be good to have something to refer to.

Regardless, I wish them good luck getting rid of the district of the most high-profile Congressmember who isn't named Nancy Pelosi. She'll just run again somewhere else, and win again.

As to the Boomers... well, to be blunt, in twenty years, the Boomers will mostly be in the grave, and the overwhelmingly pro-Sanders youth of today will be the largest voting block in America.

Sanders had a serious flaw in that he simply would not attack other candidates like Biden, and worse still, promised to back whatever furball the DNC coughed up. By refusing to play rough, he wasn't going to get the outright knockout he had to have. Krystal Ball lays it out here:

TYT

Sanders was between a rock and a hard place. If he'd gone aggressive, it would have just fed the cries of "divisive Bernie Bros". As well as undermined Sanders' main selling point, which was not being "just another politician".

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

And if the squad wins it won’t matter. I’m also curious how they’ll be able to get rid of her district. The pendulum swung to the right 40 years ago. Now it’ll swing to the left

Simple, the census is being held this year, which means redistricting is just around the corner. The state of New York is losing population, which means it's likely to lose one Congressional seat, when all is said and done. New York state Democrats are, by various reports, allegedly unhappy with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her refusal to place nice with them (the only sources I could find for this are conservative-leaning, so take this with a dump-truck's worth of salt.) As a result, her district is the one that would possibly be eliminated when it comes time for New York to determine which Congressional seat to give up.

[Knife]

Except, while the DNC was been stamping it's feet and complaining about her behind closed doors, Rep Ocasio-Cortez has been building her own machine, separate from the DNC.

[Knife]

Also, going back to VPOTUS, Biden picking any African Americans makes no sense. He has the black vote, that is abundantly clear. Biden needs a VP pick to shore up other parts of the Dems. If he's dumb enough to double down on the black vote, he's going to alienate other chunks of the left he needs. I'm guessing, at some point, Warren's name came up. Whether they go that route, who knows.

[FireNexus]

I have a hard time seeing the DNC pick Bernie even if he was the leading candidate not dead or in hospital. But that aside...

That’s because it won’t happen. Even if Bernie managed to cobble together a plurality due to Biden biting it, there is no truly convincing argument that he actually “won” since he has been rejected by voters. He definitely can’t pull a majority at this point, either. If Biden has a plurality, forget it. the runner up shouldn’t get a win due to disqualification.

That was a disaster when it was how the vice presidency worked, and it creates a perverse incentive anyway. The last thing we need is to encourage future candidates to do a Bernie-style “stay in forever hoping the winner end sup dead or in handcuffs”. And given the current free fall of the economy and impending literal death of the Trump coalition, the risk of not using playground rules looks a lot lower than two weeks ago.

[Ralin]

That’s because it won’t happen. Even if Bernie managed to cobble together a plurality due to Biden biting it, there is no truly convincing argument that he actually “won” since he has been rejected by voters. He definitely can’t pull a majority at this point, either. If Biden has a plurality, forget it. the runner up shouldn’t get a win due to disqualification.

That was a disaster when it was how the vice presidency worked, and it creates a perverse incentive anyway. The last thing we need is to encourage future candidates to do a Bernie-style “stay in forever hoping the winner end sup dead or in handcuffs”. And given the current free fall of the economy and impending literal death of the Trump coalition, the risk of not using playground rules looks a lot lower than two weeks ago.

So wait. If the leading candidate is disqualified they shouldn't make the second most popular candidate the nominee in favor of the fairer option of ???

[FireNexus]

So wait. If the leading candidate is disqualified they shouldn't make the second most popular candidate the nominee in favor of the fairer option of ???

Correct. Or, rather, there is absolutely no reason they should be obligated to. If Biden died while President elect, you wouldn’t say that they should give Trump another term because he came in second. That is the exact same logic “If Biden wins but dies, Bernie should be the nominee” uses.

I’m not sure how to choose the nominee at that point, but I’m sure that literally picking a Democratic pol at random would be equally as “fair” as giving it to Bernie. None of the options would have won, anyway.

[Darth Yan]

I’d assume if he died while president elect it would go to the VP.

And given that the primaries are different from the general your reasoning is flawed. Humphrey got the nomination when Kennedy was murdered

[Ralin]

Correct. Or, rather, there is absolutely no reason they should be obligated to. If Biden died while President elect, you wouldn’t say that they should give Trump another term because he came in second. That is the exact same logic “If Biden wins but dies, Bernie should be the nominee” uses.

I’m not sure how to choose the nominee at that point, but I’m sure that literally picking a Democratic pol at random would be equally as “fair” as giving it to Bernie. None of the options would have won, anyway.

Wow. You really have drunk the anti-Sanders Kool-aid until the pitcher was dry, haven't you?

[FireNexus]

Wow. You really have drunk the anti-Sanders Kool-aid until the pitcher was dry, haven't you?

Yes, I fail to see how it would be good idea if winning were as simple as “Just wait it out even after you’ve lost, because somebody might die”. That’s some potent koolaid. Not like the country tried that exact succession plan and found it obviously stupid 200 years ago. Nope.

[FireNexus]

I’d assume if he died while president elect it would go to the VP.

Yes, but the VP position used to be chosen in exactly the manner suggested as the obvious solution here. It stopped being done that way because it’s a dumb fucking idea.

And given that the primaries are different from the general your reasoning is flawed. Humphrey got the nomination when Kennedy was murdered

First, so what? I never said Sanders couldn’t be chosen, I just said it’s not obvious that choosing him is the most fair thing to do. It’s certainly not the smartest thing to do, but that’s kind of irrelevant to this discussion.

Second, the comparison is apples to oranges. Humphrey never even tried to participate in any primaries in the first place and the nomination process was entirely different back then. And considering that Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon, Sanders probably doesn’t want to be reaching back to that comparison anyway. The last thing he needs is to be compared to a second Democratic nominee that lost to Richard Nixon.

[Ralin]

I legitimately do not know how to respond to someone who thinks that picking the second most popular candidate as the nominee if something happens to the first place candidate is not an obvious solution and that it would be equally fair to pick a random party member.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have a hard time seeing the DNC pick Bernie even if he was the leading candidate not dead or in hospital. But that aside...

That’s because it won’t happen. Even if Bernie managed to cobble together a plurality due to Biden biting it, there is no truly convincing argument that he actually “won” since he has been rejected by voters. He definitely can’t pull a majority at this point, either. If Biden has a plurality, forget it. the runner up shouldn’t get a win due to disqualification.

That was a disaster when it was how the vice presidency worked, and it creates a perverse incentive anyway. The last thing we need is to encourage future candidates to do a Bernie-style “stay in forever hoping the winner end sup dead or in handcuffs”. And given the current free fall of the economy and impending literal death of the Trump coalition, the risk of not using playground rules looks a lot lower than two weeks ago.

What you think is fair aside (which, let's be honest, is massively biased here), there is an argument that picking the candidate with the second most votes is going to be the least divisive course of action.

But I expect what would happen is that there would be a brokered convention, and a coalition of most of the non-Sanders delegates plus superdelegates would pick one of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar.

[FireNexus]

I legitimately do not know how to respond to someone who thinks that picking the second most popular candidate as the nominee if something happens to the first place candidate is not an obvious solution and that it would be equally fair to pick a random party member.

That’s because you’re a dumbass. Let’s follow your dumbass logic to its conclusion.

Say both Bernie and Biden kicked the bucket. Then the nominee would be Warren. I’d be pretty happy with that outcome, sure. But what if Warren died? Mike Bloomberg. I don’t think any of us want THAT. This isn’t even a purely intellectual enterprise this time. This outcome is well within the realm of possibility right now.

My conclusion, that there are no prizes for runners up, is consistent here. I don’t have to make up an arbitrary cutoff where it goes from making sense to go with runners up to where it doesn’t. And that’s because I’m right. It’s not obvious that a runner up should get the win by default. It’s no more obvious for Bernie Sanders than it is for Liz Warren or Mike Bloomberg.

[FireNexus]

What you think is fair aside (which, let's be honest, is massively biased here), there is an argument that picking the candidate with the second most votes is going to be the least divisive course of action.

Biden, Bernie and Warren all die. Do you think it’s obvious that the most fair choice is Mike Bloomberg? Or does your concept of fair arbitrarily stop after you don’t like the outcome?

Because you will not find me (a true blue Warren stan) arguing that it’s obvious that Warren should be the nominee if the top two go away. Because that is fucking stupid. No prizes for runners up.

[Ralin]

That’s because you’re a dumbass. Let’s follow your dumbass logic to its conclusion.

Say both Bernie and Biden kicked the bucket. Then the nominee would be Warren. I’d be pretty happy with that outcome, sure. But what if Warren died? Mike Bloomberg. I don’t think any of us want THAT. This isn’t even a purely intellectual enterprise this time. This outcome is well within the realm of possibility right now.

My conclusion, that there are no prizes for runners up, is consistent here. I don’t have to make up an arbitrary cutoff where it goes from making sense to go with runners up to where it doesn’t. And that’s because I’m right. It’s not obvious that a runner up should get the win by default. It’s no more obvious for Bernie Sanders than it is for Liz Warren or Mike Bloomberg.

You're an idiot. Claiming that the second most popular candidate in something resembling a close race is the obvious choice for nominee if the lead candidate dies doesn't imply we should follow that principle in an infinite regress until we get to whoever won like a hundred votes if need be. This should easy to understand to anyone who doesn't have your weird hate on for Sanders.

[FireNexus]

You're an idiot. Claiming that the second most popular candidate in something resembling a close race is the obvious choice for nominee if the lead candidate dies doesn't imply we should follow that principle in an infinite regress until we get to whoever won like a hundred votes if need be. This should easy to understand to anyone who doesn't have your weird hate on for Sanders.

Why is it obvious? You keep repeating it, then acting like my suggestion that it is not is ridiculous. But I have a mechanism for my position that passes no matter how many people die, and you have to draw a line arbitrarily because it happens that second place getting it would suit your politics. All of these people won delegates in multiple states and not-insubstantial share of the popular vote.

Frankly, from where I sit I will have equally won the Democratic nomination as any of them. But from where you are, you have yet to provide any justification for why it’s obvious that Bernie should get it and not Bloomberg except handwaving.

[The Romulan Republic]

What you think is fair aside (which, let's be honest, is massively biased here), there is an argument that picking the candidate with the second most votes is going to be the least divisive course of action.

Biden, Bernie and Warren all die. Do you think it’s obvious that the most fair choice is Mike Bloomberg? Or does your concept of fair arbitrarily stop after you don’t like the outcome?

While there is a difference between giving it to a second place candidate who will likely have around a thousand delegates and one who got a few dozen, and you know it, yeah, I think it would be fair to give Bloomberg serious consideration there.

Because you will not find me (a true blue Warren stan) arguing that it’s obvious that Warren should be the nominee if the top two go away. Because that is fucking stupid. No prizes for runners up.

Look at it pragmatically.

If you have a highly popular second place candidate who got, say, a thousand delegates...

Does it really make sense to piss off all of their supporters by passing them over for someone who got a few dozen at best, or never even ran?

I'm not making an argument based on fairness here. I think you could make arguments both ways on fairness (Bernie got the second most votes, but also a distinct minority of the total votes). I'm making a practical one. What will most unite the party and get progressive and Latino Sanders supporters to turn out in November? And which one will lead (rightly or wrongly) to a "crooked DNC rigged primary" narrative dominating the general election?

You are the one arguing based on personal preference (your pathological hatred of Sanders and everyone who supports him).

Its all a moot point anyway- I don't think Biden is going to croak before the convention, not when he likely has access to excellent health care and they've now basically stopped campaigning in public. So its just a theoretical exercise. I'm just trying to explain my reasoning, which contrary to what you imply, has a bit more reason to it than "I want Sanders".

[Ralin]

Why is it obvious? You keep repeating it, then acting like my suggestion that it is not is ridiculous. But I have a mechanism for my position that passes no matter how many people die, and you have to draw a line arbitrarily because it happens that second place getting it would suit your politics. All of these people won delegates in multiple states and not-insubstantial share of the popular vote.

Frankly, from where I sit I will have equally won the Democratic nomination as any of them. But from where you are, you have yet to provide any justification for why it’s obvious that Bernie should get it and not Bloomberg except handwaving.

Because Sanders is *checks* a bit under 300 delegates behind Biden and the nearest third place is more than 800 delegates behind Sanders. One is a much larger and more meaningful difference than the other.

Do you seriously think anyone believes that your digging your heels on this isn't because of your hate-on for Sanders? Really?

[The Romulan Republic]

Why is it obvious? You keep repeating it, then acting like my suggestion that it is not is ridiculous. But I have a mechanism for my position that passes no matter how many people die, and you have to draw a line arbitrarily because it happens that second place getting it would suit your politics. All of these people won delegates in multiple states and not-insubstantial share of the popular vote.

Frankly, from where I sit I will have equally won the Democratic nomination as any of them. But from where you are, you have yet to provide any justification for why it’s obvious that Bernie should get it and not Bloomberg except handwaving.

Because Sanders is *checks* a bit under 300 delegates behind Biden and the nearest third place is more than 800 delegates behind Sanders. One is a much larger and more meaningful difference than the other.

Do you seriously think anyone believes that your digging your heels on this isn't because of your hate-on for Sanders? Really?

Yeah.

Fairness would dictate that we pick the nominee that most represents the will of the party's voters. That, right now, would be Biden. If Biden for some reason could not run, then there's an argument either way- Sanders unquestionable has more support than any other individual, by a wide margin... but there are more people who voted for someone else in total than voted for him, by a considerable margin.

Pragmatism, meanwhile, would dictate that we pick the nominee who will turn out the broadest base of enthusiastic support. That's harder to quantify, and is not unrelated to who has the most popular support in the party, obviously. But I think nominating someone who got few or no votes in the primary would be a highly divisive act.

[Ralin]

I mean yeah, exactly where you should draw the line on this is subjective and I'm not saying it should be automatic...but not seeing any reason why the amount of votes/delegates Sanders won doesn't make him a better choice than most in this scenario.

Certainly it's a better starting point than "Fuck it, let's just let the party decide" or drawing names out of a hat.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean yeah, exactly where you should draw the line on this is subjective and I'm not saying it should be automatic...but not seeing any reason why the amount of votes/delegates Sanders won doesn't make him a better choice than most in this scenario.

Certainly it's a better starting point than "Fuck it, let's just let the party decide" or drawing names out of a hat.

Theoretically, I think that the most fair outcome, at that point, would probably be to have all of the pledged delegates free to vote for whomever they please (I do not believe we should have super delegates), and pick whoever gets a majority of pledged delegate votes at the convention, from the list of available candidates who ran for the nomination.

That's not quite how things would work in practice, I'm sure, but theoretically.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Bern says he is "assessing" his campaign:

https://cnn.com/2020/03/18/politics/ber ... index.html

(CNN)Bernie Sanders said he will assess his presidential campaign after his poor showing in Tuesday's Democratic primaries.

"As I said yesterday, we are assessing the state of our campaign, there's not going to be an election for another three weeks," the Vermont senator told CNN Wednesday. "We are talking to our supporters. Anybody who suggests that at this point we are ending the campaign is not telling the truth."

Sanders did not answer questions on whether he has a timeframe for making a decision or if he thinks there's a pathway for him to win the Democratic nomination.

Earlier Wednesday, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir made a similar comment about the future of the senator's bid.

"The next primary contest is at least three weeks away. Sen. Sanders is going to be having conversations with supporters to assess his campaign," Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement Wednesday morning. "In the immediate term, however, he is focused on the government response to the coronavirus outbreak and ensuring that we take care of working people and the most vulnerable."

Shakir's statement came as parts of the campaign appeared to halt. An aide confirmed to CNN that the campaign had stopped running digital ad and had not booked TV ads past last week. The campaign has also issued no new fundraising appeals.

Former Vice President Joe Biden substantially expanded his delegate lead over Sanders with his sweep of all three of Tuesday's Democratic primaries in Arizona, Illinois and Florida.

As of Wednesday, Biden had racked up a near 300-delegate lead over Sanders, according to CNN's estimate.

"No sugarcoating it, last night did not go the way we wanted," Shakir wrote in a campaign email to supporters Wednesday. "And while our campaign has won the battle of ideas, we are losing the battle over electability to Joe Biden."

Chances of Sanders winning the nomination appear mathematically slim and pressure from some Democrats has mounted on the senator to drop out of the race to avoid a lengthy primary and coalesce the party.

Sanders backers believe that the senator needs to remain in the race to push Biden in a more progressive direction.

In the campaign's email, Shakir told supporters that Sanders will vote on the coronavirus relief bill in the Senate Wednesday and afterward head back home to Vermont with his wife Jane.

"Once there, they'll begin holding conversations with supporters to get input and assess the path forward for our campaign," the email read.

A senior aide to Sanders told CNN he's in a phase of deliberation about not only the next stage of his campaign but also the movement itself.

The aide said "no decision has been made" as of late Wednesday morning about his future and that Sanders will take time to huddle with not only his wife but also engage with a wide range of supporters to get their take on how he should proceed.

"Sen. Sanders legitimately feels the 'US not me' statement is not just a slogan it is the backbone of the movement," the aide said. "He won't make a decision about the future of his campaign without receiving the input of those who have been by his side."

This aide said Sanders will use a variety of forms of communication to reach out to supporters, including making phone calls, reading emails and seeking feedback through his massive social media network.

In addition to assessing the future of his campaign, Sanders remains very focused on the Senate's efforts to confront the coronavirus crisis and in particular the economic impact on the working class of America.

"He cares a lot about the work of the Senate right now in dealing with this crisis," the aide said. "That is his priority right now."

As questions continue to grow about the path ahead for Sanders, an aide for the Sanders campaign confirmed to CNN that they have deactivated all digital ads and do not have TV ads booked past last week. The aide said the decision was made "in an effort to conserve resources."

According to Facebook's ad analytics tool, the campaign had ads on Facebook as recently as Tuesday. As of Wednesday, those ads were inactive.

The campaign also has not put out any new fundraising appeals. A Democratic strategist involved in Sanders campaign fundraising tells CNN this is the first time they can recall there wasn't a fundraising appeal after primaries -- win or lose. The most recent fundraising pitch from the campaign came before the polls closed.

But this strategist also warned against reading too much into that -- it would be tone deaf to raise small dollars now, given the economic stress many people on Sanders' list are currently experiencing.

The coronavirus pandemic has upended the election, leading many states to postpone their primary dates over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations about large gatherings.

The two candidates, both in their 70s, have stopped campaigning on the trail, suspended large rallies, ordered aides to work from home and moved their pitch to voters online.

Before polls closed, Sanders spoke to supporters early Tuesday night but didn't mention the elections, instead focusing his message on the need to help working families struggling amid the coronavirus crisis.

This story has been updated to include additional details and background information.

CNN's Dana Bash, Maeve Reston, Eric Bradner, Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.

While he emphatically denies that he is dropping out, a candidate "assessing" their campaign is usually code for "we're dropping out in the next few days", isn't it?

Bernie's got a point, though- he has three weeks before the next vote to see how things are going, and whether he can hope to accomplish anything more by remaining in. Especially with the coronavirus going on, its fair for him to take that time to evaluate what he wants to do next, and not rush to a decision.