SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Update: The Democrats Abroad Primary results are finally in.

Sanders took it in a fucking landslide, 57.9 to 22.7 for Biden. Delegate breakdown is nine to four.

And the arguments for Sanders to stay in and exert pressure on Biden to move to the Left continue to grow.

[FireNexus]

And the arguments for Sanders to stay in and exert pressure on Biden to move to the Left continue to grow.

Yes. That’s what is happening.

[FireNexus]

Bernie Sanders missing a key vote on defeating the GOP stimulus train wreck in order to do a campaign event mere days after “I am dealing with a 'fucking global crisis'” when asked an uncomfortable question about his campaign is pretty much Peak Bernie Sanders.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not as though Sanders' vote was needed to defeat that bill.

Yeah yeah, Bernie Sanders is the embodiment of pure evil, and also completely irrelevant, even though he has the support of a third of the party we need to win in November. Keep telling yourself that, and then post some more tracts about how we're the divisive ones. And racist misogynists, don't forget that.

[The Romulan Republic]

And the arguments for Sanders to stay in and exert pressure on Biden to move to the Left continue to grow.

Yes. That’s what is happening.

You'd best hope it does, if you want him to have enough turnout from Sanders supporters to win in November.

But I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you'd rather Biden give Sanders and his supporters nothing just to spite us, than do what it takes to win in November. Because you're a sad little man with a transparent vendetta that's honestly embarrassing to watch.

[FireNexus]

You'd best hope it does, if you want him to have enough turnout from Sanders supporters to win in November.

Sanders supporters don’t appear to turn out for Sanders.

But I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you'd rather Biden give Sanders and his supporters nothing just to spite us, than do what it takes to win in November.

I don’t think you understand, going on half a decade now, what my problem is. My problem is continually being told “What it takes to win” by a guy who can’t win. and, of course, “what it takes to win” is exactly what he wants even though he can’t win.

Beyond that, there is no amount of concessions to Sanders that is going to make his diehards happy. None. Biden could come out in favor of full single payer tomorrow, and it wouldn’t really matter to the ultimate outcome. Either those people are already going to vote blue no matter who as it stands or they’re not. the ones who aren’t will find a way to make it not enough.

Anybody who is so unreasonable that they’re not already at least grudgingly fine with blue no matter who is probably not worth wasting a lot of effort trying to court. Especially because you rightly point out often that the majority of Sanders voters eventually voted for Clinton. And those who didn’t... I don’t know that they were just a few more policy concessions away from changing their mind. In fact, I’m almost certain they were unwinnable.

Seriously, dude, you can either say “You can’t blame Bernie or Bust on Clinton’s loss” or you can make these veiled “Bernie or Else” threats, but you can’t do both and act like I’m being unreasonable for not taking your fucking chickenhawk shtick seriously.

Because you're a sad little man

This is true, but an unrelated ad hominem attack here.

with a transparent vendetta that's honestly embarrassing to watch.

It can’t be as embarrassing as watching you simultaneously hold the belief that your team can’t be blamed for 2016 and that if we’re not careful they’ll steal 2020 from us.

[FireNexus]

Its not as though Sanders' vote was needed to defeat that bill.

Yeah, but it was close and only failed due to three Republicans being in isolation at the last minute. Sanders’ vote could have been critical, but he fucked off to campaign instead of “dealing with a fucking global crisis.”

Yeah yeah, Bernie Sanders is the embodiment of pure evil, and also completely irrelevant, even though he has the support of a third of the party we need to win in November.

I don’t think he’s pure evil. I think he’s an idiot and an asshole, and he continually proves the point.

Keep telling yourself that, and then post some more tracts about how we're the divisive ones. And racist misogynists, don't forget that.

So we’re in full “Bernie’s people could hand the election to Trump if you’re not nice enough” and just pretending “Bernie’s people can’t be blamed for Trump” never happened. Cool. I’m really, really glad I don’t ever have to think about Bernie Sanders again after July at the latest.

[The Romulan Republic]

You'd best hope it does, if you want him to have enough turnout from Sanders supporters to win in November.

Sanders supporters don’t appear to turn out for Sanders.

But I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you'd rather Biden give Sanders and his supporters nothing just to spite us, than do what it takes to win in November.

I don’t think you understand, going on half a decade now, what my problem is. My problem is continually being told “What it takes to win” by a guy who can’t win. and, of course, “what it takes to win” is exactly what he wants even though he can’t win.

Ah, so it has nothing to do with our policies or character. You want us to lose because we lose. That makes so much more sense.

Beyond that, there is no amount of concessions to Sanders that is going to make his diehards happy. None. Biden could come out in favor of full single payer tomorrow, and it wouldn’t really matter to the ultimate outcome. Either those people are already going to vote blue no matter who as it stands or they’re not. the ones who aren’t will find a way to make it not enough.

Oh, its probably true that the majority of Sanders supporters are or aren't going to vote Biden regardless of what he does. But there are always the undecideds. Considering that Biden's entire campaign is largely premised on his ability to win over "undecideds" on the Center Right, maybe he should also spare some thought to winning undecideds on the Left?

If not, the only conclusion is that you value the opinions and votes of "moderate" Republicans more than you do those of the Left wing of your own party.

Anybody who is so unreasonable that they’re not already at least grudgingly fine with blue no matter who is probably not worth wasting a lot of effort trying to court. Especially because you rightly point out often that the majority of Sanders voters eventually voted for Clinton. And those who didn’t... I don’t know that they were just a few more policy concessions away from changing their mind. In fact, I’m almost certain they were unwinnable.

Seriously, dude, you can either say “You can’t blame Bernie or Bust on Clinton’s loss” or you can make these veiled “Bernie or Else” threats, but you can’t do both and act like I’m being unreasonable for not taking your fucking chickenhawk shtick seriously.

Because you're a sad little man

This is true, but an unrelated ad hominem attack here.

with a transparent vendetta that's honestly embarrassing to watch.

It can’t be as embarrassing as watching you simultaneously hold the belief that your team can’t be blamed for 2016 and that if we’re not careful they’ll steal 2020 from us.

Regarding your characterization of Bernie or Bust as "my team", as well as your claim that I am making "veiled threats" and otherwise implying I am a Bernie or Buster, or support Bernie or Bust. You know that I've made my support for both Clinton and Biden clear numerous times, and I regard that as deliberate libel. You are lying and smearing me, again (while whinging about me supposedly using ad hominems because you're a complete and unapologetic hypocrite). It is not a "threat" to point out that if you constantly go out of your way to piss on people, some of them, however unwisely, might decide not to vote for your side.

Here' the truth: the vast majority of Sanders supporters (including myself) voted for Hillary. And I expect that most of us will vote for Biden as well.

You know what's also a fact? American elections tend to be close. They tend to be won on the margins. Let's say that there are five percent of voters who might be influenced for or against Biden by how he and his supporters behave towards Sanders and his supporters. That five percent might conceivably be the difference of flipping New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Even one percent might make the difference of several states.

No, that doesn't mean that I have to admit that Sanders or his supporters cost Clinton the election (I'm sure its nothing less than your heart's fondest desire to hold Bernie and everyone who ever voted for him entirely responsible for the whole Trump Presidency). 2016 was a very close election, and had any one of a half a dozen things gone differently, Trump would probably have lost. You can more or less equally say that Clinton lost because of Bernie or Bust (who, no, are not equivalent to Sanders or everyone who supported him), or because she was a shitty candidate, or because of sexism, or because of Comey, or because of Putin, or because of Anthony Weiner, or because of voter supression. And all of those are true, and none of them are true, because had ANY one of those things been different, the outcome probably would have been too.

But we're not talking about 2016. We're talking about 2020. We're talking about turning out as much enthusiastic opposition to Trump as possible. Not just who votes, but who campaigns, who donates, etc. In a perfect world, everyone would be 100% behind the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. But that's not reality. Whinging about how awful and divisive Sanders supporters are won't make it reality. You want to get every vote you can possibly get, as much enthusiastic support as possible, as little division for Trump to exploit as possible, then Biden needs to give Sanders supporters and progressives something substantive.

If the policies Sanders supporters wanted were bad policies, if they'd be harmful to the country or to the world, then I'd say that Biden shouldn't give an inch. Politicians shouldn't give in to threats. But most of what Sanders and his supporters want would be beneficial to America and the world, and is broadly popular in the party, even among Biden supporters (many of whom were Sanders supporters until they were persuaded by SC and its aftermath that Biden was the safer bet). I don't think even you object to most of Sanders' platform- you just hate the man personally, and project that hate onto everyone who supports him. The policies are mostly good. A lot of them are broadly popular within the party. That they might win a few more votes for Biden is just the cherry on top. So why not adopt those policies? Simply out of spite?

But instead of being the bigger man and reaching out to his opponents, you seem to want Biden to tell Sanders and all his supporters to go fuck ourselves out of spite.

But remember: we're the divisive ones.

Its not as though Sanders' vote was needed to defeat that bill.

Yeah, but it was close and only failed due to three Republicans being in isolation at the last minute. Sanders’ vote could have been critical, but he fucked off to campaign instead of “dealing with a fucking global crisis.”

Yeah yeah, Bernie Sanders is the embodiment of pure evil, and also completely irrelevant, even though he has the support of a third of the party we need to win in November.

I don’t think he’s pure evil. I think he’s an idiot and an asshole, and he continually proves the point.

Keep telling yourself that, and then post some more tracts about how we're the divisive ones. And racist misogynists, don't forget that.

So we’re in full “Bernie’s people could hand the election to Trump if you’re not nice enough” and just pretending “Bernie’s people can’t be blamed for Trump” never happened. Cool. I’m really, really glad I don’t ever have to think about Bernie Sanders again after July at the latest.

I can cite statistics showing that most Sanders supporters backed Clinton, and I can quote literally dozens of posts where I expressed my support for both Clinton and Biden. And you post often enough in these threads, and have argued these points often enough with me, that you know that.

If you either equate "Sanders supporter" and "Bernie or Bust" one more time, or state or imply that I support Bernie or Bust, I will report you for dishonesty.

[The Romulan Republic]

What Biden should do:

Reach out to the voters of his party who didn't vote for him, not only because its pragmatic, but because its the right thing to do, and a lot of what they want is broadly popular in the party and would be beneficial to the country and the world. Just like any other candidate ever who just won a divisive primary. And because if he can't work with opponents in his own party, how can he expect to work with Republicans?

What Sanders-bashers on the internet want him to do: Give Sanders and his supporters nothing, tell us to get down on our knees and kiss ass, and then blame us if for being divisive.

But remember, we're the divisive ones.

[Jub]

Oh, its probably true that the majority of Sanders supporters are or aren't going to vote Biden regardless of what he does. But there are always the undecideds. Considering that Biden's entire campaign is largely premised on his ability to win over "undecideds" on the Center Right, maybe he should also spare some thought to winning undecideds on the Left?

Getting a voter from the left who would otherwise stay home or vote independent is a 1-vote swing, getting a voter from the right to vote for you is a 2-vote swing, if that right-aligned voter stays home that's still a 1-vote gain. They court the middle because it's effective and thus those middle-right voters literally do matter more in terms of winning the presidency. That's how politics works, try getting a fucking clue.

[Darth Yan]

Fire just come out and say it. You hate Bernie sanders. You're still a lying shit though

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, its probably true that the majority of Sanders supporters are or aren't going to vote Biden regardless of what he does. But there are always the undecideds. Considering that Biden's entire campaign is largely premised on his ability to win over "undecideds" on the Center Right, maybe he should also spare some thought to winning undecideds on the Left?

Getting a voter from the left who would otherwise stay home or vote independent is a 1-vote swing, getting a voter from the right to vote for you is a 2-vote swing, if that right-aligned voter stays home that's still a 1-vote gain. They court the middle because it's effective and thus those middle-right voters literally do matter more in terms of winning the presidency. That's how politics works, try getting a fucking clue.

Gee, forgive me for thinking that every vote matters in a close race, and that a Democratic nominee should show at least as much regard for uniting his own party as for uniting with Republicans. Also, not all of those Centre Right votes are Republican to Democrat (a plus 2 swing as you said). Some are Never Trumpers who haven't made up their mind whether to vote Blue, or stay home/vote Libertarian.

I'm not even saying "Biden shouldn't try to win the Center Right". I'm saying he should also show some regard for winning the Left.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, there's a scenario here which no one is talking about, but which is looking more and more likely- which is that so many primaries are cancelled/postponed that nobody gets a majority of delegates, and we end up at a brokered convention.

That's a fairly unappetizing prospect, but it is a possibility, and in light of that, it makes sense for Sanders to stay in and get as many delegates as he can, so as to, if not win the nomination, have as much influence at said convention (which will probably have to be held over the internet) as possible.

The counterargument, of course, is that that continuing to hold primaries increases the risk of infection, and that Sanders should therefore drop out and let the race wrap up in the interests of public safety. That is by far the most compelling argument for his withdrawl, and one I hope he's considering carefully right now, while conferring with state and local health officials.

What we probably should do is hold every remaining primary by mail ballot only. But the DNC won't want to organize that, because they'd prefer to treat the race as already wrapped up, by and large.

[Jub]

Gee, forgive me for thinking that every vote matters in a close race

You can't get every vote though, so you have to focus on the best-expected value for your time and political capital.

Also, not all of those Centre Right votes are Republican to Democrat (a plus 2 swing as you said). Some are Never Trumpers who haven't made up their mind whether to vote Blue, or stay home/vote Libertarian.

"if that right-aligned voter stays home that's still a 1-vote gain (That could also read as change or swing)." Did you even read my post?

[FireNexus]

Fire just come out and say it. You hate Bernie sanders. You're still a lying shit though

Have I not said it? I absolutely hate Bernie Sanders. I didn’t think that was something I wasn’t totally clear on. I have good reasons for my hate, and I have gone on for dozens of not hundreds of pages with TRR and others about them. But yeah, I hate his guts and can’t wait until I never have to be reminded of his existence again.

[The Romulan Republic]

Given that he'll still be a high-profile Senator and the defacto leader of the progressive wing of the party (well, him or AOC), I think you'll be disappointed in that.

But I do that wish we could be done with this shit show. If people go out trashing Bernie and everyone who supports him, I'm going to respond, but I'd really rather not have to. Do we really need to do this shit show every other page? You hate Sanders. I get it. Could you give it a rest? I don't go around constantly ranting about how much I hate Hillary Clinton, posting Clinton conspiracy theories, and bashing anyone who voted for her. I don't do that to Biden and his supporters either. If Sanders is really as irrelevant as you claim, why not just give it a rest, if not for the sake of party unity, then for the sake of everybody's blood pressure?

[FireNexus]

If not, the only conclusion is that you value the opinions and votes of "moderate" Republicans more than you do those of the Left wing of your own party

I place zero value ok the opinions of people who claim to be on my side and are undecided about whether Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump. If someone considers themself progressive and can’t tell the difference, they are too stupid and inconsistent to be wooed by any rational political action.

At least center-right types have the excuse of tribal loyalties to explain their irrationality. They doesn’t make them morally superior, but it is does give you a consistent framework to woo them (assuming you lack the tribal baggage of Hillary Clinton).

Just realize, TRR: I’m not talking about you here. I think you are a dumbass, a histrionic, self-righteous irritant. I dislike you, based on our interactions. If I was inviting everyone to a party, I’d probably try to get your invitation lost in the mail, if I didn’t just invite everyone right in front of you and tell you explicitly that you were not invited. Yet I value your vote. Because while we have a series of fundamental philosophical disagreements that boil around the nucleation point of Bernie Sanders, you are clearly on my side.

Someone who is undecided about whether to turn out for literally any Democrat over Trump at this point is not on my side. They’re not on your side either. Once you realize that, you’ll be better for it.

Ah, so it has nothing to do with our policies or character. You want us to lose because we lose. That makes so much more sense.

No, this is a character issue. It’s not the losing. It’s the losing with such arrogance that you refuse to admit it and get with the program to present a united front against the greater threat. And then telling me that I have to hew closer to your explicitly losing strategy if I want to win.

Maybe he had an argument that doing it in 2016 was forgivable because NOBODY thought Trump was going to win. Now? Nah.

But instead of being the bigger man and reaching out to his opponents, you seem to want Biden to tell Sanders and all his supporters to go fuck ourselves out of spite.

This is not spite. It’s strategy. Clinton went out of her way to try to avoid alienating Sanders. To pull her punches. To make platform concessions. It did barely any good, if any at all. So Biden should not bother trying to woo Sanders supporters. He should do his best to avoid acknowledging Sanders at all. There are very few of them that might be wooed, as you admit, and since I consider them not allies worth having I think the return on investment isn’t worth it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Getting a voter from the left who would otherwise stay home or vote independent is a 1-vote swing, getting a voter from the right to vote for you is a 2-vote swing, if that right-aligned voter stays home that's still a 1-vote gain. They court the middle because it's effective and thus those middle-right voters literally do matter more in terms of winning the presidency.

And yet there remains little to no evidence that such a strategy has ever actually worked in American politics, at least not in the past century or so. Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and of course Hillary Clinton are not exactly the most inspiring precedents, are they?

First, the fact is that you are not going to get Republicans deserting Trump in any significant numbers. Look at his support numbers among Republicans. Between the hardcore fascists that support everything he does unquestionably and the vast field of people willing to tolerate his personal shortcomings in the name of stacking the courts with conservative judges, the Republicans are going to continue to vote for him. The idea that they are going to desert him for Joe Biden is utterly fanciful and divorced from all political reality.

Second, the entire notion that there exists in America a large contingent of undecided centrist/moderate swing voters who could go "either way" is also largely a myth. A strategy that focuses on appealing to a block of voters that essentially doesn't exist is doomed from the start.

The key to the election isn't chasing ghosts, it's looking at the political reality on the ground and trying to appeal to the >50% of eligible voters in this country that do not vote, the so-called "new voters and and non-voters." You could make SOME arguments that Joe Biden is the right candidate to appeal to some of these (since he has widespread African-American support, and a large number of non-voters tend to be African-Americans). However, the key to getting these voters is a dedicated Democratic effort to register new voters, not to go sucking the cocks of the middle-class suburban white people you are so enamored of. The Democrats have been piss-poor at courting new/non-voters, all of their campaign machinery is geared towards registered voters.

That's how politics works, try getting a fucking clue.

You are holding on to an idiotic and outdated mythology that is easily countered by common sense and a basic understanding of American politics. In other words, shut the fuck up and let the adults speak.

[The Romulan Republic]

If not, the only conclusion is that you value the opinions and votes of "moderate" Republicans more than you do those of the Left wing of your own party

I place zero value ok the opinions of people who claim to be on my side and are undecided about whether Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump. If someone considers themself progressive and can’t tell the difference, they are too stupid and inconsistent to be wooed by any rational political action.

At least center-right types have the excuse of tribal loyalties to explain their irrationality. They doesn’t make them morally superior, but it is does give you a consistent framework to woo them (assuming you lack the tribal baggage of Hillary Clinton).

I see a bit of a contradiction here: On the one hand, you say that the votes of undecided people have zero value. Then you make excuses for the Center Rightists, and argue for trying to win them over.

Just realize, TRR: I’m not talking about you here. I think you are a dumbass, a histrionic, self-righteous irritant. I dislike you, based on our interactions. If I was inviting everyone to a party, I’d probably try to get your invitation lost in the mail, if I didn’t just invite everyone right in front of you and tell you explicitly that you were not invited. Yet I value your vote. Because while we have a series of fundamental philosophical disagreements that boil around the nucleation point of Bernie Sanders, you are clearly on my side.

Someone who is undecided about whether to turn out for literally any Democrat over Trump at this point is not on my side. They’re not on your side either. Once you realize that, you’ll be better for it.

I do realize it. To be clear, just in case I wasn't a thousand times before: I regard the Bernie or Busters as scum. In fact, if anything I as a Sanders supporter have more cause to loath them than you do, because they pretended to support our movement, used Sanders to try to undermine the Democratic Party, and then sold us out in the general election, refusing to follow Sanders' own example, and thereby brought our movement into disrepute. I regard them as traitors to our cause.

And yet... we need every vote we can get. As I said, if it was a question of giving them something that would be unethical, or harmful to the country or the world or the party, I'd say to tell them to fuck off. But if its a question of adding some more progressive policies which are broadly popular to the platform, or hiring some competent and qualified progressives to work in Biden's administration, why not? Its the right thing to do anyway. If it wins a few more votes, or even makes a few reluctant Biden supporters work for him a bit more enthusiastically, or be a bit more committed to making it to the polls or mailing their ballot promptly, is that such a terrible thing?

Nor is it unreasonable for Sanders to try to get what he believes in into the platform, or to try to get his supporters something to show for their efforts. I'm sure Biden would do the same if their positions were reversed.

No, this is a character issue. It’s not the losing. It’s the losing with such arrogance that you refuse to admit it and get with the program to present a united front against the greater threat. And then telling me that I have to hew closer to your explicitly losing strategy if I want to win.

Maybe he had an argument that doing it in 2016 was forgivable because NOBODY thought Trump was going to win. Now? Nah.

You continue to contradict yourself. And Sanders NEVER refused to unite with the Democratic Party. He did in 2016. He will now.

If he doesn't, there will be no one louder in their condemnation than I, I promise you that. But I do not think that will happen.

As to our strategy, I'll reiterate that there is very strong evidence that Sanders did not lose the recent contests based on his platform (key elements of which are widely popular throughout the party), or due to voters' dislike of him personally (IIRC, he remains the most popular Senator in America). As usual, there are many reasons why a vote goes the way it does, but given the sudden shift from Sanders to Biden in the polls after SC, I suspect the biggest reason is simply that Biden was perceived as the more likely to win after he won South Carolina and the subsequent endorsements, and so many voters went for who they believed was the more electable choice. That is hardly a repudiation of either Sanders personally or of his platform, however, and you would do well to remember that it was partly the shifting loyalties of former Sanders supporters that put Biden where he is now.

This is not spite. It’s strategy. Clinton went out of her way to try to avoid alienating Sanders. To pull her punches. To make platform concessions. It did barely any good, if any at all.

Aside from the fact that far fewer Sanders supporters defected to Trump than Clinton supporters defected to McCain in 2008?

There is literally no way that you can prove that it "did barely any good, if any at all". Unless you have access to an alternate timeline where Clinton attacked Sanders even more, and lost more Sanders voters. Its pure speculation.

Also, are you still to claim that Clinton went easy on Sanders, when she was trying to tie Sanders to Right-wing terrorism and Communist dictatorship on the debate stage? Not to mention her surrogates branding all Sanders supporters as violent misogynists and racists, or the Nevada DNC accusing us of rioting and all but accusing Sanders of inciting terrorism.

But apparently, all that is "pulling her punches", while Sanders is unforgivably divisive simply for running.

So Biden should not bother trying to woo Sanders supporters. He should do his best to avoid acknowledging Sanders at all. There are very few of them that might be wooed, as you admit, and since I consider them not allies worth having I think the return on investment isn’t worth it.

When you say that they are "not allies worth having", are you referring to Bernie or Bust, or Sanders supporters generally? Its not clear to me from the context, since you say that "Biden should not bother trying to woo Sanders supporters."

If you really think a third of your own party aren't worth having in the election, I don't know what more to say.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... rom-biden/

Sen. Bernie Sanders almost certainly won’t win the Democratic nomination after his string of defeats in recent primaries. So the questions around how and when Sanders will end his campaign aren’t really about electoral math anymore, but are instead connected to deeper questions about policy, the Democratic electorate and Joe Biden and Sanders’s personal goals.

These deeper questions essentially are: Does Sanders have any specific goals that he wants — such as Biden taking up one of his major policy ideas — that he could essentially trade with Biden in exchange for dropping out and endorsing the former vice president? Does Biden, who is now racking up endorsements and winning primaries by huge margins, really need to negotiate with Sanders at all? Does the bloc of around 30 percent of Democratic primary voters that have backed Sanders represent a clear constituency that he actually leads, or will Sanders’s supporters be unenthusiastic about Biden even if Sanders embraces him? Will most of Sanders’s supporters vote for Biden in a general election simply to get President Trump out of office, or does Biden need to accommodate them in some way? And are Sanders’s supporters actually open to any accommodation beyond Sanders being the Democratic nominee?

I can’t really answer any of these questions confidently, and despite what you will read or hear on TV, I’m not sure anyone else knows the answers to these questions either. But one way to think about this is through history. Every competitive nomination process ends with a winner, at least one person who can claim to be the runner-up and some bloc of the party that has lost. So here are some models for how the Biden-Sanders primary could be resolved. These are ordered from the least to most favorable for Sanders:

Sanders and the left get basically nothing
Parallel: The 2000 Democratic primary between then-Vice President Al Gore (winner) and former Sen. Bill Bradley.

Bradley didn’t win a single caucus or primary and earned just 21 percent of the popular vote, so he was obviously in a weaker position than Sanders is now. That said, many Democrats view Trump as an existential crisis and now America has a crisis (the novel coronavirus) that could last until November or beyond. With those concerns, Sanders may have less room to get much from Biden because the growing pressure to leave the race and back Biden may at some point become too strong for him to continue.

So Sanders could get nothing, according to Mark Schmitt, who was a top adviser on Bradley’s 2000 campaign. “Not ‘Godfather II’ nothing, but nothing wrapped in a lovely bow of recognition and respect,” Schmitt said.

Sam Rosenfeld, an expert on party politics who teaches at Colgate University, said, “Biden’s victory came so quickly and with so little in the way of extended trench warfare that it’s true that he likely feels less need to assuage Sanders substantively than HRC [Hillary Clinton] did four years ago.”

In this scenario, Biden would pick a running mate, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is similarly resistant to more left-wing ideas. Biden would basically refuse to adopt any of Sanders’s policies and might block their insertion into the Democratic Party’s official platform at the party’s convention, which is currently scheduled for July 13 to16 in Milwaukee.

Changes to the party platform
Parallel: The 2016 Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (winner) and Sanders; the 1976 Republican primary between then-President Gerald Ford (winner) and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.

In 2016, Clinton and her allies allowed Sanders-backed provisions, including the abolition of the death penalty and a $15 minimum wage, into the party platform. A generation earlier, Ford and his camp used the platform to placate supporters of the more conservative Reagan.

The Democrats put some of Sanders’s less controversial ideas into the platform four years ago. In the 2020 process, he has pushed four far-reaching ideas in particular: a wealth tax, Medicare for All, the mass forgiveness of all student debt and free college for all Americans. The party platform in theory speaks for all Democratic candidates, even ones in swing districts. Those Democrats want to appeal to more moderate voters and are wary of Republicans linking them with socialism (and Sanders). So is there a compromise on the wealth tax or the mass forgiveness of college debt that satisfies Sanders’s allies and, say, more moderate House Democrats? That’s not easy to see. How far will Democrats go, with a GOP eager to cast the entire party as socialists?

Formal policy and/or appointment promises
Parallel: The 2016 Republican primary between Trump (winner) and Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

In May 2016, as some establishment Republicans were still thinking of ways to prevent Trump from winning the nomination, Trump released a list of people he would consider for Supreme Court seats. Neither Neil Gorsuch nor Brett Kavanaugh1 were on the initial list, but it was full of conservative legal figures. That list served as essentially a promise to the party’s establishment and conservative wings that Trump would appoint conservative judges to the bench, a key priority of the party. (He has followed through in spades.)

Biden has already promised to pick a woman as his running mate and a black woman as a Supreme Court justice — both attempts to placate other important constituencies in the party (black voters and women). And Biden recently announced that he supported tuition-free public college for Americans in households with incomes of $125,000 or less, moving toward Sanders’s position.

Will he go further? In theory, Biden could promise to appoint some prominent liberals to his administration (Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sanders himself or some of their allies, for example). He could promise not to appoint people that liberal activists strongly dislike, such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or basically anyone affiliated with Facebook or Wall Street.

In terms of policy, could Biden, in a general election, commit to some kind of tax on the wealthy that is akin to a wealth tax? (The wealth tax is fairly popular with Americans overall.)

Daniel Schlozman, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University who focuses on political parties, argued that the left will demand a major federal government response to the coronavirus pandemic if Biden is elected — so the disputes between the party’s left and center-left wings might look much different than they did during the Democratic primary.

“The big left asks of Biden will be on the scale and permanence of government interventions more than on any of the issues in the primary,” Schlozman said.

“Biden is very old and his instincts really do just stem from a different and much more cautious era for [Democratic] domestic policymaking,” Rosenfeld said. “That’s going to matter. That said, it’s important to note that the establishment has itself moved significantly since 2008 … The center of gravity on policy questions has shifted left.”

A leftist vice-presidential nominee
Parallel: The 1996 Republican primary between then-Sen. Bob Dole (winner) and conservative activist Pat Buchanan and businessman Steve Forbes; the 2012 Republican primary between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (winner) and former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; the 2016 Republican primary.

Some in the GOP’s more conservative wing doubted that Dole, Romney and Trump were sufficiently right wing in each of their respective primaries. So all three chose running mates — former Rep. Jack Kemp for Dole, then-Rep. Paul Ryan for Romney, then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence for Trump — deeply trusted by more conservative Republicans.

This route would be complicated for Biden. In theory, the former vice president could excite the younger and more liberal parts of the Democratic base by picking a running mate who is not Sanders but shares many of Sanders’s positions. But few people close to, or as liberal as, Sanders are governors, senators or otherwise serve in positions that might make them natural candidates for the vice presidency. The most obvious figures, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Warren, would require Democrats to remove a sitting senator and hope that the party can win a special election to keep that seat.

Let’s focus on Warren for a moment. She presents some obvious advantages for Biden in terms of her policy knowledge and high favorability ratings among Democrats. At the same time, Biden’s campaign messaging has been about electability. Would he choose a left-leaning senator from the Northeast like Warren over a more centrist senator from the Midwest like Klobuchar? Also, can a 77-year-old candidate pick a 70-year-old running mate? Can a Democratic Party that is nearly 40 percent Asian, black or Hispanic run an all-white ticket? Also, it’s not even clear that Sanders’s supporters would be super excited about Warren as the vice-presidential nominee.

Sanders is the vice-president nominee
Parallels: The 1960 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John F. Kennedy (winner) and then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson; the 1980 Republican primary between Reagan (winner) and former CIA Director George H.W. Bush; the 2004 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John Kerry (winner) and then-Sen. John Edwards.

The history of the second-place candidate becoming the vice-presidential nominee illustrates one of the challenges for Sanders — he’s not really viable for arguably the biggest prize a runner-up can reasonably expect. Being second on the ticket is potentially incredibly valuable — Johnson and Bush not only served as vice president but ultimately won the presidency themselves (Johnson obviously in very unusual circumstances). But it’s really hard to imagine Biden choosing Sanders, an even older white man (Sanders is 78), as his running mate.

I don’t think it’s worth trying to predict which of these precedents the Biden-Sanders race will follow — I would expect something more than nothing and less than the vice presidency. But this process is worth watching closely, because it won’t happen all at once. Sanders’s exit from the race, the Democratic convention and the time between Biden’s election (if he wins) and the start of his presidency are all potentially points of negotiation between Biden and Sanders, and the center-left and left wings of the Democratic Party. It will take some time to assess what concessions Sanders and the people who support him come away with.

Well, I think we can safely rule out Sanders as VP. Beyond that, I think any of these outcomes are reasonably plausible (except maybe a progressive VP), but it should be noted that the historical parallel offered for the "Sanders gets nothing" scenario is the 2000 election, where Gore ultimately lost a nail-biter race due to Leftist third party votes, combined with Republican rigging and corruption.

[Ralin]

Man. Firenexus's bullshit makes me want to null vote in the election, and I don't even particularly like Sanders.

[Darth Yan]

If not, the only conclusion is that you value the opinions and votes of "moderate" Republicans more than you do those of the Left wing of your own party

I place zero value ok the opinions of people who claim to be on my side and are undecided about whether Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump. If someone considers themself progressive and can’t tell the difference, they are too stupid and inconsistent to be wooed by any rational political action.

At least center-right types have the excuse of tribal loyalties to explain their irrationality. They doesn’t make them morally superior, but it is does give you a consistent framework to woo them (assuming you lack the tribal baggage of Hillary Clinton).

Just realize, TRR: I’m not talking about you here. I think you are a dumbass, a histrionic, self-righteous irritant. I dislike you, based on our interactions. If I was inviting everyone to a party, I’d probably try to get your invitation lost in the mail, if I didn’t just invite everyone right in front of you and tell you explicitly that you were not invited. Yet I value your vote. Because while we have a series of fundamental philosophical disagreements that boil around the nucleation point of Bernie Sanders, you are clearly on my side.

Someone who is undecided about whether to turn out for literally any Democrat over Trump at this point is not on my side. They’re not on your side either. Once you realize that, you’ll be better for it.

Ah, so it has nothing to do with our policies or character. You want us to lose because we lose. That makes so much more sense.

No, this is a character issue. It’s not the losing. It’s the losing with such arrogance that you refuse to admit it and get with the program to present a united front against the greater threat. And then telling me that I have to hew closer to your explicitly losing strategy if I want to win.

Maybe he had an argument that doing it in 2016 was forgivable because NOBODY thought Trump was going to win. Now? Nah.

But instead of being the bigger man and reaching out to his opponents, you seem to want Biden to tell Sanders and all his supporters to go fuck ourselves out of spite.

This is not spite. It’s strategy. Clinton went out of her way to try to avoid alienating Sanders. To pull her punches. To make platform concessions. It did barely any good, if any at all. So Biden should not bother trying to woo Sanders supporters. He should do his best to avoid acknowledging Sanders at all. There are very few of them that might be wooed, as you admit, and since I consider them not allies worth having I think the return on investment isn’t worth it.

If you were any more full of shit you'd explode. Anyone who blames Hillary's defeat on Bernie should do the world a favor and never have children. Or if they do put them up for adoption so they don't inherent your chronic stupidity

Hillary did NOT go out of her way at all and Sanders did a lot for her (he ran more rallies for her than Hillary EVER ran for Obama) and 75% of his voters DID go for Hillary, which is again more than the hillary voters who went for obama. He did more for her than she EVER did for Obama. The problem was that aside from her baggage she neglected key battlegrounds until the last minute (the three states that clinched it for Trump were razor thin), stuck to old and outdated policies when people didn't quite want that anymore and didn't articulate her policies well.


So the idea that he should ignore sanders at all is utterly idiotic and contrary to what you think ENTIRELY motivated by spite. You can't admit that Hillary was undone in large part by her own flaws, so you're blaming Bernie supporters rather than admit that centrist dem policies are utter shit. Like it or not Sander's policies are becoming more popular. Hell they'd do far more good than ANYTHING Biden would do on his own.

Biden's not as bad as trump but that's like saying being beaten to within an inch of your life is better than being beaten to death. Biden's policies helped pave the way for Trump in the first place, and his desire to return to the status quo ignores that the status quo was what got us trump in the first place.

So again; you're being a dishonest and spiteful idiot. Anyone who blames Bernie supporters and says they should be ignored is similarly spiteful and idiotic. They're the future of the party. DEAL WITH IT

[The Romulan Republic]

Checking Fivethirtyeight's primary projections, looks like Alaska and Wyoming have postponed their primaries from the fourth of April to the and 10th and 17th, respectively. That lives just Hawaii still scheduled to vote on the fourth. I expect it'll get pushed back too, before then.

As of right now, though, each of the next five contests has only a single state or territory voting at a time, before New York, Penn., and Delaware all go on April 28th. Hawaii on the fourth, Wisconsin on the 7th, Alaska on the 10th, Wyoming on the 17th, and Puerto Rico on the 26th.

If Sanders wants to stay in (a big if), that's actually a pretty good picture for him, I think. He's narrowly favored to win Hawaii, which gives him a little boost going into Wisconsin, where he's currently at 23% odds. Not great, but he had his famous upset there in 2016 that helped give his campaign a couple more months of life. Then Alaska, where its very nearly even odds (Sanders at 45), followed by Wyoming, where they rate his chances a little weaker but still nearly one in three. Then Puerto Rico, where his odds aren't so great at 19%, but it comes last. And the current breakdown means that he can afford to focus on just one state at a time- there will be no big three or four state Biden sweeps to pile up Joe's delegate lead further.

I very much doubt this schedule will remain unchanged, but at present, Sanders can focus all his efforts on one contest at a time, and at least three or four of the next five are within plausibility for him, with Hawaii, his best shot, going first. If he won Hawaii, then pulled off a surprise win in Wisconsin, he could easily pull off Alaska and Wyoming as well, giving him four (five counting DA) wins in a row before Puerto Rico. That's momentum. That's a come back. Probably not enough to win the nomination, now, but certainly enough to pressure Joe Biden give him something good.

Like I said, probably won't work out that way. The schedule will likely change further, Sanders may decide its best to drop out, and even if everything remains as it, it requires a moderately long-odds win in Wisconsin again. But it is not completely beyond plausibility, with these numbers and this line-up, to imagine a sudden Sanders comeback in April.

[His Divine Shadow]

FireNexus has had a permanent meltdown since 2016 regarding Bernie Sanders. Why does anyone bother doing anything but scroll past...

[The Romulan Republic]

Weirdly, fivethirtyeight now shows BOTH Biden and Sanders falling in the polls, after both rising (albeit Biden much faster) for a while:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... /national/

Sanders was last leading in their (weighted for polling quality, sample size and recency) national average on March 5th, at 25.6%, with Biden at 23%. After that Biden crossed him, though Sanders also rose (following a brief dip around the time Biden overtook him post-Super Tuesday). This is presumably due to other candidates dropping out, and people consolidating behind the front-runners. Biden reached his all-time high on around March 12, with an average of 57.1% to the Bern's 36%. After that, they BOTH begin to drop, with Bernie currently recording an average of 31.7 to Biden's 50.9.

So, since around the time that coronavirus went from "slight worry" to "OH SHIT", Biden has lost about 6.2%, if I'm reading this right, while Bernie has lost a slightly lesser 4.3%

Which begs the question... with everybody else out, where is that combined 10.5% going? "Undecided"? Voting for someone who's dropped out?

Edit: Some of Biden's might be going to Bernie, of course, or some of Bernie's to Biden... But that doesn't account for all of it, because they've both dropped by a noticeable amount.