ADDing in NevADa
February 22, 2020 10:03 AM Subscribe
After the Republican Party canceled their Nevada Caucuses to prevent any challenge to President Donald Trump, today's 2020 Democratic Presidential Caucus is the only contest.
LIVE RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:
NPR
Washington Post
C-SPAN
Here's How The Nevada Caucuses Work
Voters to head to the polls in Nevada, the first truly diverse state to weigh in on Democratic primary
How Nevada's Three Sets Of Results Could Affect Who 'Wins'
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: Nevada caucuses hold key to state’s political future and How To Caucus In Nevada
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL:Live Nevada Caucus updates: State prepares to pick Democratic presidential nominee
LAS VEGAS SUN: Hopefuls look to Nevada for push today and Democrats face an important test in Nevada caucuses
The candidates in the running [with delegate count] after the caucuses in Iowa and primary in New Hampshire: former Vice President Joe Biden [6 delegates], former mayor of South Bend Pete Buttigieg [22 delegates], Representative from Hawai'i Tulsi Gabbard [0 delegates], Senator from Minnesota Amy Klobuchar [7 delegates], Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders [21 delegates], hedge fund manager Tom Steyer [0 delegates], Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren [8 delegates] and noted late entry former mayor of New York City Mike Bloomberg [0 delegates].
Which Democrats Are Leading the 2020 Presidential Race?
Most recently there was a debate with the five candidates with delegates and also Mike Bloomberg in Las Vegas, NV: Who Won The Debate: Winners And Losers, mainly notable due to Senator Warren's strong performance against former mayor Bloomberg: The Debate Exposed Bloomberg’s Downside — But It Was There All Along. Please take note: Bloomberg Won’t Appear on Nevada Caucuses Ballot due to his late entry and a focus on later primary contests, and there are several former candidates who are on the ballots but dropped out after filing.
finally, Nevada Democrats are trying to avoid repeating the Iowa caucus debacle — here’s how
Nevada caucus will use new 'iPad tool' they swear isn't an app and things don't sound great
selected previouslies:
former mayor Bloomberg
Iowa Caucuses
forecasting the 2020 election
a history of contested national conventions
criticism of caucuses
LIVE RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:
NPR
Washington Post
C-SPAN
Here's How The Nevada Caucuses Work
Voters to head to the polls in Nevada, the first truly diverse state to weigh in on Democratic primary
How Nevada's Three Sets Of Results Could Affect Who 'Wins'
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: Nevada caucuses hold key to state’s political future and How To Caucus In Nevada
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL:Live Nevada Caucus updates: State prepares to pick Democratic presidential nominee
LAS VEGAS SUN: Hopefuls look to Nevada for push today and Democrats face an important test in Nevada caucuses
The candidates in the running [with delegate count] after the caucuses in Iowa and primary in New Hampshire: former Vice President Joe Biden [6 delegates], former mayor of South Bend Pete Buttigieg [22 delegates], Representative from Hawai'i Tulsi Gabbard [0 delegates], Senator from Minnesota Amy Klobuchar [7 delegates], Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders [21 delegates], hedge fund manager Tom Steyer [0 delegates], Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren [8 delegates] and noted late entry former mayor of New York City Mike Bloomberg [0 delegates].
Which Democrats Are Leading the 2020 Presidential Race?
Most recently there was a debate with the five candidates with delegates and also Mike Bloomberg in Las Vegas, NV: Who Won The Debate: Winners And Losers, mainly notable due to Senator Warren's strong performance against former mayor Bloomberg: The Debate Exposed Bloomberg’s Downside — But It Was There All Along. Please take note: Bloomberg Won’t Appear on Nevada Caucuses Ballot due to his late entry and a focus on later primary contests, and there are several former candidates who are on the ballots but dropped out after filing.
finally, Nevada Democrats are trying to avoid repeating the Iowa caucus debacle — here’s how
Nevada caucus will use new 'iPad tool' they swear isn't an app and things don't sound great
selected previouslies:
former mayor Bloomberg
Iowa Caucuses
forecasting the 2020 election
a history of contested national conventions
criticism of caucuses
If you have zero delegates, and you're not Mike Bloomberg, you might not be in the running.
Maybe if he started his campaign descending down a gilded escalator surround by bought and paid for cheering plants he'd have had a better chance of connecting with Real America™.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:53 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
Maybe if he started his campaign descending down a gilded escalator surround by bought and paid for cheering plants he'd have had a better chance of connecting with Real America™.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:53 AM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
With voter and electoral fraud in Georgia and North Carolina, I'm not surprised that Republicans would aim to take away the vote from Democrats. I am surprised that Republicans would (openly, brazenly) take away the vote from other Republicans. They really have become the party of Trump, in every way.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:28 AM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:28 AM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
Maybe if he started his campaign descending down a gilded escalator surround by bought and paid for cheering plants he'd have had a better chance of connecting with Real America™.
Precisely. The US has far more plants than people. They're the silent majority.
posted by billjings at 11:37 AM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
Precisely. The US has far more plants than people. They're the silent majority.
posted by billjings at 11:37 AM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
I was surprised to find this morning that Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard are still running.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:37 AM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 11:37 AM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
I know multiple people who support Tom Steyer. It's really weird.
posted by Slinga at 11:42 AM on February 22, 2020
posted by Slinga at 11:42 AM on February 22, 2020
I've actually seen an uptick in the number of Tulsi Gabbard signs here in New Hampshire since the primary. It's bizarre, especially since none of them are the standard, like, two legged wicket type things; instead, they're all on serious looking wooden posts, like the first one on the page , or a giant mini-billboard with her face on it, like the second one on that page.
posted by damayanti at 11:55 AM on February 22, 2020
posted by damayanti at 11:55 AM on February 22, 2020
JUST IN: 6 in 10 Nevada caucus-goers report in exit polls that they support eliminating private insurance & creating a single-payer system
buT AMERiCans LOVe tHeIr InSuRaNCE PlAns
posted by entropicamericana at 12:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [30 favorites]
buT AMERiCans LOVe tHeIr InSuRaNCE PlAns
posted by entropicamericana at 12:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [30 favorites]
I'm surprised it's only 6 in 10.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 12:14 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Ahmad Khani at 12:14 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
descending down a gilded escalator surround by bought and paid for cheering plants
Thanks for this image. I can just see all those potted palms, waving their fronds vigorously.
posted by valkane at 12:20 PM on February 22, 2020 [9 favorites]
Thanks for this image. I can just see all those potted palms, waving their fronds vigorously.
posted by valkane at 12:20 PM on February 22, 2020 [9 favorites]
I'm surprised it's only 6 in 10.
The other four are on Medicare.
posted by dances with hamsters at 12:21 PM on February 22, 2020 [51 favorites]
tulsi gabbard isn’t in the primary because she wants the democratic party nomination. she’s in the primary because she’s raising her name recognition for her inevitable ratfucky third party run.
(note: the paragraph above may also accurately describe bloomberg’s plan).
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:24 PM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
(note: the paragraph above may also accurately describe bloomberg’s plan).
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:24 PM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
Slinga: "I know multiple people who support Tom Steyer. It's really weird."
I know a few who support Gabbard; no I don't understand.
posted by octothorpe at 12:41 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I know a few who support Gabbard; no I don't understand.
posted by octothorpe at 12:41 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Tulsi Gabbard is to blackpilled leftist accelerationists what Bloomberg is to utterly broken dead souled centrists (and I'm not talking about the "blue no matter who" concern trolls, I mean the people who genuinely like him).
posted by Reyturner at 12:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Reyturner at 12:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
buT AMERiCans LOVe tHeIr InSuRaNCE PlAns
Yeah. Of all the insipid, slobbering arguments that get regurgitated ad nauseum in the debates, the "moderate" line that M4A would "kick 150 million Americans off their beloved insurance plans" has gotta be responsible for the largest chunks of my grey matter plopping out of my ears and onto the floor, where they immediately grow little legs and scuttle under the couch to hide from Mayor Pete's smarmy fucking voice.
posted by Beardman at 12:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [18 favorites]
Yeah. Of all the insipid, slobbering arguments that get regurgitated ad nauseum in the debates, the "moderate" line that M4A would "kick 150 million Americans off their beloved insurance plans" has gotta be responsible for the largest chunks of my grey matter plopping out of my ears and onto the floor, where they immediately grow little legs and scuttle under the couch to hide from Mayor Pete's smarmy fucking voice.
posted by Beardman at 12:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [18 favorites]
I am surprised that Republicans would (openly, brazenly) take away the vote from other Republicans. They really have become the party of Trump, in every way.
Eh. A bunch of states canceled their Republican primaries in 2004, this isn’t unprecedented. I’m all for a “Trump is the death of the republic” take, but this isn’t it.
posted by Automocar at 12:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Eh. A bunch of states canceled their Republican primaries in 2004, this isn’t unprecedented. I’m all for a “Trump is the death of the republic” take, but this isn’t it.
posted by Automocar at 12:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm really hoping that this is the last presidential election with caucuses and everybody can have a damn primary in 2024.
posted by octothorpe at 12:51 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 12:51 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
With those exit poll numbers in health care I’m guessing Nernie wins but Warren won’t be far behind and she’ll still be in striking distance with delegates.
posted by azpenguin at 1:23 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 1:23 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm really hoping that this is the last presidential election with caucuses and everybody can have a damn primary in 2024
Iowa and Hew Hampshire would need to start that primary right now, so they can both claim to be first in the nation. Gotta be first for some reason.
Anyway. Who's last?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 1:23 PM on February 22, 2020
Iowa and Hew Hampshire would need to start that primary right now, so they can both claim to be first in the nation. Gotta be first for some reason.
Anyway. Who's last?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 1:23 PM on February 22, 2020
Twitter link with a WaPo video in which Seth Morrison, former caucus site leader, describes the non-disclosure agreement he refused to sign, stating it was very broad and "extremely onerous," and while he would have been glad to sign an NDA that referred to any confidential caucus materials this went much further. He says he was "totally suprised" and "it seems like it was a last-minute thing" as there was no mention of NDAs during his 20+ hours of training.
Perhaps related: NYT report of a shortage of volunteers at some sites. A party spokesperson says they have enough volunteers at "the vast majority" of sites.
posted by mediareport at 1:38 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
Perhaps related: NYT report of a shortage of volunteers at some sites. A party spokesperson says they have enough volunteers at "the vast majority" of sites.
posted by mediareport at 1:38 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
I’m guessing Nernie wins
DAMMIT! When did Nernie jump in the race and how did they get into the lead?!
posted by FJT at 1:40 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
DAMMIT! When did Nernie jump in the race and how did they get into the lead?!
posted by FJT at 1:40 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
Have NH/IA/SC/NV primaries first, on the same day, then the remainder a few weeks later. Also, move everything to late April or even May.
I think there's a benefit to having a few small states go first, and those four (combined) are reasonable demographic and regional representatives.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:40 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think there's a benefit to having a few small states go first, and those four (combined) are reasonable demographic and regional representatives.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:40 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Have NH/IA/SC/NV primaries first, on the same day, then the remainder a few weeks later. Also, move everything to late April or even May.
Just have a consistent fucking electoral system where everyone votes the same way on exactly the same day and that day is a holiday or a weekend. Come on. You can do it. You really can if you try.
posted by Jimbob at 1:56 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
Just have a consistent fucking electoral system where everyone votes the same way on exactly the same day and that day is a holiday or a weekend. Come on. You can do it. You really can if you try.
posted by Jimbob at 1:56 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
Footage of a Nevada caucus deciding a tie with a card draw; Sanders pulled a 2 and Buttigieg pulled a 3, so the tie went to Pete.
posted by mediareport at 1:56 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 1:56 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
The DNC should lock Bloomberg, Steyer and Yang in a room together and get them to agree to fund the hell out of a massive campaign to flip the Senate, in exchange for giving them seats on the soon-to-be expanded Supreme Court. Much better ego stroke than a losing presidential bid.
posted by Anoplura at 2:00 PM on February 22, 2020 [23 favorites]
posted by Anoplura at 2:00 PM on February 22, 2020 [23 favorites]
Just have a consistent fucking electoral system where everyone votes the same way on exactly the same day and that day is a holiday or a weekend. Come on. You can do it. You really can if you try.
ButSlavery States Rights!
posted by Anoplura at 2:04 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
But
posted by Anoplura at 2:04 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
Oh god, James Carville is on my tv set explaining how people who vote for Sanders don't know what they're doing
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:08 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:08 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
nernie
posted by MrBadExample at 2:22 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by MrBadExample at 2:22 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
I will only get behind Nernie if he selects Fert as his running mate.
posted by delfin at 2:28 PM on February 22, 2020 [30 favorites]
posted by delfin at 2:28 PM on February 22, 2020 [30 favorites]
Feel the Nern!
posted by briank at 2:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by briank at 2:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
Oh god, James Carville is on my tv set explaining how people who vote for Sanders don't know what they're doing
"James [Carville], in all due respect, is a political hack, who said very terrible things when he was working for Clinton against Barack Obama. I think he said [some] of the same things." -@BernieSanders
posted by kafziel at 2:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
"James [Carville], in all due respect, is a political hack, who said very terrible things when he was working for Clinton against Barack Obama. I think he said [some] of the same things." -@BernieSanders
posted by kafziel at 2:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
Chris Matthews: Bernie Sanders is like France in the fall of 1940
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
Don’t want to speak too soon, but looking kind of anticlimactic right now. I wonder if the fight there tonight will be similar lol. I got Wilder by KO.
posted by eagles123 at 2:34 PM on February 22, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 2:34 PM on February 22, 2020
Nernie Wins!!! according to Fox with 4% of the vote in. It is looking like a blow out.
posted by phoque at 2:39 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by phoque at 2:39 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Entrance polls in Nevada show Sanders
leading the majority of demographics:
Men: 39%
Women: 31%
White: 30%
Black: 28% (2nd to Biden)
Hispanic/Latino: 54%
Non-white: 44%
Ages 17-29: 68%
Ages 30-44: 49%
Ages 45-64: 27%
Democrats: 32%
Independents: 50%
Union household: 36%
Sure a lot of ‘bros’ in Nevada.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 2:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
leading the majority of demographics:
Men: 39%
Women: 31%
White: 30%
Black: 28% (2nd to Biden)
Hispanic/Latino: 54%
Non-white: 44%
Ages 17-29: 68%
Ages 30-44: 49%
Ages 45-64: 27%
Democrats: 32%
Independents: 50%
Union household: 36%
Sure a lot of ‘bros’ in Nevada.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 2:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [12 favorites]
Here is my substantive contribution to this thread.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:49 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:49 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
President Motherfucking Nernie Pandas Y A L L
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:52 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:52 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
Current exit polling:
Whites
Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 19%
Klobuchar 14%
Warren 14%
Biden 13%
Non-whites
Sanders 44%
Biden 21%
Steyer 11%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 7%
posted by Ahmad Khani at 2:57 PM on February 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
Whites
Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 19%
Klobuchar 14%
Warren 14%
Biden 13%
Non-whites
Sanders 44%
Biden 21%
Steyer 11%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 7%
posted by Ahmad Khani at 2:57 PM on February 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
So basically the expected number of delegates for anyone besides Sanders and Buttigieg is zero?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:09 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:09 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
The destruction of capitalism started in a casino.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:11 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:11 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Not one to be late to a Bernie party, Jacobin goes with 'After the Nevada blowout, it's Bernie's party now'
posted by box at 3:14 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 3:14 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
It makes me (maybe unduly) optimistic about the US that Bernie appears to have been able to build a successful coalition of working people united across race and gender (although not age, yet) to face off against the Trump coalition that was explicitly built on racism and xenophobia. The fact that this is surprising pundits on cable says a lot about how wealth insulates and isolates the upper middle class and above and white-collar professionals. Ideally I would have loved a President Warren, but watching this I feel proud of my party, not afraid for it.
posted by sallybrown at 3:16 PM on February 22, 2020 [62 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 3:16 PM on February 22, 2020 [62 favorites]
So basically the expected number of delegates for anyone besides Sanders and Buttigieg is zero?
Only if you think the votes of non-whites don't count.
And on the second round, the voters for non-viable candidates can realign to form support a new viable candidate.
posted by JackFlash at 3:20 PM on February 22, 2020
Only if you think the votes of non-whites don't count.
And on the second round, the voters for non-viable candidates can realign to form support a new viable candidate.
posted by JackFlash at 3:20 PM on February 22, 2020
The Culinary Union made its opposition to Bernie Sanders's Medicare-for-all plan known, but early #NevadaCaucus results suggest its members largely caucused for Sanders.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:23 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:23 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
Watching the cable news pundits completely lose their minds on air over Bernie's success in Nevada is giving me life. MSNBC is on another planet right now.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 3:25 PM on February 22, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 3:25 PM on February 22, 2020 [18 favorites]
It makes me (maybe unduly) optimistic about the US that Bernie appears to have been able to build a successful coalition of working people united across race and gender (although not age, yet) to face off against the Trump coalition that was explicitly built on racism and xenophobia.
This battle is fought on two fronts. (1) Voting FOR your preferred candidate ( who can drive the bus closest to where you want to go ) and (2) Voting AGAINST racism and xenophobia. ( driving the bus AWAY from The Bad Place )
posted by mikelieman at 3:26 PM on February 22, 2020
This battle is fought on two fronts. (1) Voting FOR your preferred candidate ( who can drive the bus closest to where you want to go ) and (2) Voting AGAINST racism and xenophobia. ( driving the bus AWAY from The Bad Place )
posted by mikelieman at 3:26 PM on February 22, 2020
Van Jones: Bernie is on his way to the nomination. Now, someone could throw some marbles on the stage...
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:30 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:30 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Person on NPR noting that if you total up all the moderates there is more support for them than for Bernie. Do these people know how how elections work? Do they know how politics work? Its bizarre.
posted by flamk at 3:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by flamk at 3:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
Ideally I would have loved a President Warren, but watching this I feel proud of my party, not afraid for it.
At least this time if we get a repeat of 2010 two years into Bernie's first term it won't screw up elections for a decade.
I hope if we do get President Sanders he can be a firebrand towards the intransigence of the right (and possibly the center) and I hope the coalition will hold going into first term elections. In hindsight, I believe one of Obama's biggest mistakes was trying to be a peacemaker towards the jackboots who basically spat in his face and the coalition disappeared into the ether in the wake of it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:45 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
At least this time if we get a repeat of 2010 two years into Bernie's first term it won't screw up elections for a decade.
I hope if we do get President Sanders he can be a firebrand towards the intransigence of the right (and possibly the center) and I hope the coalition will hold going into first term elections. In hindsight, I believe one of Obama's biggest mistakes was trying to be a peacemaker towards the jackboots who basically spat in his face and the coalition disappeared into the ether in the wake of it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:45 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
Jacobin @jacobinmag
Before 2020, no presidential candidate in the history of competitive primaries, Democrat or Republican, had ever won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
2:09 PM · Feb 22, 2020·Twitter Web App
1.9K Retweets 6.3K Likes
posted by Ahmad Khani at 3:54 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
Before 2020, no presidential candidate in the history of competitive primaries, Democrat or Republican, had ever won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
2:09 PM · Feb 22, 2020·Twitter Web App
1.9K Retweets 6.3K Likes
posted by Ahmad Khani at 3:54 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
Bernie Sanders caucus supporter April from Las Vegas gives the most passionate, emotional, and truthful realignment speech I’ve ever witnessed.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:56 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:56 PM on February 22, 2020 [11 favorites]
kirkaracha: I was surprised to find this morning that Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard are still running.
I got a spam-flagged call yesterday, which was a robo-push poll (Wikipedia) for Tulsi Gabbard, pushing her military service, her stance against regime change wars and environmental issues (2x links to her site) as reasons to support her, skipping right over her homophobic remarks and views (Huffpost, Jan. 2019) and other bigotry (Daily Kos, March 2019).
Still, on the off-chance that it made any impact, I stated that her apparently progressive views on the military and environment weren't swaying me to support her.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:11 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I got a spam-flagged call yesterday, which was a robo-push poll (Wikipedia) for Tulsi Gabbard, pushing her military service, her stance against regime change wars and environmental issues (2x links to her site) as reasons to support her, skipping right over her homophobic remarks and views (Huffpost, Jan. 2019) and other bigotry (Daily Kos, March 2019).
Still, on the off-chance that it made any impact, I stated that her apparently progressive views on the military and environment weren't swaying me to support her.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:11 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
In a stunning display of journalistic integrity, Chris Matthews compares the nomination of Bernie Sanders to the fall of France to the Nazis.
posted by kafziel at 4:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by kafziel at 4:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
Theres literally fucking rainbows flying all over goddamn fucking Las Vegas right now I am just.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:20 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:20 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Jacobin @jacobinmagUnless I'm mistaken, before 2020, no Democratic candidate has ever "won the popular vote in Iowa" at all. This is the first year that number was collected and recorded.
Before 2020, no presidential candidate in the history of competitive primaries, Democrat or Republican, had ever won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
2:09 PM · Feb 22, 2020·Twitter Web App
1.9K Retweets 6.3K Likes
posted by kickingtheground at 4:27 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
hahaha all the wailing and gnashing of teeth has added at least another 10 years to my life
*sips loudly from a mug labelled "establishment tears"*
posted by entropicamericana at 4:28 PM on February 22, 2020 [22 favorites]
*sips loudly from a mug labelled "establishment tears"*
posted by entropicamericana at 4:28 PM on February 22, 2020 [22 favorites]
I'm certain "entrance polls" at caucuses are even less reliable than the unreliable exit polls at actual votes, but for what it's worth, according to this NBC reporter, Sanders has a commanding lead among Hispanic voters who identify themselves as "moderate or conservative":
From NV entrance poll
White + moderate/conservative
Buttigieg 27%
Biden 20%
Klobuchar 20%
Sanders 16%
Hispanic + moderate/conservative
Sanders 47%
Biden 19%
Buttigeig 12%
posted by mediareport at 4:34 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
From NV entrance poll
White + moderate/conservative
Buttigieg 27%
Biden 20%
Klobuchar 20%
Sanders 16%
Hispanic + moderate/conservative
Sanders 47%
Biden 19%
Buttigeig 12%
posted by mediareport at 4:34 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
In a stunning display of journalistic integrity, Chris Matthews compares the nomination of Bernie Sanders to the fall of France to the Nazis.
Sanders isn't my first choice, but the Nazi analogies are really pretty terrible, especially given that members of his family were murdered by Nazis. It has happened here, too — it's not just a MSM thing, any longer. It's really not a good look for anyone who does it.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:36 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
Sanders isn't my first choice, but the Nazi analogies are really pretty terrible, especially given that members of his family were murdered by Nazis. It has happened here, too — it's not just a MSM thing, any longer. It's really not a good look for anyone who does it.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:36 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
More:
White
Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 19%
Klobuchar 14%
Warren 14%
Biden 13%
Non-white
Sanders 44%
Biden 21%
Steyer 11%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 7%
posted by mediareport at 4:36 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
White
Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 19%
Klobuchar 14%
Warren 14%
Biden 13%
Non-white
Sanders 44%
Biden 21%
Steyer 11%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 7%
posted by mediareport at 4:36 PM on February 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
MSNBC just cut into Bidens blathering to call it for Bernie lmaooooo.
Time for everyone else to drop out?
I’ll stop celebrating on here now. See ya next week!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:37 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
Time for everyone else to drop out?
I’ll stop celebrating on here now. See ya next week!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:37 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
nernie
posted by mwhybark at 4:44 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by mwhybark at 4:44 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
I’ve created a Nernie monster with a typo.
I regret NOTHING.
posted by azpenguin at 4:49 PM on February 22, 2020 [52 favorites]
I regret NOTHING.
posted by azpenguin at 4:49 PM on February 22, 2020 [52 favorites]
With those exit poll numbers in health care I’m guessing Nernie wins but Warren won’t be far behind and she’ll still be in striking distance with delegates.
DAMMIT! When did Nernie jump in the race and how did they get into the lead?!
nernie
I will only get behind Nernie if he selects Fert as his running mate.
Feel the Nern!
Nernie Wins!!! according to Fox with 4% of the vote in. It is looking like a blow out.
President Motherfucking Nernie Pandas Y A L L
nernie
get his ass
posted by kafziel at 4:50 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
DAMMIT! When did Nernie jump in the race and how did they get into the lead?!
nernie
I will only get behind Nernie if he selects Fert as his running mate.
Feel the Nern!
Nernie Wins!!! according to Fox with 4% of the vote in. It is looking like a blow out.
President Motherfucking Nernie Pandas Y A L L
nernie
get his ass
posted by kafziel at 4:50 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'm still all "Warren is the smartest, best person in the room". But, better Nernie than Pete or Tulsi or...
We're getting there.
Super Tuesday will decide a lot of things
posted by Windopaene at 4:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [28 favorites]
We're getting there.
Super Tuesday will decide a lot of things
posted by Windopaene at 4:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [28 favorites]
Hey, Nernie Danders is nothing to sneeze at.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:57 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:57 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
descending down a gilded escalator surround by bought and paid for cheering plants
Thanks for this image. I can just see all those potted palms, waving their fronds vigorously.
Michael Moore started the Plant movement. His candidate was a ficus.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:07 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Thanks for this image. I can just see all those potted palms, waving their fronds vigorously.
Michael Moore started the Plant movement. His candidate was a ficus.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:07 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
You know, I've never felt the Bern. Somehow he always seemed too far our of the mainstream to be a viable candidate for me. I mean, I love his message and policies, but...
And now it's seeming a lot more plausible. I'm still a Warren fan, but if it's Bernie... I'm fine with that.
posted by sjswitzer at 5:08 PM on February 22, 2020 [28 favorites]
And now it's seeming a lot more plausible. I'm still a Warren fan, but if it's Bernie... I'm fine with that.
posted by sjswitzer at 5:08 PM on February 22, 2020 [28 favorites]
Point: Bernie is surging and seems like he could do it this time.
Counterpoint: https://twitter.com/jamisonfoser/status/1231377643771006976
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:22 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Counterpoint: https://twitter.com/jamisonfoser/status/1231377643771006976
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:22 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I am withholding all enthusiasm and optimism until November 2020.
But I did get a warm feeling for a few seconds.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:26 PM on February 22, 2020 [15 favorites]
But I did get a warm feeling for a few seconds.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:26 PM on February 22, 2020 [15 favorites]
I'm with Bernie because it's time to fucking yeet the Overton window.
In terms of presidential qualities, I think Warren would be a better fit. But because we're in the bad timeline, we need someone who will push the envelope in terms of acceptable discourse. What's thrilling about these results is even if Bernie doesn't win the nomination, for whatever reason, his popularity indicates that democratic socialism isn't a fringe position. That opens the floor for continued discussion of formerly "too radical" ideas.
posted by brook horse at 5:31 PM on February 22, 2020 [60 favorites]
In terms of presidential qualities, I think Warren would be a better fit. But because we're in the bad timeline, we need someone who will push the envelope in terms of acceptable discourse. What's thrilling about these results is even if Bernie doesn't win the nomination, for whatever reason, his popularity indicates that democratic socialism isn't a fringe position. That opens the floor for continued discussion of formerly "too radical" ideas.
posted by brook horse at 5:31 PM on February 22, 2020 [60 favorites]
Apparently some people (but not the Nernie campaign) are calling Nevada for Sanders with 4% of the vote reported. That seems rather premature… am I just misunderstanding things?
posted by danielparks at 5:34 PM on February 22, 2020
posted by danielparks at 5:34 PM on February 22, 2020
The actual live results tracker from WaPo (the link above is to a news feed). Doesn’t seem to require a subscription.
posted by danielparks at 5:36 PM on February 22, 2020
posted by danielparks at 5:36 PM on February 22, 2020
Not just some people, but rather, near all. Sanders declared victory 10 minutes ago.
Related: How can the networks and AP call the race for Sanders with only 4% of precincts reporting?
posted by Ahmad Khani at 5:39 PM on February 22, 2020
Related: How can the networks and AP call the race for Sanders with only 4% of precincts reporting?
posted by Ahmad Khani at 5:39 PM on February 22, 2020
Ha! Thanks. Normally I look at The Guardian first, but I didn’t today. Must be those plants messing with my head.
Sounds like The Guardian thinks the AP is basing their call on experts and exit polls. That smells more like guessing than I like, but I’ll go ahead and get my hopes up anyway.
posted by danielparks at 5:45 PM on February 22, 2020
Sounds like The Guardian thinks the AP is basing their call on experts and exit polls. That smells more like guessing than I like, but I’ll go ahead and get my hopes up anyway.
posted by danielparks at 5:45 PM on February 22, 2020
"Nerny" was a nonsense word frequently used by radio/animation/commercial-voiceover legend Gary Owens during his 30-odd years on L.A. radio. I'm delighted to hear that 30+ years later, the Nerny is real and coming to save us all.
From here on, it's a campaign for who will be his running mate.... my money's on "Fnork".
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:48 PM on February 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
From here on, it's a campaign for who will be his running mate.... my money's on "Fnork".
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:48 PM on February 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
Warren is still my first choice for President. I think Bernie would be more effective as a cabinet secretary. Give him his own domain to kick ass in without being slowed down by Congress and distracted by the (inevitably hostile) press.
That said, I'm very encouraged by these results so far. I like everything Bernie is doing to change the conversation, and I'm glad both that people are feeling empowered again, and that the elites seem genuinely afraid things might really change.
posted by Anoplura at 5:57 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
That said, I'm very encouraged by these results so far. I like everything Bernie is doing to change the conversation, and I'm glad both that people are feeling empowered again, and that the elites seem genuinely afraid things might really change.
posted by Anoplura at 5:57 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
According to 538:
Odds of winning more than half of pledged delegates: Sanders 39%, Warren 0.5%.
Odds of winning a plurality of pledged delegates: Sanders 61%, Warren 1%.
There will almost certainly not be a President Warren, nor cabinet secretary Sanders.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
Odds of winning more than half of pledged delegates: Sanders 39%, Warren 0.5%.
Odds of winning a plurality of pledged delegates: Sanders 61%, Warren 1%.
There will almost certainly not be a President Warren, nor cabinet secretary Sanders.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
the elites seem genuinely afraid things might really change.
In that light, I posted a link in the Iowa caucus thread to an article that touches on this, focusing on media attitudes. The following is a quote from Dan Balz (WaPo):
In that light, I posted a link in the Iowa caucus thread to an article that touches on this, focusing on media attitudes. The following is a quote from Dan Balz (WaPo):
Sanders's rise has raised fears that, if he were the nominee, his brand of democratic socialism could doom the party to defeat against President Trump, along with many candidates for House and Senate.posted by ZeusHumms at 7:16 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
One measure of how rapidly things are changing is this: In barely a week, the question has shifted from whether Sanders has a ceiling, based on the fact that he managed just a quarter of the vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire, to whether he can be stopped.
I’m curious about how things break down when you compare early voting to actual caucusing. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that 36,000 people participated in early voting. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign reported that she got a 50% bump from in-person votes, presumably due to her kicking (Bloomberg’s) ass in the last debate.
Adding up the votes column on the WaPo tracker comes out around 25,000 with 11% of precincts reporting. Assuming precinct size is roughly even (I guess?) that means overall election turn out is around 250,000.
Also, big congratulations to the Nevada Democratic Party for managing this thing. I’m still very opposed to caucuses in principal, but pulling this off after binning their app at the last minute is impressive, especially considering that this is the first time early voting has ever been used with a caucus in the US (Review-Journal). Of course, just because irregularities haven’t been reported yet don’t mean there weren’t any.
posted by danielparks at 7:17 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
Adding up the votes column on the WaPo tracker comes out around 25,000 with 11% of precincts reporting. Assuming precinct size is roughly even (I guess?) that means overall election turn out is around 250,000.
Also, big congratulations to the Nevada Democratic Party for managing this thing. I’m still very opposed to caucuses in principal, but pulling this off after binning their app at the last minute is impressive, especially considering that this is the first time early voting has ever been used with a caucus in the US (Review-Journal). Of course, just because irregularities haven’t been reported yet don’t mean there weren’t any.
posted by danielparks at 7:17 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
There will almost certainly not be a President Warren, nor cabinet secretary Sanders.
It was clear from the debate that the rest of the candidates know that at this point that Sanders will win the most delegates. Besides Bloomberg, they're all running out of money and will need some magic to get their fundraising going again for the long march to the summer. Only Sanders has the fundraising apparatus and Bloomberg can just fund himself. The plan is clear: hope Bernie doesn't win enough to win on the first round of delegates and then rely on forming a coalition + the 500 superdelegates to steal the nomination "according to the rules" of the convention.
If this happens there is no doubt in my mind that Trump will be re-elected. And in any case, they all think they should be crowned, so how are they going to agree on who they should unite behind? Imagine Klobuchar giving her delegates to Buttigieg, or Warren giving them to Bloomberg. Or anyone giving them to Biden. It's madness. And July is so so far away, November an eternity from now.
posted by dis_integration at 7:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [15 favorites]
It was clear from the debate that the rest of the candidates know that at this point that Sanders will win the most delegates. Besides Bloomberg, they're all running out of money and will need some magic to get their fundraising going again for the long march to the summer. Only Sanders has the fundraising apparatus and Bloomberg can just fund himself. The plan is clear: hope Bernie doesn't win enough to win on the first round of delegates and then rely on forming a coalition + the 500 superdelegates to steal the nomination "according to the rules" of the convention.
If this happens there is no doubt in my mind that Trump will be re-elected. And in any case, they all think they should be crowned, so how are they going to agree on who they should unite behind? Imagine Klobuchar giving her delegates to Buttigieg, or Warren giving them to Bloomberg. Or anyone giving them to Biden. It's madness. And July is so so far away, November an eternity from now.
posted by dis_integration at 7:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [15 favorites]
I’m pretty skeptical of 538’s Who Will Win… thing.
The huge shift after the Iowa caucuses and the surprising results in New Hampshire suggest to me that polls and/or their model have large deficiencies.
posted by danielparks at 7:20 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
The huge shift after the Iowa caucuses and the surprising results in New Hampshire suggest to me that polls and/or their model have large deficiencies.
posted by danielparks at 7:20 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Oops, looks like I used the wrong number for the precincts reporting — it’s showing 23% not 11%. That means the turn out was 110,000, which means that around 1 in 3 people did early voting.
posted by danielparks at 7:25 PM on February 22, 2020
posted by danielparks at 7:25 PM on February 22, 2020
538’s model predicts delegate counts for each candidate, then lets you know how often that count gets to 1991, which is a majority. There are some really really wide distributions for each candidate (and typically a peak near 0, as it’s easy to not win anything).
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
to steal the nomination
Glad after four years we’ve finally moved passed “if my dude doesn’t get the most delegates, the nomination is ‘stolen’”.
posted by sideshow at 7:30 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
Glad after four years we’ve finally moved passed “if my dude doesn’t get the most delegates, the nomination is ‘stolen’”.
posted by sideshow at 7:30 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
According to NBC, Bernie has 34 total national delegates to date, Buttigieg has 23, Warren has 8, Klobuchar 7, Biden 6.
You need 1991 to win on the first ballot.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:33 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
You need 1991 to win on the first ballot.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:33 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
> to steal the nomination
Just what does this nomination looks like, anyway? Can it be fit in a backpack? Asking for a friend.
posted by danielparks at 7:38 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Just what does this nomination looks like, anyway? Can it be fit in a backpack? Asking for a friend.
posted by danielparks at 7:38 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
I think Carmen Sandiego swiped it on the way back from stealing the World Famous Peking Duck.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:42 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:42 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Glad after four years we’ve finally moved passed “if my dude doesn’t get the most delegates, the nomination is ‘stolen’”.
I'm not sure how else to describe a situation where somebody comes out winning a clear plurality (as, by all accounts, Sanders will) and the convention decides to use the votes reserved for the elites to hand the nomination to someone else who will have gotten many thousands fewer votes. Yes, the rules allow for it. No, it's not democracy. Yes, it will absolutely destroy the democratic party and ruin any chance for sustaining the kind of enthusiasm needed to win in 2020.
posted by dis_integration at 7:45 PM on February 22, 2020 [34 favorites]
I'm not sure how else to describe a situation where somebody comes out winning a clear plurality (as, by all accounts, Sanders will) and the convention decides to use the votes reserved for the elites to hand the nomination to someone else who will have gotten many thousands fewer votes. Yes, the rules allow for it. No, it's not democracy. Yes, it will absolutely destroy the democratic party and ruin any chance for sustaining the kind of enthusiasm needed to win in 2020.
posted by dis_integration at 7:45 PM on February 22, 2020 [34 favorites]
ARGH
The WaPo tracker is being updated inconsistently — the voting numbers just jumped to around 36,000 total, but the total precincts reporting number didn’t change.
It’s now 36,000 “votes” with 23% reporting, which is 160,000 total turn out.
The AP is showing 29,000 “votes” with 23% reporting.
ಠ_ಠ
posted by danielparks at 7:45 PM on February 22, 2020
The WaPo tracker is being updated inconsistently — the voting numbers just jumped to around 36,000 total, but the total precincts reporting number didn’t change.
It’s now 36,000 “votes” with 23% reporting, which is 160,000 total turn out.
The AP is showing 29,000 “votes” with 23% reporting.
ಠ_ಠ
posted by danielparks at 7:45 PM on February 22, 2020
I am texting for the Bernie campaign into Washington state right now, and something's in the air, 'cause they are feelin' the Bern.
I sent one initial message to someone, and they replied with a link to a frickin' funk jam called "Feel the Bern" that I am 95% sure that they wrote.
posted by Beardman at 7:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [24 favorites]
I sent one initial message to someone, and they replied with a link to a frickin' funk jam called "Feel the Bern" that I am 95% sure that they wrote.
posted by Beardman at 7:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [24 favorites]
Three for three. The amount of Latino support Sanders pulled along with coming in a close second with African Americans shows that Sanders has massively diversified his coalition since 2016. He had a blowout tonight, and he's headed to the nomination. Barring any funny business, the question isn't whether Bernie will be the nominee, but in what shape he gets there. Will the Democratic establishment (minus the other contenders) start to make peace and fall in line with a democratic socialist at the helm? If a civil war persists, Sanders will show up to the general election much weaker than he would be if the other factions started getting used to change.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
Do Warren and her supporters actually think she might be made a ‘compromise’ nominee in a second round at a contested convention, even if she has far fewer pledged delegates than multiple other candidates? Her answer at the end of the last debate seemed to suggest this: if nobody wins an outright majority then it the nomination should be given to somebody other the plurality winner. If that’s why she hasn’t dropped out yet, then she might as well be working for Trump.
posted by moorooka at 8:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by moorooka at 8:19 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
That's awesome! ("Feel the Bern," that is.)
posted by JHarris at 8:22 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by JHarris at 8:22 PM on February 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I am wholly in favor of this musical derail.
posted by JHarris at 8:26 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 8:26 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
If that’s why she hasn’t dropped out yet, then she might as well be working for Trump.
Probably don't post bullshit theorizing like this, unless you have any iota of evidence to support this.
posted by arcolz at 8:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [58 favorites]
Probably don't post bullshit theorizing like this, unless you have any iota of evidence to support this.
posted by arcolz at 8:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [58 favorites]
I'm not sure how else to describe a situation where somebody comes out winning a clear plurality (as, by all accounts, Sanders will) and the convention decides to use the votes reserved for the elites to hand the nomination to someone else who will have gotten many thousands fewer votes. Yes, the rules allow for it. No, it's not democracy. Yes, it will absolutely destroy the democratic party and ruin any chance for sustaining the kind of enthusiasm needed to win in 2020.
A clear plurality isn't necessarily the most democratic choice. Say there are four candidates who get, respectively, 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% of the vote. And say that voters for the 20% and 10% candidate prefer the 30% over the 40%. That means that the majority of the people would prefer one candidate over the plurality winner.
I don't know if the majority of the people would prefer Bernie over another candidate, but it's certainly possible. And it seems more democratic to me to choose a candidate who can secure a majority vote than a candidate who can only secure a plurality vote.
posted by TheLinenLenin at 8:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
A clear plurality isn't necessarily the most democratic choice. Say there are four candidates who get, respectively, 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% of the vote. And say that voters for the 20% and 10% candidate prefer the 30% over the 40%. That means that the majority of the people would prefer one candidate over the plurality winner.
I don't know if the majority of the people would prefer Bernie over another candidate, but it's certainly possible. And it seems more democratic to me to choose a candidate who can secure a majority vote than a candidate who can only secure a plurality vote.
posted by TheLinenLenin at 8:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
It is ludicrous to say that any candidate who remains in the race after three contests "might as well be working for Trump". The states that have voted so far combine to represent roughly 2.2% of the total US population. When the shoe was on the other foot, Sanders stayed in the race until the middle of July, at which point states representing roughly *checks notes* 100.0% of the population had voted.
Based on what we know now, Bernie Sanders is highly likely to lead in delegates heading into the convention, but there's a lot we don't know now, a lot of voters we haven't heard of, and a lot that can happen in several months. Candidates remaining in the race will, like Bernie did in 2016, use the remainder of their campaigns to gain leverage, as they should. Calling that "working for Trump" is offensive.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:37 PM on February 22, 2020 [48 favorites]
Based on what we know now, Bernie Sanders is highly likely to lead in delegates heading into the convention, but there's a lot we don't know now, a lot of voters we haven't heard of, and a lot that can happen in several months. Candidates remaining in the race will, like Bernie did in 2016, use the remainder of their campaigns to gain leverage, as they should. Calling that "working for Trump" is offensive.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:37 PM on February 22, 2020 [48 favorites]
Mod note: Let's put a line under this derail about Warren's possible motivations. If you have evidence of her motives, that's fine, but speculating baselessly just sends the thread in circles, and suggesting that people who have different opinions, strategies, or preferences from you are "working for Trump" is a nuclear option that completely blows up the conversation.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [36 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:43 PM on February 22, 2020 [36 favorites]
I did not realize this but apparently Bernie's win in Nevada is especially historic: nobody from either party has ever won Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada before since the change to competitive primaries in 1972 (with the exception of uncontested incumbents). If Sanders wins in South Carolina it will be the strongest showing in the early states in the history of the contemporary nomination process
posted by dis_integration at 8:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 8:55 PM on February 22, 2020 [9 favorites]
You need 1991 to win on the first ballot.
If Bernie does win please for the love of all that is good and holy let him hit 1991 delegates.
I'm fine with socialism having its shot on the ballot to beat Trump. I just don't want the left, progressives, and moderates to tear any hope of a coalition apart. If there's a brokered convention it's my biggest fear.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:07 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
If Bernie does win please for the love of all that is good and holy let him hit 1991 delegates.
I'm fine with socialism having its shot on the ballot to beat Trump. I just don't want the left, progressives, and moderates to tear any hope of a coalition apart. If there's a brokered convention it's my biggest fear.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:07 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
Yeah, this is why I think the Democrats need to switch to ranked-choice voting primaries for all states. It would give a very clear picture of where the electorate lies. In the case of a candidate getting a plurality instead of a clear majority, you would be able to see how they ranked as second and third choices, as well.
I gotta say, we are less than 100 delegates into this race, so the calls for people to drop out lest they hand the election to Trump or the predictions of certain DNC fuckery at the convention are more than a little premature. Ramp it down, please.
I supported Bernie in 2016 but I didn’t participate in any big online forums at the time so all the talk of “The Bernie Bro” phenomenon really got under my skin because the people I interacted with weren’t that way and I certainly wasn’t so I always thought it was an unfair slight.
Now I’m not so sure.
This time, I caucused for Warren but I’ve always had Sanders right behind her. I think they’ve always been pretty tight — the only crack in their alliance that I’ve seen was the bit after the NH debate and even then, I thought both parties did a pretty good job of keeping the media from blowing it too far out of proportion. Bernie and Warren have historically been allies — it would be good for everyone to remember that.
That said, if Elizabeth only ends up with one or two hundred delegates, she would be foolish to just give them away. I fully expect her “price” if you will, would be significantly higher for a Buttigieg/Biden/Klobuchar than it would be for Bernie simply because they would need to offer more policy concessions to get her on board. As long as she and Bernie are in good standing, I fully expect him to get a discount compared to their candidates.
Honestly, not unlike Bernie did in 2016. He made Clinton give him some policy changes before he endorsed her and he was 100% in the right when he did that although I know some party faithful who really took it as an affront. And once he did, he was all in. I fully believe Bernie saw the threat Trump posed and did everything in his power to keep it from happening.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:17 PM on February 22, 2020 [28 favorites]
I gotta say, we are less than 100 delegates into this race, so the calls for people to drop out lest they hand the election to Trump or the predictions of certain DNC fuckery at the convention are more than a little premature. Ramp it down, please.
I supported Bernie in 2016 but I didn’t participate in any big online forums at the time so all the talk of “The Bernie Bro” phenomenon really got under my skin because the people I interacted with weren’t that way and I certainly wasn’t so I always thought it was an unfair slight.
Now I’m not so sure.
This time, I caucused for Warren but I’ve always had Sanders right behind her. I think they’ve always been pretty tight — the only crack in their alliance that I’ve seen was the bit after the NH debate and even then, I thought both parties did a pretty good job of keeping the media from blowing it too far out of proportion. Bernie and Warren have historically been allies — it would be good for everyone to remember that.
That said, if Elizabeth only ends up with one or two hundred delegates, she would be foolish to just give them away. I fully expect her “price” if you will, would be significantly higher for a Buttigieg/Biden/Klobuchar than it would be for Bernie simply because they would need to offer more policy concessions to get her on board. As long as she and Bernie are in good standing, I fully expect him to get a discount compared to their candidates.
Honestly, not unlike Bernie did in 2016. He made Clinton give him some policy changes before he endorsed her and he was 100% in the right when he did that although I know some party faithful who really took it as an affront. And once he did, he was all in. I fully believe Bernie saw the threat Trump posed and did everything in his power to keep it from happening.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:17 PM on February 22, 2020 [28 favorites]
I did not realize this but apparently Bernie's win in Nevada is especially historic: nobody from either party has ever won Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada before since the change to competitive primaries in 1972 (with the exception of uncontested incumbents).Kerry '04.
posted by kickingtheground at 9:24 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'm all in for Warren but I'm starting to wonder if she should just unite with Bernie as his VP candidate. I feel like a team of the two of them would be very strong. Sure, I'd rather she were on top of the ticket, but it still gets me excited.
Unrelated, I don't know what this says about me, but "Nernie", who I imagine as a Gritty-like muppet who sounds like Bernie Sanders, makes me way more enthusiastic than Bernie himself...
posted by mmoncur at 9:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Unrelated, I don't know what this says about me, but "Nernie", who I imagine as a Gritty-like muppet who sounds like Bernie Sanders, makes me way more enthusiastic than Bernie himself...
posted by mmoncur at 9:29 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Nernie's only eligible in Nernia.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 9:47 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm all in for Warren but I'm starting to wonder if she should just unite with Bernie as his VP candidate.
Please not this. She can do so much more in the Senate. Plus if the worst happens it leaves open President Warren for 2024.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:49 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
Please not this. She can do so much more in the Senate. Plus if the worst happens it leaves open President Warren for 2024.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:49 PM on February 22, 2020 [20 favorites]
A clear plurality isn't necessarily the most democratic choice. Say there are four candidates who get, respectively, 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% of the vote. And say that voters for the 20% and 10% candidate prefer the 30% over the 40%. That means that the majority of the people would prefer one candidate over the plurality winner.
I don't know if the majority of the people would prefer Bernie over another candidate, but it's certainly possible. And it seems more democratic to me to choose a candidate who can secure a majority vote than a candidate who can only secure a plurality vote.
we do not track people's second choice votes. if the democratic candidates pool their delegates into a candidate who is not the plurality winner they are not being "more democratic" given the data we have, they are just making shit up. you have no way to say that warren voters in a buttigieg coalition wouldn't prefer sanders as their second choice, etc.
posted by JimBennett at 9:51 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
I don't know if the majority of the people would prefer Bernie over another candidate, but it's certainly possible. And it seems more democratic to me to choose a candidate who can secure a majority vote than a candidate who can only secure a plurality vote.
we do not track people's second choice votes. if the democratic candidates pool their delegates into a candidate who is not the plurality winner they are not being "more democratic" given the data we have, they are just making shit up. you have no way to say that warren voters in a buttigieg coalition wouldn't prefer sanders as their second choice, etc.
posted by JimBennett at 9:51 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
If Bernie wins this thing, Warren needs to be in the administration. Take a look at her plan for cleaning up the mess within the government that Trump has left. She knows what to do and where to look. She wants to erase as much of the Trump imprint throughout the administration as possible. Whether it's in the cabinet, or as chief of staff, however they get this done. (Full disclosure - I chose Warren as my candidate of choice a while ago. However, I'll vote blue no matter who®)
posted by azpenguin at 9:54 PM on February 22, 2020 [21 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 9:54 PM on February 22, 2020 [21 favorites]
The plan is clear: hope Bernie doesn't win enough to win on the first round of delegates and then rely on forming a coalition + the 500 superdelegates to steal the nomination "according to the rules" of the convention.
3,979 pledged delegates will be eligible to vote on the first ballot; a candidate needs 1,991 or more to secure the nomination on the first ballot. These are the delegates being decided in the caucuses and primaries.
If no one gets 1,991 votes on the first ballot, the pledged delegates can vote for someone else, and there are additional 771 votes from "superdelegates" (technically "automatic delegates"). A candidate needs 2,375 delegates to secure a majority of the delegates and the nomination.
There's no need for the scare quotes around "according to the rules." Those are the rules that Sanders and the other candidates agreed to.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:09 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
3,979 pledged delegates will be eligible to vote on the first ballot; a candidate needs 1,991 or more to secure the nomination on the first ballot. These are the delegates being decided in the caucuses and primaries.
If no one gets 1,991 votes on the first ballot, the pledged delegates can vote for someone else, and there are additional 771 votes from "superdelegates" (technically "automatic delegates"). A candidate needs 2,375 delegates to secure a majority of the delegates and the nomination.
There's no need for the scare quotes around "according to the rules." Those are the rules that Sanders and the other candidates agreed to.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:09 PM on February 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
They're also rules specifically written to prevent leftist candidates like Bernie from winning the nomination.
posted by Reyturner at 10:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Reyturner at 10:13 PM on February 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
Mod note: JimBennett, quit reposting things that have been deleted or I'll give you a day off.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 10:17 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 10:17 PM on February 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
I asked my partner, "how will we cross the MSNBC divide? The kids are so bitter at having their whole futures mortgaged so boomers can live on easy credit, but we need older people to turn out for the Democratic candidate. .."
She said "we'll just tell them, 'Look, politics is about pragmatism, not vision'"
posted by eustatic at 10:28 PM on February 22, 2020 [14 favorites]
She said "we'll just tell them, 'Look, politics is about pragmatism, not vision'"
posted by eustatic at 10:28 PM on February 22, 2020 [14 favorites]
I'm a big fan of the above phrase "yeet the overton window" and I would encourage people to repeat it.
posted by Sterros at 10:52 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by Sterros at 10:52 PM on February 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
I think Sanders' campaign after Super Tuesday is going to pivot to convincing the Democratic Party elite that America is ready for a little a socialism, as a treat. I have to say, at this point it looks like Sanders' campaign has handled this very well: they've played a small target and put all their wood behind the arrow of healthcare. There's good emotive arguments that American healthcare is broken because of the free-market approach - e.g. the cost of insulin - and good economic arguments that the free market can't ever work for healthcare. Aiming at a small target lets the campaign focus on a consistent message, keeping their best arguments prominent, and makes it harder for people to claim that Sanders is going to bring in the soviet collectives (or for the campaign to play a bum note, which they did at first and Warren did a little too often). Sanders also has allies in the Justice Democrats - in 2016 there was a real fear that if Sanders got the nomination, the other Democrats would see it in their best electoral interest to frustrate Sanders' agenda, but in 2020 a lot of their most prominent, articulate and hard-working new faces are in the tank for Bernie, which will make it easier for him to demonstrate that he can work with the legislative branch.
(I think a lot of people haven't realised that Trump can't run as an outsider this election, and I don't think Trump's realised how much he depended on being the outsider to Clinton's Third Term of Obama campaign. All the sleazy stuff he did that demonstrated how much He Wasn't A Politician is now evidence of How Bad Washington Is. Even Buttigieg could probably bring that one home.)
posted by Merus at 11:04 PM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
(I think a lot of people haven't realised that Trump can't run as an outsider this election, and I don't think Trump's realised how much he depended on being the outsider to Clinton's Third Term of Obama campaign. All the sleazy stuff he did that demonstrated how much He Wasn't A Politician is now evidence of How Bad Washington Is. Even Buttigieg could probably bring that one home.)
posted by Merus at 11:04 PM on February 22, 2020 [13 favorites]
I kind of want to emphasise here: often, representatives in the American system can decide it's in their best interest to act against the interests of the party, so they can go to their electorate and not be held responsible for what the President does or doesn't do. You're going to see a lot of that on the Republican side this election, and it's not going to work for anyone except Mitt Romney. Bernie Sanders is a noted beneficiary of this approach. If the entire party decides they don't want to be associated with their president, America is not going to get working healthcare.
The superdelegate system is, in part, designed to ensure that this doesn't happen to their presidents. As someone who lived in a country where the executive leader stopped being able to work with their cabinet, let me assure you that shitfights are worth preventing.
posted by Merus at 11:11 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
The superdelegate system is, in part, designed to ensure that this doesn't happen to their presidents. As someone who lived in a country where the executive leader stopped being able to work with their cabinet, let me assure you that shitfights are worth preventing.
posted by Merus at 11:11 PM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
Metafilter: the national pastime in Nernia
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:32 PM on February 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
This is your regular reminder that "centrists" prefer fascism to socialism.
If you think the Bernie bros are toxic and paranoid then just wait for the level of derangement a liberal op-ed writer achieves if they may have to pay more taxes.
That thread linked above is darkly hilarious by the way
posted by fullerine at 12:12 AM on February 23, 2020 [22 favorites]
If you think the Bernie bros are toxic and paranoid then just wait for the level of derangement a liberal op-ed writer achieves if they may have to pay more taxes.
That thread linked above is darkly hilarious by the way
posted by fullerine at 12:12 AM on February 23, 2020 [22 favorites]
Please, show some respect. His full name is Nernard Danders of Nernia.
posted by St. Oops at 12:48 AM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by St. Oops at 12:48 AM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
There's no need for the scare quotes around "according to the rules." Those are the rules that Sanders and the other candidates agreed to.
I don’t think they are scare quotes, they are actually quoting what all of the non-Bernie candidates said on the debate stage when asked why the nomination should not go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates. They are all prepared to give the nomination to a candidate with fewer pledged delegates in a second round, even without any way of knowing what the second preferences of the actual voters would have been.
posted by moorooka at 1:22 AM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
I don’t think they are scare quotes, they are actually quoting what all of the non-Bernie candidates said on the debate stage when asked why the nomination should not go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates. They are all prepared to give the nomination to a candidate with fewer pledged delegates in a second round, even without any way of knowing what the second preferences of the actual voters would have been.
posted by moorooka at 1:22 AM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
The DNC should lock Bloomberg, Steyer and Yang in a room together and get them to agree to fund the hell out of a massive campaign to flip the Senate, in exchange for giving them seats on the soon-to-be expanded Supreme Court. Much better ego stroke than a losing presidential bid.
Yang isn't actually wealthy, relative to the other primary candidates. Maybe he wants the $1,000 a month because he could use it more than some of the others do.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:34 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yang isn't actually wealthy, relative to the other primary candidates. Maybe he wants the $1,000 a month because he could use it more than some of the others do.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:34 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
So this happened.
Mayor McKinsey's response to Sanders winning in Nevada today.
"Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans."
You mean.....medicare for all, curtailing the impact of wealth on society, dealing with climate change, affordable post secondary education, you mean all those things Americans hate?
Nice to see Mayor McKinsey showing his true face.
For what it's worth I think Mayor Pete is a disengenuous piece of shit who won't do a thing about the wildly disastrous status quo and my preferred candidate would be Warren.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 1:49 AM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
Mayor McKinsey's response to Sanders winning in Nevada today.
"Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans."
You mean.....medicare for all, curtailing the impact of wealth on society, dealing with climate change, affordable post secondary education, you mean all those things Americans hate?
Nice to see Mayor McKinsey showing his true face.
For what it's worth I think Mayor Pete is a disengenuous piece of shit who won't do a thing about the wildly disastrous status quo and my preferred candidate would be Warren.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 1:49 AM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
Nernard
Has a very upper-class ring to it
posted by polymodus at 2:39 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Has a very upper-class ring to it
posted by polymodus at 2:39 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is your regular reminder that "centrists" prefer fascism to socialism.
The white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:13 AM on February 23, 2020 [46 favorites]
The white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:13 AM on February 23, 2020 [46 favorites]
I really hope if the establishment tries to present Warren as a unity candidate they do it in the next few weeks not the second ballot of the convention.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:45 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:45 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
I would be genuinely shocked if Sanders came into the convention with a strong plurality and Warren chose to be part of a plan to swap him out for a different candidate on the second ballot (even herself). One of her strongest qualities is her pragmatism. My guess is she’ll work towards a deal with Bernie* to combine their delegates and keep Bloomberg far away from the nom. We’ll get a hint on Tuesday...
*I’d much rather have her as AG than VP. I’m not sure the last time we had an AG with a civil rather than criminal legal background though.
posted by sallybrown at 5:55 AM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
*I’d much rather have her as AG than VP. I’m not sure the last time we had an AG with a civil rather than criminal legal background though.
posted by sallybrown at 5:55 AM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
I was also really hoping for Warren, so thank you for Nernie, who I somehow feel more comfortable getting behind if and when the time comes. It’s Bernie without the bros. And Nernia is the magical place where we can all peacefully coexist together.
posted by robotdevil at 5:56 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by robotdevil at 5:56 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
My guess is she’ll work towards a deal with Bernie* to combine their delegates and keep Bloomberg far away from the nom. We’ll get a hint on Tuesday...
Warren was slamming the fuck out of Bloomberg and congratulating and getting the crowd cheering for Sanders last night in Seattle so...
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:04 AM on February 23, 2020 [15 favorites]
Warren was slamming the fuck out of Bloomberg and congratulating and getting the crowd cheering for Sanders last night in Seattle so...
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:04 AM on February 23, 2020 [15 favorites]
Yo she’s reporting this news about Bernie like one of the hostages didn’t make it.
posted by JDHarper at 6:05 AM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by JDHarper at 6:05 AM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Last night I read this half-hearted conservative takedown of Bernie Sanders. "[Sanders] and his wife have pursued jobs with good benefits and pensions — the kind of benefits they’d like to see extended to all workers — they’ve lived modestly for their class, and Sanders has been blessed with unusual longevity and energy.... But, when you consider that such wealth can accrue to a life with Sanders’s downs and ups, and his low-risk, low-reward behavior, I also don’t see a need to completely and utterly replace the American economic model with a utopian dream."
That got me thinking about the structural changes in the structural changes that socialists are aiming for.
Lenin's socialism was about the commanding heights of the industrial economy: Coal, iron, steel, railroads, tanks, tractors, machine tools.
Today's socialism is about the commanding heights of the caring economy: Healthcare, pharmacare, childcare, homecare.
posted by clawsoon at 6:16 AM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
That got me thinking about the structural changes in the structural changes that socialists are aiming for.
Lenin's socialism was about the commanding heights of the industrial economy: Coal, iron, steel, railroads, tanks, tractors, machine tools.
Today's socialism is about the commanding heights of the caring economy: Healthcare, pharmacare, childcare, homecare.
posted by clawsoon at 6:16 AM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
But, when you consider that such wealth can accrue to a life with Sanders’s downs and ups, and his low-risk, low-reward behavior, I also don’t see a need to completely and utterly replace the American economic model with a utopian dream.
“Just get elected to Congress” now that “just go to college” has failed a generation in building wealth.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:19 AM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
“Just get elected to Congress” now that “just go to college” has failed a generation in building wealth.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:19 AM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Yo she’s reporting this news about Bernie like one of the hostages didn’t make it.
This. I don't follow the biases of various outlets but this is fucking tiresome. Like, just go ahead and preface 'Bernie Sanders' with 'known Shit-sandwich' if that's how you really feel. Don't pull some huffing and puffing drama while you're reporting on events in the world. Childish and a really bad look.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:19 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
This. I don't follow the biases of various outlets but this is fucking tiresome. Like, just go ahead and preface 'Bernie Sanders' with 'known Shit-sandwich' if that's how you really feel. Don't pull some huffing and puffing drama while you're reporting on events in the world. Childish and a really bad look.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:19 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
Seriously though, my wife and I have a net worth close to seven figures. We’re in the 36-45 bracket but we also have no kids and we both have college educations that were effectively free (her through scholarship, mine through public funding and circumstance). Our not having to take out five figure loans has given us an unbelievable leg up in life and it’s one that I’m donating heavily to try and extend to as many people as possible. We’ve been able to get into the property ladder earlier and for less interest, we’ve been able to leverage that into greatly increased equity and an income source. We’ve been able to be successful in a capitalist society but there was so much luck and good fortune involved.
Anyone who thinks Bernie’s lifestyle is achievable to the average person with “low risk low reward” in this day and age is delusional.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:27 AM on February 23, 2020 [32 favorites]
Anyone who thinks Bernie’s lifestyle is achievable to the average person with “low risk low reward” in this day and age is delusional.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:27 AM on February 23, 2020 [32 favorites]
In a stunning display of journalistic integrity, Chris Matthews compares the nomination of Bernie Sanders to the fall of France to the Nazis.
That came just after he said that maybe if Sanders is the nominee, moderate Democrats might "rather wait four years and put in the Democrat that they like." Better Trump again than a democratic socialist.
posted by clawsoon at 6:29 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
That came just after he said that maybe if Sanders is the nominee, moderate Democrats might "rather wait four years and put in the Democrat that they like." Better Trump again than a democratic socialist.
posted by clawsoon at 6:29 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
That came just after he said that maybe if Sanders is the nominee, moderate Democrats might "rather wait four years and put in the Democrat that they like." Better Trump again than a democratic socialist.
To protest our unsatisfactory choices, let’s unite the raft and let it go...
This is what people mean when they say “check your privilege”. Sure Matthews will survive a second term of Trump. He’s a rich straight white male. He’ll probably thrive in a second Trump term as a whiny pundit talking about how bad Trump is. But all the people who won’t survive Trump’s second term? Fuck ‘em if it’s Bernie.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:36 AM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
To protest our unsatisfactory choices, let’s unite the raft and let it go...
This is what people mean when they say “check your privilege”. Sure Matthews will survive a second term of Trump. He’s a rich straight white male. He’ll probably thrive in a second Trump term as a whiny pundit talking about how bad Trump is. But all the people who won’t survive Trump’s second term? Fuck ‘em if it’s Bernie.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:36 AM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Yo she’s reporting this news about Bernie like one of the hostages didn’t make it.
What she's expressing is the fear that capitalism's hostages might make it.
posted by clawsoon at 6:42 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
What she's expressing is the fear that capitalism's hostages might make it.
posted by clawsoon at 6:42 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
The Bernie rally in Houston today is gonna be awesome. One of the field organizers said last night that something like 500 people had signed up just to volunteer at the event! I'm stoked to be one of them.
posted by heteronym at 6:45 AM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by heteronym at 6:45 AM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
On the Texas front—if I were Bernie I’d take a look at Veronica Escobar for a VP pick.
posted by sallybrown at 6:48 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:48 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
(I'm really liking "commanding heights of the caring economy." I think I'm going to keep repeating it in my head all day.)
posted by clawsoon at 6:51 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 6:51 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Sanders eviscerates the conventional wisdom about why he can't win
LAS VEGAS — On Saturday in Nevada, Bernie Sanders laid waste not just to his five main rivals but also to every shard of conventional wisdom about the Democratic presidential primaries. [...]posted by tonycpsu at 7:20 AM on February 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
Sanders wasn’t supposed to be able to break through with black and brown voters, but the group was racially and ethnically diverse. (Sanders won 27% of African Americans and 53% of Hispanics across the state.) The Sanders movement is supposed to be limited to those crazy college kids who don’t remember socialist as a slur. But there were plenty of older Sanders backers at the Bellagio chanting “Bernie” along with their 20-something comrades. (Sanders won every age category in the state except Nevadans over 65, which he ceded to Joe Biden.)
Sure, the numbers are tiny. In a state of 3 million people, turnout of over 100,000 participants is considered enormous. Candidate events here on the days leading up to the caucuses were sleepy affairs, with fewer attendees than in Iowa and New Hampshire where the big cities are a fraction of the size of Vegas.
But the Sanders victory still exploded a lot of myths. He was said to have a ceiling of 30% or so. Remarkably, against a much larger field of candidates Sanders is poised to come close to the same level of support as he did in 2016 in a one-on-one race against Hillary Clinton, to whom he lost 47%-53%. (He was at 46% with a quarter of precincts reporting as of this writing.) He was said to be unable to attract anyone outside his core base. But he held his own with moderate voters (22%) and won across every issue area except voters who cared most about foreign policy, who went with Biden.
All of this makes the results of the Nevada caucuses, which in the past have not been treated with the same importance as the contests in the three other early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — matter more this year. They have helped settle lingering questions about Sanders' appeal. [...]
The race is Sanders’ to lose. He’s the best funded non-billionaire candidate. He has the best organization. He is winning the broadest coalition.
It's very telling that the Vote Blue No Matter who scolds who burst from the woodwork whenever a leftist expresses the tiniest bit of displeasure are totally silent about major Democratic leaders actually, literally, saying that four more years of Trump would be better than President Sanders.
Apparently "Vote Blue No Matter Who" means "fuck you hippie, if your guy wins I'll burn America to the ground".
posted by sotonohito at 7:47 AM on February 23, 2020 [41 favorites]
Apparently "Vote Blue No Matter Who" means "fuck you hippie, if your guy wins I'll burn America to the ground".
posted by sotonohito at 7:47 AM on February 23, 2020 [41 favorites]
Re: Socialism.
The fact is that automation has killed actual Communism as thoroughly as it has killed capitalism. You can't really seize the means of production when they're scattered across dozens of countries.
There's a Toyota factory in San Antonio. It does final assembly of various Toyota vehicles. It uses parts sourced from multiple countries and multiple locations across America. Back in the old days when iron ore was mined, refined, and turned into finished products all in an area no more than a couple hundred kilometers across you could seriously talk about seizing the means of production.
But you can't anymore. The means of production are diffuse and scattered, the products far too specialized.
We're moving towards a set of new economies. Some will resemble socialism more than they resemble capitalism, the ones Bloomberg and the billionaires want will resemble feudalism more than they resemble capitalism. But actual, real, capitalism and Communism are already dead, we're just watching the galvanic twitching of their corpses.
posted by sotonohito at 7:55 AM on February 23, 2020 [23 favorites]
The fact is that automation has killed actual Communism as thoroughly as it has killed capitalism. You can't really seize the means of production when they're scattered across dozens of countries.
There's a Toyota factory in San Antonio. It does final assembly of various Toyota vehicles. It uses parts sourced from multiple countries and multiple locations across America. Back in the old days when iron ore was mined, refined, and turned into finished products all in an area no more than a couple hundred kilometers across you could seriously talk about seizing the means of production.
But you can't anymore. The means of production are diffuse and scattered, the products far too specialized.
We're moving towards a set of new economies. Some will resemble socialism more than they resemble capitalism, the ones Bloomberg and the billionaires want will resemble feudalism more than they resemble capitalism. But actual, real, capitalism and Communism are already dead, we're just watching the galvanic twitching of their corpses.
posted by sotonohito at 7:55 AM on February 23, 2020 [23 favorites]
Trump's Mirror is at play in the media. Most of the pundits warning us that Bernie's base would be convention spoilers are now arguing for another Trump term rather than face a tax increase.
4 more years of kids in cages
posted by benzenedream at 8:00 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
4 more years of kids in cages
posted by benzenedream at 8:00 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
Which major democratic leaders are saying that they would prefer Trump over Sanders? I've not heard of any so this is a serious question. Although I should say that I don't not consider tv pundits to qualify as major democratic leaders.
posted by nolnacs at 8:13 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by nolnacs at 8:13 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
"Capitalism" died when we bailed out the financial system in 2008 while imposing minimal consequences on the bad actors.
Yes, that is a hot take. No, I will not explain further.
posted by eagles123 at 8:14 AM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Yes, that is a hot take. No, I will not explain further.
posted by eagles123 at 8:14 AM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Point me to any Democratic leader pushing back on what their media stand in Chris Matthews is saying. He says what they think.
It's all vote blue no matter who until it looks like a leftist might when, then suddenly they'd rather lose to Trump than let poor people get healthcare.
posted by sotonohito at 8:23 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
It's all vote blue no matter who until it looks like a leftist might when, then suddenly they'd rather lose to Trump than let poor people get healthcare.
posted by sotonohito at 8:23 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
So it's not major Democratic leaders actually, literally, saying that.
Look, Bernie is my second choice and I will gladly support him. I agree that the know nothing pundits on MSNBC are very much against Sanders. But nothing is to be gained by making false and misleading claims except a loss of credibility.
posted by nolnacs at 8:31 AM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
Look, Bernie is my second choice and I will gladly support him. I agree that the know nothing pundits on MSNBC are very much against Sanders. But nothing is to be gained by making false and misleading claims except a loss of credibility.
posted by nolnacs at 8:31 AM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
Both Chris Murphy and Howard Dean have spoken out this morning to support Bernie—not endorsements but positive comments. Links to twitter: here and here.
posted by sallybrown at 8:33 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:33 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
nolnacs: "Which major democratic leaders are saying that they would prefer Trump over Sanders? I've not heard of any so this is a serious question. Although I should say that I don't not consider tv pundits to qualify as major democratic leaders."
None of them.
posted by octothorpe at 8:39 AM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
None of them.
posted by octothorpe at 8:39 AM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Which major democratic leaders are saying that they would prefer Trump over Sanders?
I mean I don't know about "major leaders" but Manchin refused to say he wouldn't vote for Trump if Sanders were the nominee and then received no criticism from anyone at the top over it. Bill Gates, who is venerated by moderate Dems and considered a party authority even if he isn't an elected leader, said not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren. And now Matthews.
So we have their representatives, their patrons, and their pundits all saying as much and yet not a word of pushback from leadership itself. I don't consider that exculpatory.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:40 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
I mean I don't know about "major leaders" but Manchin refused to say he wouldn't vote for Trump if Sanders were the nominee and then received no criticism from anyone at the top over it. Bill Gates, who is venerated by moderate Dems and considered a party authority even if he isn't an elected leader, said not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren. And now Matthews.
So we have their representatives, their patrons, and their pundits all saying as much and yet not a word of pushback from leadership itself. I don't consider that exculpatory.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:40 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
sotonohito, all I'd ask is that you be clear who you're yelling at.
Are you yelling at Matthews and at various powerful people who stood up to say look we gotta vote for Bloomberg if he wins but who are also working to have Anyone But Sanders be the nominee? Fine, 'cuz that's a real thing.
Are you yelling at the people here on metafilter who were themselves yelling at people here on metafilter saying that they'd refuse to vote for Bloomberg if he were the nominee? Chris Matthews isn't here. Powerful Democratic leaders aren't here. Everyone here, as far as any of us knows, is just another no-account schmuck like you or me.
As far as I know, nobody here on metafilter has recently said that they'd refuse to vote for Sanders if he were the nominee. When they do, yell at them.
But if you're yelling at people here because of what powerful people out in the world are doing -- those people aren't here to get yelled at, and yelling at the people here doesn't change what the powerful are doing.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:41 AM on February 23, 2020 [21 favorites]
Are you yelling at Matthews and at various powerful people who stood up to say look we gotta vote for Bloomberg if he wins but who are also working to have Anyone But Sanders be the nominee? Fine, 'cuz that's a real thing.
Are you yelling at the people here on metafilter who were themselves yelling at people here on metafilter saying that they'd refuse to vote for Bloomberg if he were the nominee? Chris Matthews isn't here. Powerful Democratic leaders aren't here. Everyone here, as far as any of us knows, is just another no-account schmuck like you or me.
As far as I know, nobody here on metafilter has recently said that they'd refuse to vote for Sanders if he were the nominee. When they do, yell at them.
But if you're yelling at people here because of what powerful people out in the world are doing -- those people aren't here to get yelled at, and yelling at the people here doesn't change what the powerful are doing.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:41 AM on February 23, 2020 [21 favorites]
Trump's Mirror is at play in the media. Most of the pundits warning us that Bernie's base would be convention spoilers are now arguing for another Trump term rather than face a tax increase.
This was the least surprising twist to me. Most of these people could barely bring themselves to vote for HRC last time. Plenty of didn't, and have been saying "I hope Democrats will nominate someone I can vote for next time" ever since! But one fun thing about this is maybe revealing how irrelevant some of this DC TV coverage is. Bernie is quite popular with Democrats generally and seems to get along with elected Democratic politicians (in public), so how much cable TV would a voter need to absorb to believe that the seething contempt of the NeverSanders pundit class represents views of the broader world? FWIW, my mother watches MSNBC like she needs it to live (including all the shows hosted by Republicans and idiots like Chuck Todd), but she hasn't soaked up the station's anti-Bernie sentiment at all. Democrats poll well for "trusting" the news, but I wonder how far that extends into trusting this news-adjacent stuff.
I would be grimly curious how the pundit realignment goes in 2021, if we are fortunate enough to replace Trump with Bernie. How quickly do all the NeverTrump talking heads get replaced with NeverSanders Dems with too much time on their hands?
posted by grandiloquiet at 8:44 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
This was the least surprising twist to me. Most of these people could barely bring themselves to vote for HRC last time. Plenty of didn't, and have been saying "I hope Democrats will nominate someone I can vote for next time" ever since! But one fun thing about this is maybe revealing how irrelevant some of this DC TV coverage is. Bernie is quite popular with Democrats generally and seems to get along with elected Democratic politicians (in public), so how much cable TV would a voter need to absorb to believe that the seething contempt of the NeverSanders pundit class represents views of the broader world? FWIW, my mother watches MSNBC like she needs it to live (including all the shows hosted by Republicans and idiots like Chuck Todd), but she hasn't soaked up the station's anti-Bernie sentiment at all. Democrats poll well for "trusting" the news, but I wonder how far that extends into trusting this news-adjacent stuff.
I would be grimly curious how the pundit realignment goes in 2021, if we are fortunate enough to replace Trump with Bernie. How quickly do all the NeverTrump talking heads get replaced with NeverSanders Dems with too much time on their hands?
posted by grandiloquiet at 8:44 AM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Buttigieg campaign seems to think there are errors in the Nevada counting process (not final totals but the way early vote was incorporated) that are distorting the race for second place:
“The campaign is asking the party to provide early vote and in-person vote totals by precinct, correct any early vote and second alignment errors identified by campaigns and explain other anomalies in the data before releasing any final caucus results. About half of precincts had reported as of early Sunday morning, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leading with 46.6 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden and Buttigieg a close second and third at 19.3 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively.”
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 AM on February 23, 2020
“The campaign is asking the party to provide early vote and in-person vote totals by precinct, correct any early vote and second alignment errors identified by campaigns and explain other anomalies in the data before releasing any final caucus results. About half of precincts had reported as of early Sunday morning, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leading with 46.6 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden and Buttigieg a close second and third at 19.3 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively.”
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 AM on February 23, 2020
The first thing I saw this morning as far as election news was a piece from a major outlet with the headline, which I will paraphrase as I do not wish to drive them traffic: "Nevada caucus is not the definitive factor in the election."
Which I interpreted to mean: "Sanders must have really won big, huh?"
posted by StarkRoads at 8:46 AM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
Which I interpreted to mean: "Sanders must have really won big, huh?"
posted by StarkRoads at 8:46 AM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
The Buttigieg campaign seems to think there are errors in the Nevada counting process (not final totals but the way early vote was incorporated) that are distorting the race for second place
Nevada, you have shocked the nation
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:46 AM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Nevada, you have shocked the nation
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:46 AM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
> I mean I don't know about "major leaders" but Manchin refused to say he wouldn't vote for Trump if Sanders were the nominee and then received no criticism from anyone at the top over it. Bill Gates, who is venerated by moderate Dems and considered a party authority even if he isn't an elected leader, said not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren. And now Matthews.
Bill Gates and Joe Manchin? Really? Let's at least keep the goalposts in the same stadium.
Chris Matthews speaks for Reagan Democrat boomers. Bill Gates speaks for the almighty dollar. Joe Manchin speaks for whatever keeps getting Joe Manchin elected. No actual Democratic establishment leaders have expressed one percent of the sentiment expressed above.
Conversely, this thread went from celebrating Sanders' victory to "anyone else staying in the race is trying to give us Trump" and "if the Democrats nominate someone else, we will take our ball and go home" within minutes. It's one faction of the coalition that has clearly and repeatedly threatened to withhold their vote if they don't get their candidate, even in this very thread, even after last night's victory.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:56 AM on February 23, 2020 [21 favorites]
Bill Gates and Joe Manchin? Really? Let's at least keep the goalposts in the same stadium.
Chris Matthews speaks for Reagan Democrat boomers. Bill Gates speaks for the almighty dollar. Joe Manchin speaks for whatever keeps getting Joe Manchin elected. No actual Democratic establishment leaders have expressed one percent of the sentiment expressed above.
Conversely, this thread went from celebrating Sanders' victory to "anyone else staying in the race is trying to give us Trump" and "if the Democrats nominate someone else, we will take our ball and go home" within minutes. It's one faction of the coalition that has clearly and repeatedly threatened to withhold their vote if they don't get their candidate, even in this very thread, even after last night's victory.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:56 AM on February 23, 2020 [21 favorites]
Bill Gates, who is venerated by moderate Dems and considered a party authority even if he isn't an elected leader, said not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren.
To be absolutely clear, Bill Gates never said that. The crazy hyperbole really discredits these sorts of arguments.
posted by JackFlash at 9:02 AM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
To be absolutely clear, Bill Gates never said that. The crazy hyperbole really discredits these sorts of arguments.
posted by JackFlash at 9:02 AM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
I would be grimly curious how the pundit realignment goes in 2021, if we are fortunate enough to replace Trump with Bernie. How quickly do all the NeverTrump talking heads get replaced with NeverSanders Dems with too much time on their hands?
i imagine a sanders presidency where the pundit class is abolished and they're left no choice but to take jobs where they can provide actual utility to society: chris matthews sweeps the floors at the capitol, mara liasson builds trails in the west, david brooks scrubs toilets
tell me that doesnt bring tears of joy to your eyes
posted by entropicamericana at 9:25 AM on February 23, 2020 [24 favorites]
i imagine a sanders presidency where the pundit class is abolished and they're left no choice but to take jobs where they can provide actual utility to society: chris matthews sweeps the floors at the capitol, mara liasson builds trails in the west, david brooks scrubs toilets
tell me that doesnt bring tears of joy to your eyes
posted by entropicamericana at 9:25 AM on February 23, 2020 [24 favorites]
To be absolutely clear, Bill Gates never said that. The crazy hyperbole really discredits these sorts of arguments.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:25 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
[Gates] warned that candidates who support taxing “too much” risk alienating “innovative” companies or entrepreneurs in the U.S.Where precisely is the crazy hyperbole?
Gates added that he was not sure Warren would sit down with “somebody who has large amounts of money.”
“I’m not sure how open minded she is — or that she’d even be willing to sit down with somebody who has large amounts of money,” Gates said.
Sorkin also asked Gates, who has been a vocal critic of President Trump, who he would vote for in a hypothetical match-up between Trump and Warren. Gates did not specifically endorse either.
“I’m not going to make political declarations,” Gates said. “But I do think no matter what policy somebody has in mind, a professional approach is even, as much as I disagree with some of the policy things that are out there, I do think a professional approach to the office is… whoever I decide will have the more professional approach in the current situation, probably is the thing that I will weigh the most. And I hope that the more professional candidate is an electable candidate.”
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:25 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
I feel like Bill Gates was more of the Rich Democratic Business Guy in the Clinton years, and Warren Buffett was the Rich Democratic Business Guy in the Obama years. Maybe Steyer will take on that role in the Sanders years.
posted by sallybrown at 9:30 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 9:30 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Where precisely is the crazy hyperbole?
Gates said: "I’m not going to make political declarations."
You said: "Not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren."
Stop with the bullshit.
posted by JackFlash at 9:31 AM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
Gates said: "I’m not going to make political declarations."
You said: "Not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren."
Stop with the bullshit.
posted by JackFlash at 9:31 AM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
BTW, Buffett praised Sanders in 2016 and has a CNBC interview coming up tomorrow, so he might have something to say.
posted by sallybrown at 9:32 AM on February 23, 2020
posted by sallybrown at 9:32 AM on February 23, 2020
Gates said: "I’m not going to make political declarations."
You said: "Not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren."
Stop with the bullshit.
He was asked "would you choose Warren or Trump" and explicitly refused to commit to a preference. Then he proceeded to blather ambiguous, opaque nonsense also intended to communicate that he was refusing to express said preference. He said it. Don't lay Bill's bullshit on me.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:37 AM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
You said: "Not only that he wasn't sure who he'd vote for if it's between Trump and Sanders but even if it's between Trump and Warren."
Stop with the bullshit.
He was asked "would you choose Warren or Trump" and explicitly refused to commit to a preference. Then he proceeded to blather ambiguous, opaque nonsense also intended to communicate that he was refusing to express said preference. He said it. Don't lay Bill's bullshit on me.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:37 AM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
Mod note: Leave the Bill Gates thing alone please.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:40 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:40 AM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
What about Elon Musk? He keeps posting Sanders memes on twitter, saying things like “be still my beating heart”
drops bomb, walks away in sunglasses
posted by chuntered inelegantly from a sedentary position at 9:48 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
drops bomb, walks away in sunglasses
posted by chuntered inelegantly from a sedentary position at 9:48 AM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
it's cool eventually elon musk will be purged
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 10:04 AM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 10:04 AM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
Do Warren and her supporters actually think she might be made a ‘compromise’ nominee in a second round at a contested convention, even if she has far fewer pledged delegates than multiple other candidates?
From this Warren supporter, the answer is no.
Her answer at the end of the last debate seemed to suggest this: if nobody wins an outright majority then it the nomination should be given to somebody other the plurality winner.
Her answer was the same as everyone besides Sanders.
Regardless, it was a gotcha question at the moment. In hindsight, a better answer would have been, "let's see how Super Tuesday plays out" from all candidates. But the moderators decided that, for the first time that evening, they should cut people off and force a yes/no answer.
If that’s why she hasn’t dropped out yet, then she might as well be working for Trump.
I would assume she has not dropped out yet because she still believes she can win. I have voted early for her. Her stances align very close to mine. I am sticking with Warren at least through Super Tuesday.
I was going to immediately donate to Bernie if Warren had a Super Bad Tuesday. But assuming my preferred candidate is "working for Trump" when Warren and Sanders policies align more than any other Dems in the running?
I will still donate. But, it's going to be really hard to text/phone/knock doors, if I have to explain "Vote Bernie! Sorry if some of his followers were rude."
Working for Trump?
Really.
Let's stop eating our own, please.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 10:10 AM on February 23, 2020 [38 favorites]
From this Warren supporter, the answer is no.
Her answer at the end of the last debate seemed to suggest this: if nobody wins an outright majority then it the nomination should be given to somebody other the plurality winner.
Her answer was the same as everyone besides Sanders.
Regardless, it was a gotcha question at the moment. In hindsight, a better answer would have been, "let's see how Super Tuesday plays out" from all candidates. But the moderators decided that, for the first time that evening, they should cut people off and force a yes/no answer.
If that’s why she hasn’t dropped out yet, then she might as well be working for Trump.
I would assume she has not dropped out yet because she still believes she can win. I have voted early for her. Her stances align very close to mine. I am sticking with Warren at least through Super Tuesday.
I was going to immediately donate to Bernie if Warren had a Super Bad Tuesday. But assuming my preferred candidate is "working for Trump" when Warren and Sanders policies align more than any other Dems in the running?
I will still donate. But, it's going to be really hard to text/phone/knock doors, if I have to explain "Vote Bernie! Sorry if some of his followers were rude."
Working for Trump?
Really.
Let's stop eating our own, please.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 10:10 AM on February 23, 2020 [38 favorites]
While I think it's good that Sanders solidifies his frontrunner status and we begin to transition into the general election, I also dread that this victory is gonna be a clarion for the entire Right to start preparing for their all out siege on Bernie Sanders. And I know the typical argument is that the Right will do what they've done to Democrats before and call Sanders a socialist, but that won't work because he is a socialist. However, I'm skeptical of it being that simple, and partly because Sanders was always seen as a sort of useful thorn in the side of the Democratic Party. However, that's probably going to end now and we will start to see a transition to villifying and attacking him. And I said "siege" because this will not end with him being elected, because the goal is not only to prevent him from being elected, but to also compromise his ability to do anything if he does get elected.
posted by FJT at 10:28 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 10:28 AM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
The right is always in a permanent siege mentality. If it weren't Sanders they'd hit another frontrunner equally hard. The specific attacks used will vary a bit among the few conservatives who actually care that the attacks are truthful, but the difference isn't substantial enough to outweigh the benefits of establishing yourself as the frontrunner in a crowded field.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:34 AM on February 23, 2020 [28 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:34 AM on February 23, 2020 [28 favorites]
The fact is that automation has killed actual Communism as thoroughly as it has killed capitalism. You can't really seize the means of production when they're scattered across dozens of countries.
I really wanted to return to this because I'm seeing this sort of thing pop up more and I think while well-meaning, this sentiment (whether intentional or not) obfuscates power and the billions of existing, unequal relationships between owners and non-owners.
Like a hundred million other Americans, I pay my landlord a tax every month to remain not-homeless because he owns "productive" land. That relationship will never be automated away. That "means of production" can absolutely be seized.
But it's not just the simple landlord-renter relationships that remain alive and well. Ownership might be diffuse across the globe but the Age of Imperialism has absolutely not rendered capitalism obsolete. There's a reason the US has military bases in dozens of countries - to prevent the means of production (the productive resources, the factories, etc) across the globe that are owned by Western interests from being nationalized by the workers that work them. A single entity seizing the whole chain would just be the replacement of one imperialist power by another. But just because the supply chain has become more byzantine does not mean that every worker does not have an interest in their part of production. Or, in other words, American Toyota workers can seize their factory, car battery lithium miners in Bolivia can seize their mines.
"Automation" is a tool used by capitalists to threaten wage reductions and is a distraction from the fact that there are still billions of workers who have not been automated away (and honestly, won't be anytime soon) who do not get a share of the profits. And if there is some great labor-saving automation machine, why is it always unquestioned that the workers are screwed and that the "owners" will reap the benefits in perpetuity?
It's the Yang argument, that recognizes domestic and global inequality but does not ask "Where are all the profits going? Who owns these 'automating' machines we built? Why can't exploited countries control their own resources and their own link in the supply chain?" Instead it just says, "We have transcended the owner-worker relationship. Anyways, here's a check so you can keep renting everything."
I guess I feel very strongly that capitalism still exists, the antagonisms it engenders are far from resolved, and discussions of socialism as an antidote and presidential candidates drawing attention to it are as relevant as ever.
posted by joechip at 10:46 AM on February 23, 2020 [38 favorites]
I really wanted to return to this because I'm seeing this sort of thing pop up more and I think while well-meaning, this sentiment (whether intentional or not) obfuscates power and the billions of existing, unequal relationships between owners and non-owners.
Like a hundred million other Americans, I pay my landlord a tax every month to remain not-homeless because he owns "productive" land. That relationship will never be automated away. That "means of production" can absolutely be seized.
But it's not just the simple landlord-renter relationships that remain alive and well. Ownership might be diffuse across the globe but the Age of Imperialism has absolutely not rendered capitalism obsolete. There's a reason the US has military bases in dozens of countries - to prevent the means of production (the productive resources, the factories, etc) across the globe that are owned by Western interests from being nationalized by the workers that work them. A single entity seizing the whole chain would just be the replacement of one imperialist power by another. But just because the supply chain has become more byzantine does not mean that every worker does not have an interest in their part of production. Or, in other words, American Toyota workers can seize their factory, car battery lithium miners in Bolivia can seize their mines.
"Automation" is a tool used by capitalists to threaten wage reductions and is a distraction from the fact that there are still billions of workers who have not been automated away (and honestly, won't be anytime soon) who do not get a share of the profits. And if there is some great labor-saving automation machine, why is it always unquestioned that the workers are screwed and that the "owners" will reap the benefits in perpetuity?
It's the Yang argument, that recognizes domestic and global inequality but does not ask "Where are all the profits going? Who owns these 'automating' machines we built? Why can't exploited countries control their own resources and their own link in the supply chain?" Instead it just says, "We have transcended the owner-worker relationship. Anyways, here's a check so you can keep renting everything."
I guess I feel very strongly that capitalism still exists, the antagonisms it engenders are far from resolved, and discussions of socialism as an antidote and presidential candidates drawing attention to it are as relevant as ever.
posted by joechip at 10:46 AM on February 23, 2020 [38 favorites]
If that’s why she hasn’t dropped out yet, then she might as well be working for Trump.
That's just a disgusting thing to say; why would anyone think that? She's in it because she thinks that she the best candidate for the job and feels like she still has a chance. If and when it becomes mathematically or financially impossible for her to continue, she'll undoubtedly endorse the nominee and work as hard as she can to make sure that candidate beats Trump.
posted by octothorpe at 10:57 AM on February 23, 2020 [35 favorites]
That's just a disgusting thing to say; why would anyone think that? She's in it because she thinks that she the best candidate for the job and feels like she still has a chance. If and when it becomes mathematically or financially impossible for her to continue, she'll undoubtedly endorse the nominee and work as hard as she can to make sure that candidate beats Trump.
posted by octothorpe at 10:57 AM on February 23, 2020 [35 favorites]
Let us recall that there was... not so long ago... a candidate who was considered unelectable by the Main Establishment, due to race and a funny middle name, but who had an uncanny ability to get people motivated to believe in a better tomorrow, regardless of where they happened to live.
Recall that 2004 was Dean v Kerry, which chose The Establishment candidate and bombed. 2008's Obama v Clinton then went with the motivating outsider and crushed it, pulling huge numbers of votes across party lines, even in the red states. My guess is that 2016 was the equivalent of 2004: dems went with the establishment candidate and (narrowly!) lost.
Furthermore, I would argue that running an establishment candidate just makes the race 'dems vs republicans' and therefore ignorable, which is the worst possible place to be right now, in this moment.
Will the repugnantcans cry about the socialist and call him names? Absolutely. But it's also going to be real easy to make the case that Trump hasn't actually been working for the working class. And that's a harder argument to make if you put another billionaire on the stage against him...
posted by kaibutsu at 11:13 AM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
Recall that 2004 was Dean v Kerry, which chose The Establishment candidate and bombed. 2008's Obama v Clinton then went with the motivating outsider and crushed it, pulling huge numbers of votes across party lines, even in the red states. My guess is that 2016 was the equivalent of 2004: dems went with the establishment candidate and (narrowly!) lost.
Furthermore, I would argue that running an establishment candidate just makes the race 'dems vs republicans' and therefore ignorable, which is the worst possible place to be right now, in this moment.
Will the repugnantcans cry about the socialist and call him names? Absolutely. But it's also going to be real easy to make the case that Trump hasn't actually been working for the working class. And that's a harder argument to make if you put another billionaire on the stage against him...
posted by kaibutsu at 11:13 AM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
In other news, Krugman seems pretty chill with everything.
posted by ropeladder at 11:21 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by ropeladder at 11:21 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
But it's also going to be real easy to make the case that Trump hasn't actually been working for the working class.
Easy? There's a passage in Michael Moore's (yes, I know, just bear with me) book, "Stupid White Men" where it goes a little something like this:
Power only protects power. The hegemony of white power in this country has only been inertia from colonialism. As the Asian and Arab countries have come into wealth, their powerful have been absorbed into the ranks of the elite much like the Irish and Italians were absorbed into the mantle of whiteness when the KKK realized they needed more allies.
I'm kind of thankful I figured all this out at 20 when I could sheepishly continue on by disavowing any sort of racial animus going forward while I could look back at my wanton and micro-aggressive acts of racism as some sort of childish ignorance. Realizing this at 40, or worse, 60, must make you feel pretty fucking stupid because you were supposedly an educated adult and chose to act like a racist fuckwit. Sadly, this only makes it harder to kill the myth that rich white guys are looking out for all straight white guys.
Damned if I know how to fix it but I doubt it's going to be easy to appeal to an electorate that's fully aware of their engaging in delusion, hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty in the name of contrarianism.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Easy? There's a passage in Michael Moore's (yes, I know, just bear with me) book, "Stupid White Men" where it goes a little something like this:
Yet as I look back on my life, a strange but unmistakable pattern seems to emerge. Every person who has ever harmed me in my lifetime - the boss who fired me, the teacher who flunked me, the principal who punished me, the kid who hit me in the eye with a rock, the executive who didn't renew TV Nation, the guy who was stalking me for three years, the accountant who double-paid my taxes, the drunk who smashed into me, the burglar who stole my stereo, the contractor who overcharged me, the girlfriend who left me, the next girlfriend who left even sooner, the person in the office who stole cheques from my chequebook and wrote them out to himself for a total of $16,000 - every one of these individuals has been a white person. Coincidence? I think not.As a 20 year old know-it-all trying to find his feet in the world, I was looking for direction and boy howdy did I find it. That passage basically hit home for me why white nationalism is just a straight fucking lie and not to be engaged in any sort of form. White men vote other rich, white, men because they believe in some sort of racial fraternity. That they can use their shibboleths to ensure they all have power. This couldn't be any more further from the truth as has been demonstrated by the last forty years as the rich have decided to ramp up into some sort of capital endgame.
I have never been attacked by a black person, never been evicted by a black person, never had my security deposit ripped off by a black landlord, never had a black landlord, never had a meeting at a Hollywood studio with a black executive in charge, never had a black person deny my child the college of her choice, never been puked on by a black teenager at a Mötley Crüe concert, never been pulled over by a black cop, never been sold a lemon by a black car salesman, never seen a black car salesman, never had a black person deny me a bank loan, and I've never heard a black person say, "We're going to eliminate 10,000 jobs here - have a nice day!"
Power only protects power. The hegemony of white power in this country has only been inertia from colonialism. As the Asian and Arab countries have come into wealth, their powerful have been absorbed into the ranks of the elite much like the Irish and Italians were absorbed into the mantle of whiteness when the KKK realized they needed more allies.
I'm kind of thankful I figured all this out at 20 when I could sheepishly continue on by disavowing any sort of racial animus going forward while I could look back at my wanton and micro-aggressive acts of racism as some sort of childish ignorance. Realizing this at 40, or worse, 60, must make you feel pretty fucking stupid because you were supposedly an educated adult and chose to act like a racist fuckwit. Sadly, this only makes it harder to kill the myth that rich white guys are looking out for all straight white guys.
Damned if I know how to fix it but I doubt it's going to be easy to appeal to an electorate that's fully aware of their engaging in delusion, hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty in the name of contrarianism.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Bernie has a pretty good comeback for the socialist/communist smear.
Will Saletan
Chuck Todd: They're going to say you will appease socialists ...
Sanders: We got a president ... who's cozying up to the autocrat, Putin. Who says nice things about Kim Jong-un ... You want to talk about cozying up to communists around the world? It ain't me. It is Donald Trump.
posted by chris24 at 12:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [29 favorites]
Will Saletan
Chuck Todd: They're going to say you will appease socialists ...
Sanders: We got a president ... who's cozying up to the autocrat, Putin. Who says nice things about Kim Jong-un ... You want to talk about cozying up to communists around the world? It ain't me. It is Donald Trump.
posted by chris24 at 12:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [29 favorites]
It's been interesting reading about MSNBC's reactions to this. My mom has been mainlining MSNBC for literally years; she turns it on in the morning while she's making her coffee and turns it off when she goes to bed.
Or she did. A few weeks ago she told me she turned it off and started watching HGTV instead. She was angry because she felt they were erasing Warren and slamming Sanders far too much. And she's not a big Sanders fan, but their treatment of him turned her off, possibly permanently.
I do wonder how this affects their ratings, because she also has a Nielsen box.
posted by rednikki at 12:08 PM on February 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
Or she did. A few weeks ago she told me she turned it off and started watching HGTV instead. She was angry because she felt they were erasing Warren and slamming Sanders far too much. And she's not a big Sanders fan, but their treatment of him turned her off, possibly permanently.
I do wonder how this affects their ratings, because she also has a Nielsen box.
posted by rednikki at 12:08 PM on February 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
She's in it because she thinks that she the best candidate for the job and feels like she still has a chance.
And who else was going to take Bloomberg to task (with such aplomb!) at the debate for being Trump in blue?
posted by avalonian at 12:22 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
And who else was going to take Bloomberg to task (with such aplomb!) at the debate for being Trump in blue?
posted by avalonian at 12:22 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
I think Warren's particular skill, which in my opinion makes her the most formidable GE opponent, is to be able to explain things in a particular way that helps people get on her wavelength. It makes people not just understand what she wants to do but also believe it's possible and that it's the right thing to do.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:26 PM on February 23, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:26 PM on February 23, 2020 [24 favorites]
Mod note: Couple deleted. What if we just chose not to have the same fight again? That would be swell. A way to achieve that would be to choose to steer the conversation not toward something bad (e.g. someone said a thing you think is ridiculous), but toward something good (someone said something useful or insightful or correct or illuminating or worthwhile etc).
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:56 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:56 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
Warren had a strong performance in the last debate but it was too late to benefit her in the Nevada caucus because most people had already voted early. That could help her on in South Carolina and Super Tuesday.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:37 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 1:37 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Warren had a strong performance in the last debate but it was too late to benefit her in the Nevada caucus because most people had already voted early. That could help her on in South Carolina and Super Tuesday.
I really hope so. It's so much about the prevailing narrative, and the people who set that narrative have to feel like they can't dismiss her.
She is so far and away the best candidate for President currently running that it makes my heart sick to think that this momentum could be too late or too little.
There was a really interesting thread about how the press covering Warren's campaign is interested in her new aggressive posture because it contrasts with "speeches about toasters." Because apparently Warren has been using toasters in her stump speech as an example of when things are and are not regulated (contrasting them with mortgages) in a way that is a core animating principle of her candidacy, and it's incredibly enlightening and insightful, and yet the people covering her campaign just...don't bother covering it, because they don't think it's that interesting. And as a result it never makes its way to anyone who isn't there in person. It's really sad.
See this thread; I think it's pretty incredible.
posted by Gadarene at 1:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [21 favorites]
I really hope so. It's so much about the prevailing narrative, and the people who set that narrative have to feel like they can't dismiss her.
She is so far and away the best candidate for President currently running that it makes my heart sick to think that this momentum could be too late or too little.
There was a really interesting thread about how the press covering Warren's campaign is interested in her new aggressive posture because it contrasts with "speeches about toasters." Because apparently Warren has been using toasters in her stump speech as an example of when things are and are not regulated (contrasting them with mortgages) in a way that is a core animating principle of her candidacy, and it's incredibly enlightening and insightful, and yet the people covering her campaign just...don't bother covering it, because they don't think it's that interesting. And as a result it never makes its way to anyone who isn't there in person. It's really sad.
See this thread; I think it's pretty incredible.
posted by Gadarene at 1:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [21 favorites]
I am sorry that my earlier comment about Warren was misinterpreted: if she is in the race to become the nominee on the basis of having the most pledged delegates than that is a perfectly valid objective, although clearly that a very low-probability scenario given her current national polling and lack of funds this close to Super Tuesday. Alternatively Warren knows that she won’t be the nominee but is staying in the race for some other reason, whatever that might be.
However if she is in the race to become the nominee on the basis of being a second-round ‘compromise candidate’ who can ‘bring all sides of the party together’ in the event that Sanders falls short of a majority, well, the reason I’d describe that as ‘working for Trump’ is because it would absolutely guarantee a Trump win. If Sanders reaches the convention with the most delegates, which is very likely, then his supporters will not recognise any other nominee as legitimate and will not vote for them, whether it’s Warren or Biden or anyone else.
posted by moorooka at 2:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
However if she is in the race to become the nominee on the basis of being a second-round ‘compromise candidate’ who can ‘bring all sides of the party together’ in the event that Sanders falls short of a majority, well, the reason I’d describe that as ‘working for Trump’ is because it would absolutely guarantee a Trump win. If Sanders reaches the convention with the most delegates, which is very likely, then his supporters will not recognise any other nominee as legitimate and will not vote for them, whether it’s Warren or Biden or anyone else.
posted by moorooka at 2:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Warren has plenty of funds, by the way; she's shattered fundraising goals recently.
And if Sanders reaches the convention with, say, 35 percent of total delegates, with the others split 20 percent, 15 percent, 15 percent, and 15 percent among Bloomberg/Buttigieg/Biden/Warren, then any Sanders voter operating in good faith should recognize that coalescing around Warren, if necessary, is a hell of a lot better for their policy goals than a backroom deal that elevates one of the feckless spineless centrists to the nomination (especially Bloomberg, who WILL get killed in the general).
posted by Gadarene at 2:19 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
And if Sanders reaches the convention with, say, 35 percent of total delegates, with the others split 20 percent, 15 percent, 15 percent, and 15 percent among Bloomberg/Buttigieg/Biden/Warren, then any Sanders voter operating in good faith should recognize that coalescing around Warren, if necessary, is a hell of a lot better for their policy goals than a backroom deal that elevates one of the feckless spineless centrists to the nomination (especially Bloomberg, who WILL get killed in the general).
posted by Gadarene at 2:19 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
These are results from very non-representative states and processes. There's not much to learn from them. There's some small validity to "momentum" but it's accelerated by horse race commentary in the press and, franky, here.
I'm fine with whomever comes out as the winner and for now I'm a Warren stan. As far as I'm concerned, the race is still wide open among the frontrunners and it's really premature to call this race. Now is not the time to ponder hypotheticals about the convention. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm fine with whomever comes out as the winner and for now I'm a Warren stan. As far as I'm concerned, the race is still wide open among the frontrunners and it's really premature to call this race. Now is not the time to ponder hypotheticals about the convention. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
Right. A plurality at the convention isn’t very meaningful if it’s 30-25-20. If someone reaches 40% and no one else is within 15, then it’s a different story.
And in 2016 Sanders wanted superdelegates to go against the person who had a majority of delegates, so insisting that they stick with someone with a plurality in 2020 is a bit hypocritical.
posted by chris24 at 2:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
And in 2016 Sanders wanted superdelegates to go against the person who had a majority of delegates, so insisting that they stick with someone with a plurality in 2020 is a bit hypocritical.
posted by chris24 at 2:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Literally the reason we’ve had party conventions for like 190 years is to get everybody together and figure out a candidate if there’s no consensus choice. It’s a lot less opaque and a lot more democratic than it used to be, but if there’s not a clear winner, then everybody brings all the delegates they can so they can have some say in what happens.
Also, if it takes more than one ballot, it’ll probably take more than two. It took the Republicans 3 ballots to nominate Lincoln in 1860, and it took the Democrats and their ill-advised 2/3 requirement 102 ballots in 1924.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Also, if it takes more than one ballot, it’ll probably take more than two. It took the Republicans 3 ballots to nominate Lincoln in 1860, and it took the Democrats and their ill-advised 2/3 requirement 102 ballots in 1924.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Good or bad, right or wrong, hypocritical or not, Sanders supporters will not vote for a candidate who reaches the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Sanders. They won’t do it, and that fact needs to be acknowledged in the event that decisions need to be made at a brokered convention.
posted by moorooka at 2:41 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 2:41 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
Sanders has a lot of support beyond the socialist left or else he wouldn’t be leading now, so you don’t speak for all his voters. And talking like this now - threatening, holding hostage - is not the way a front runner builds a coalition that will win a general election.
posted by chris24 at 2:45 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 2:45 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
Sanders supporters will not vote for a candidate who reaches the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Sanders.
This is the most Bernie-bro stereotype I've ever seen and I don't believe it to be true at all. At the end of the day there are three choices, D, R, or stay home (third party comes to the same thing). There's a small fraction of anyone's supporters who'll just stay home and sulk or cast a protest third-party vote, but I can't imagine for an instant that a Bernie supporter would vote for Trump.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:49 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
This is the most Bernie-bro stereotype I've ever seen and I don't believe it to be true at all. At the end of the day there are three choices, D, R, or stay home (third party comes to the same thing). There's a small fraction of anyone's supporters who'll just stay home and sulk or cast a protest third-party vote, but I can't imagine for an instant that a Bernie supporter would vote for Trump.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:49 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
While I'm not aware of any polling on that particular question, one January poll found that 53% of Bernie's supporters would support a non-Sanders Democratic nominee (compare to 90% for Warren, 87% and 86% for Biden and Buttigieg, and 50% for Andrew Yang). Another 31% said it depends on who the nominee is, while only 16% offered a solid 'no.'
posted by box at 2:53 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by box at 2:53 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
(Although, in the extremely unlikely case that the Dems end up nominating Bloomberg, that argument goes out the window. But that won't happen. They'll either vote for the Dem or they'll stay home and sulk.)
posted by sjswitzer at 2:55 PM on February 23, 2020
posted by sjswitzer at 2:55 PM on February 23, 2020
Sanders supporters will not vote for a candidate who reaches the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Sanders.
If true, this is a very bad sign of cultism which has a very bad history. Especially when the cult leader is a guy with a bad ticker.
posted by JackFlash at 2:57 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
If true, this is a very bad sign of cultism which has a very bad history. Especially when the cult leader is a guy with a bad ticker.
posted by JackFlash at 2:57 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Let’s not confuse two different outcomes. I am not talking about the scenario in which Sanders arrives at the convention with fewer pledged delegates than somebody else, in which case I think the proportion of his supporters who would refuse to vote for the nominee would be much lower, because it would be much more difficult to argue against the legitimacy of the nomination.
But if Sanders arrives at the convention with the most delegates then the backlash will be enormous and the Party will be over. Picking a runner-up to prevent a Sanders nomination is as good as re-electing Trump. You can describe this as threatening and holding hostage, but it’s actually just the way it is. This is the reality you have to work with, you cannot wish it away because it’s unfair and unreasonable.
And I am not ‘speaking for’ anybody, and obviously I don’t mean to say that none of Sanders’ supporters would vote for another candidate foisted on them by a second-round at the convention. But there is absolutely no doubt that enough of his supporters would prefer to see the Party destroyed than get behind somebody who had fewer pledged delegates and was selected to prevent Sanders becoming the nominee. No matter who it is, it will absolutely guarantee a loss to Trump.
posted by moorooka at 2:58 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
But if Sanders arrives at the convention with the most delegates then the backlash will be enormous and the Party will be over. Picking a runner-up to prevent a Sanders nomination is as good as re-electing Trump. You can describe this as threatening and holding hostage, but it’s actually just the way it is. This is the reality you have to work with, you cannot wish it away because it’s unfair and unreasonable.
And I am not ‘speaking for’ anybody, and obviously I don’t mean to say that none of Sanders’ supporters would vote for another candidate foisted on them by a second-round at the convention. But there is absolutely no doubt that enough of his supporters would prefer to see the Party destroyed than get behind somebody who had fewer pledged delegates and was selected to prevent Sanders becoming the nominee. No matter who it is, it will absolutely guarantee a loss to Trump.
posted by moorooka at 2:58 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:00 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:00 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
They won’t do it, and that fact needs to be acknowledged in the event that decisions need to be made at a brokered convention.
moorooka, this doesn’t comport with nearly any of the Bernie supporters I know. If this is how you feel, take ownership of that fact (and the lumps that will come with it), but please cut the crap with pretending to speak for a group of millions.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:00 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
moorooka, this doesn’t comport with nearly any of the Bernie supporters I know. If this is how you feel, take ownership of that fact (and the lumps that will come with it), but please cut the crap with pretending to speak for a group of millions.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:00 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Sanders has already lost a convention and threw his support behind the candidate. I don't have any data on what his stans did, but surely most voted for Hillary and some small fraction stayed home. Vanishingly few voted for Trump.
If he loses again, by a process he's agreed to in a party he's not a member of... I expect he'll do the same again. And if the candidate happens to be Warren, well, their stances aren't all that different anyway.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
If he loses again, by a process he's agreed to in a party he's not a member of... I expect he'll do the same again. And if the candidate happens to be Warren, well, their stances aren't all that different anyway.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
This is the most Bernie-bro stereotype I've ever seen and I don't believe it to be true at all. At the end of the day there are three choices, D, R, or stay home (third party comes to the same thing). There's a small fraction of anyone's supporters who'll just stay home and sulk or cast a protest third-party vote, but I can't imagine for an instant that a Bernie supporter would vote for Trump.
Ideologically committed supporters who post on MeFi? Almost certainly not. In that group even if you're "Bernie or Bust" that probably means "Bernie or third party," or "Bernie or leave the presidential choice blank and vote downballot." When it comes to the broader electorate, though, there are certainly going to be Bernie <> Trump voters (just like there were Obama -> Trump voters) as well as Bernie -> [anyone else] voters. Because it's not just about ideology, but rhetoric and image and god knows what else.
Anyway I still think it would be great if Sanders and Warren could end up in the same administration, but I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which it works to the Dems' advantage for her to replace him at the top of the ticket if he's leading going into the convention - especially if she's still in third or fourth at that point. That's the sort of compromise that seems sensible in theory and likely pleases nobody in practice. Having to be the sensible-in-theory left-liberal compromise candidate has been a major reason Warren has had trouble establishing a clear lane, IMO.
posted by atoxyl at 3:04 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ideologically committed supporters who post on MeFi? Almost certainly not. In that group even if you're "Bernie or Bust" that probably means "Bernie or third party," or "Bernie or leave the presidential choice blank and vote downballot." When it comes to the broader electorate, though, there are certainly going to be Bernie <> Trump voters (just like there were Obama -> Trump voters) as well as Bernie -> [anyone else] voters. Because it's not just about ideology, but rhetoric and image and god knows what else.
Anyway I still think it would be great if Sanders and Warren could end up in the same administration, but I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which it works to the Dems' advantage for her to replace him at the top of the ticket if he's leading going into the convention - especially if she's still in third or fourth at that point. That's the sort of compromise that seems sensible in theory and likely pleases nobody in practice. Having to be the sensible-in-theory left-liberal compromise candidate has been a major reason Warren has had trouble establishing a clear lane, IMO.
posted by atoxyl at 3:04 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sanders has a lot of support beyond the socialist left or else he wouldn’t be leading now, so you don’t speak for all his voters. And talking like this now - threatening, holding hostage - is not the way a front runner builds a coalition that will win a general election.
I mean, Sanders himself is encouraging this kind of thing, with tweets announcing that the “Democratic establishment won’t stop us,” by which he presumably means the Senators he’d need to pass any of his policies, so I’m not sure he’s super interested in building coalitions. This strategy worked for Trump (sort of) because he’s an authoritarian bully who can destroy any given Republican’s political career at will. It’s not clear to me if Sanders thinks the same strategy will work for him with the same tactics or with some other tactics, but the left doesn’t function by those authoritarian rules (traditionally, anyway), so I don’t know that that’s going to work out for him.
posted by schadenfrau at 3:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
I mean, Sanders himself is encouraging this kind of thing, with tweets announcing that the “Democratic establishment won’t stop us,” by which he presumably means the Senators he’d need to pass any of his policies, so I’m not sure he’s super interested in building coalitions. This strategy worked for Trump (sort of) because he’s an authoritarian bully who can destroy any given Republican’s political career at will. It’s not clear to me if Sanders thinks the same strategy will work for him with the same tactics or with some other tactics, but the left doesn’t function by those authoritarian rules (traditionally, anyway), so I don’t know that that’s going to work out for him.
posted by schadenfrau at 3:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
You can describe this as threatening and holding hostage, but it’s actually just the way it is.
[...]
No matter who it is, it will absolutely guarantee a loss to Trump.
Do you care to back up any of these assertions with reasoning or citations or anything like that, or are you just swearing by your own emotions because they’re really, really, really strong?
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:07 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
[...]
No matter who it is, it will absolutely guarantee a loss to Trump.
Do you care to back up any of these assertions with reasoning or citations or anything like that, or are you just swearing by your own emotions because they’re really, really, really strong?
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:07 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
If Sanders comes to the convention with a plurality, it would be insane to ditch him for a "compromise candidate." It would be (rightly) seen as subverting democratic will. If Warren or anyone else (I'm looking at you, Bloomberg) is hoping for a non-win-win, I would say that would rip the Democratic Party apart.*
However, if Bernie comes in at 35% and another candidate is at 25% or something, it might change the terms with which Sanders is nominated. For example, the convention could say, Yes, you are the presidential nominee, but since you don't have a majority, we want you to take Warren as the VP nominee to sew up the delegates for a majority. I think that's reasonable; not removing Sanders, but coalitioning with Sanders on new terms. If Sanders shows up with 45% delegates and no one pierces 30%, I would say that Sanders really shouldn't have to concede anything; he has the ascendant vision of the party and should dictate terms.
For many Sanders supports (such as me), my primary isn't about Sanders winning (I think he will), but by how much will he win, giving him more authority to establish the campaign.
* I would like to point out that I don't really believe the Democratic Party is a "party" in the purist sense. There aren't dues; there's no membership; the platform is mostly aspirational and not binding; elected officials can pretty much do what they want. The Dems exist as a ballot line first and foremost for a large umbrella of ideologies. This is one of the reasons that people railing on Bernie not being a Dem doesn't make sense. You can't win as a non-Democrat or Republican, so the state-sanctioned ballot line is just a tool for people to take their ideologies and records to the public. If I'm not mistaken, "parties" can't even eject someone that fails to live up to their standards (remember that Nazi that got a Republican nomination and the Republicans couldn't do anything other than ask people not to vote for him?) Something like the DSA or a few caucuses are slowly starting to become traditional parties that have loyalty and discipline, so maybe we'll see that develop, especially if ranked-choice voting continues to spread.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:07 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
However, if Bernie comes in at 35% and another candidate is at 25% or something, it might change the terms with which Sanders is nominated. For example, the convention could say, Yes, you are the presidential nominee, but since you don't have a majority, we want you to take Warren as the VP nominee to sew up the delegates for a majority. I think that's reasonable; not removing Sanders, but coalitioning with Sanders on new terms. If Sanders shows up with 45% delegates and no one pierces 30%, I would say that Sanders really shouldn't have to concede anything; he has the ascendant vision of the party and should dictate terms.
For many Sanders supports (such as me), my primary isn't about Sanders winning (I think he will), but by how much will he win, giving him more authority to establish the campaign.
* I would like to point out that I don't really believe the Democratic Party is a "party" in the purist sense. There aren't dues; there's no membership; the platform is mostly aspirational and not binding; elected officials can pretty much do what they want. The Dems exist as a ballot line first and foremost for a large umbrella of ideologies. This is one of the reasons that people railing on Bernie not being a Dem doesn't make sense. You can't win as a non-Democrat or Republican, so the state-sanctioned ballot line is just a tool for people to take their ideologies and records to the public. If I'm not mistaken, "parties" can't even eject someone that fails to live up to their standards (remember that Nazi that got a Republican nomination and the Republicans couldn't do anything other than ask people not to vote for him?) Something like the DSA or a few caucuses are slowly starting to become traditional parties that have loyalty and discipline, so maybe we'll see that develop, especially if ranked-choice voting continues to spread.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:07 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
Again, in 2016 Sanders did not have the most delegates, so that is not a relevant comparison. I am talking about a scenario in which he does have the most delegates, but is denied the nomination. Whether you call it cultism or simple loyalty, it needs to be factored by the convention’s decision-makers. Certainly some of his supporters will swallow their pride and vote for whatever runner-up they’re told to vote for, but enough won’t, to say nothing of the willingness to actually campaign and donate. Telling them that “Warren is the same” won’t cut it, because everyone will be able to observe that Warren was only made the nominee to prevent Sanders being the nominee.
posted by moorooka at 3:10 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 3:10 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Ana Maria Archila (who elevator pitched Jeff Flake during Kavanaugh hearings) gave a short pitch at a caucus yesterday ... and won over a supporter. (Twitter link with embedded video 2min 18sec).
Story about a dilating pregnant woman who refused to go to the hospital until she caucused (Twitter link with story told on video 1min50sec)
The sigh in the hostage lost reporter clip posted earlier was pretty funny. There is also a further clip where she was fighting some big emotions and swallowing hard to keep from bursting out in tears at the horrors she was witnessing. (Twitter link to video 30sec (hopefully or it is like the fourth tweet in a threaded tweet))
Naturally top Sanders officials took to Twitter in the sigh meme war. (Twitter video 8sec)
How Bernie Sanders's Outreach into Latino Neighborhoods Is Working
The reporter Stephania Taladrid speaks with Latino voters in Nevada who affectionately call the Vermont senator “Tio Bernie.” (short documentary style New Yorker video 5min52sec)
There is no coverage of Warren. The only good thing I have seen recently was a press gaggle aboard her bus as she headed to a rally in Texas filmed by CSPAN. So just seeing 45minutes of uninterrupted dialogue and all her thoughtful intelligent answers, that are chopped to 20 seconds or not even aired, was at least nice. But the game has changed and she needed to let the camera roll for herself and broadcast herself ... long form. Not everyone can travel to events so broadcast to include people in the journey. Sanders knew he wouldn't get a fair shot with the corporate media (I think yesterday was good evidence of heads exploding and eyes blinking for clarity in a world of confusion on CNN and MSNBC). So he broadcasts himself and people then use the material to make music videos and ads and memes and stuff. But it also serves to deliver a clear message. His supporters know the issues inside and out.
I am totally team Nernie but have absolutely no problem with Warren going all the way to the convention.
In 2016 I knew it was over when Clinton called Harry Reid who then called the casino owners to make sure their union members were caucusing. That is inside politics. It sucks from the outside, but for the players ... you make a phone call, you swing an election ... it is pure power. Of course there are now favors in play as well. Remember that time you called me ... well now I need a favor. The workers were pawns being played by the elites. That is politics and Clinton had done the connection building to be able to pull the strings of power. But I felt that Bernie should be allowed to continue and deliver his message because that was the entire original purpose. It just caught more fire than expected. So it fucking sucked hearing how he needed to go. Let them run as far as they like then we welcome them. Or to quote phillip agnew
celebrate every victory like we've been here before and we'll be here again.
we win with grace.
posted by phoque at 3:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Story about a dilating pregnant woman who refused to go to the hospital until she caucused (Twitter link with story told on video 1min50sec)
The sigh in the hostage lost reporter clip posted earlier was pretty funny. There is also a further clip where she was fighting some big emotions and swallowing hard to keep from bursting out in tears at the horrors she was witnessing. (Twitter link to video 30sec (hopefully or it is like the fourth tweet in a threaded tweet))
Naturally top Sanders officials took to Twitter in the sigh meme war. (Twitter video 8sec)
How Bernie Sanders's Outreach into Latino Neighborhoods Is Working
The reporter Stephania Taladrid speaks with Latino voters in Nevada who affectionately call the Vermont senator “Tio Bernie.” (short documentary style New Yorker video 5min52sec)
There is no coverage of Warren. The only good thing I have seen recently was a press gaggle aboard her bus as she headed to a rally in Texas filmed by CSPAN. So just seeing 45minutes of uninterrupted dialogue and all her thoughtful intelligent answers, that are chopped to 20 seconds or not even aired, was at least nice. But the game has changed and she needed to let the camera roll for herself and broadcast herself ... long form. Not everyone can travel to events so broadcast to include people in the journey. Sanders knew he wouldn't get a fair shot with the corporate media (I think yesterday was good evidence of heads exploding and eyes blinking for clarity in a world of confusion on CNN and MSNBC). So he broadcasts himself and people then use the material to make music videos and ads and memes and stuff. But it also serves to deliver a clear message. His supporters know the issues inside and out.
I am totally team Nernie but have absolutely no problem with Warren going all the way to the convention.
In 2016 I knew it was over when Clinton called Harry Reid who then called the casino owners to make sure their union members were caucusing. That is inside politics. It sucks from the outside, but for the players ... you make a phone call, you swing an election ... it is pure power. Of course there are now favors in play as well. Remember that time you called me ... well now I need a favor. The workers were pawns being played by the elites. That is politics and Clinton had done the connection building to be able to pull the strings of power. But I felt that Bernie should be allowed to continue and deliver his message because that was the entire original purpose. It just caught more fire than expected. So it fucking sucked hearing how he needed to go. Let them run as far as they like then we welcome them. Or to quote phillip agnew
celebrate every victory like we've been here before and we'll be here again.
we win with grace.
posted by phoque at 3:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sanders has already lost a convention and threw his support behind the candidate.
Support is doing a lot of work there. He supported Hillary like Ted Kennedy “supported” Carter back in 1980.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
Support is doing a lot of work there. He supported Hillary like Ted Kennedy “supported” Carter back in 1980.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
If Sanders comes to the convention with a plurality, it would be insane to ditch him for a "compromise candidate." It would be (rightly) seen as subverting democratic will.
How can you assert that a plurality is the democratic will? In that case the democratic will by mathematical definition is someone other than Sanders.
In that case you have to have to check everyone's second choices, which is what the convention is for. And it is just possible that the majority, the democratic will, selects someone other than Sanders.
The whole point of requiring a majority instead of a plurality is in order to ensure the selection of a candidate that is acceptable to the most people.
posted by JackFlash at 3:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
How can you assert that a plurality is the democratic will? In that case the democratic will by mathematical definition is someone other than Sanders.
In that case you have to have to check everyone's second choices, which is what the convention is for. And it is just possible that the majority, the democratic will, selects someone other than Sanders.
The whole point of requiring a majority instead of a plurality is in order to ensure the selection of a candidate that is acceptable to the most people.
posted by JackFlash at 3:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
I'd cheerfully vote in the general for most of the people running, and grudgingly vote for the others. PROVIDED THEY GO TO THE CONVENTION WITH THE MOST VOTES If they can beat current front runner Sanders fair and square so be it.
But if a leftist, which means Sanders or Warren and most likely Sanders, goes to the convention with the most votes but is not the nominee... I'm a pragmatist, I'd fuss and rant and rave but I'd vote for the person who stole the nomination because we must stop Trump.
However, there are many people who are not so pragmatic. I think the Democratic Party elites would not just lose the 2020 Presidential contest, but also their House majority and any chance at the Senate, and quite likely doom the Party if they decided that their bitter hatred of the left is so great that they deny the nomination to a leftist with the most votes.
It'd prove every conspiracy theory the Sanders people have is 100% correct and drive the left from the Democratic Party forever.
People say Sanders can't win without the "moderate" (read, right wing) branch of the Party. They're probably right. But no Democrat can win without the left. I see scum like Carville and Matthews talking about beating Sanders like it's a task more important than beating Trump and I'm terrified because I see them plotting the doom of the Democratic Party.
If a leftist goes to the convention with a plurality and is denied the nomination Trump will win and the Democratic Party will die.
posted by sotonohito at 3:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
But if a leftist, which means Sanders or Warren and most likely Sanders, goes to the convention with the most votes but is not the nominee... I'm a pragmatist, I'd fuss and rant and rave but I'd vote for the person who stole the nomination because we must stop Trump.
However, there are many people who are not so pragmatic. I think the Democratic Party elites would not just lose the 2020 Presidential contest, but also their House majority and any chance at the Senate, and quite likely doom the Party if they decided that their bitter hatred of the left is so great that they deny the nomination to a leftist with the most votes.
It'd prove every conspiracy theory the Sanders people have is 100% correct and drive the left from the Democratic Party forever.
People say Sanders can't win without the "moderate" (read, right wing) branch of the Party. They're probably right. But no Democrat can win without the left. I see scum like Carville and Matthews talking about beating Sanders like it's a task more important than beating Trump and I'm terrified because I see them plotting the doom of the Democratic Party.
If a leftist goes to the convention with a plurality and is denied the nomination Trump will win and the Democratic Party will die.
posted by sotonohito at 3:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
Sanders has already lost a convention and threw his support behind the candidate. I don't have any data on what his stans did, but surely most voted for Hillary and some small fraction stayed home. Vanishingly few voted for Trump.
Well...More Clinton supporters in 2008 voted for McCain over Obama than Sanders supporters voted for Trump over Clinton in 2016.
Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.
An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)
Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.
posted by Jimbob at 3:16 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Well...More Clinton supporters in 2008 voted for McCain over Obama than Sanders supporters voted for Trump over Clinton in 2016.
Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.
An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)
Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.
posted by Jimbob at 3:16 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Support is doing a lot of work there. He supported Hillary like Ted Kennedy “supported” Carter back in 1980.
I'm not super-familiar with the issue, but this article from November 4th, 2016 doesn't make it sound that way at all.
posted by clawsoon at 3:20 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
I'm not super-familiar with the issue, but this article from November 4th, 2016 doesn't make it sound that way at all.
posted by clawsoon at 3:20 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
At some level I don't even care who wins (as long as it's not Bloomberg). There's a bully-pulpit aspect to the presidency and that counts for something, but unless we retake the Senate, it pretty much doesn't matter what the president wants to do as long as it isn't Trump.
People's efforts and attention are better spent on Senate races. (And also for this reason I'm no fan of either Bernie or Warren taking the other as a VP. They are both more effective in the Senate than they'd be as the mostly ceremonial VP.)
There's a very good question of which candidate would have better coattails, but I have no coherent thoughts on that.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:21 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
People's efforts and attention are better spent on Senate races. (And also for this reason I'm no fan of either Bernie or Warren taking the other as a VP. They are both more effective in the Senate than they'd be as the mostly ceremonial VP.)
There's a very good question of which candidate would have better coattails, but I have no coherent thoughts on that.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:21 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Support is doing a lot of work there. He supported Hillary like Ted Kennedy “supported” Carter back in 1980.
Kennedy campaigned at over 40 events in support of Carter in 1980? Good on him!
posted by Rust Moranis at 3:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Kennedy campaigned at over 40 events in support of Carter in 1980? Good on him!
posted by Rust Moranis at 3:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
reality has a known leftist bias, rust moranis
posted by entropicamericana at 3:31 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 3:31 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Everyone will be able to observe that Warren was only made the nominee to prevent Sanders being the nominee.
Are you claiming that a majority of delegates could not in good faith believe that Warren is a better candidate than Sanders? That's a pretty bold claim if indeed a majority of delegates were chosen by the voters to represent candidates other than Sanders.
posted by JackFlash at 3:32 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Are you claiming that a majority of delegates could not in good faith believe that Warren is a better candidate than Sanders? That's a pretty bold claim if indeed a majority of delegates were chosen by the voters to represent candidates other than Sanders.
posted by JackFlash at 3:32 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
While I'm not aware of any polling on that particular question, one January poll found that 53% of Bernie's supporters would support a non-Sanders Democratic nominee (compare to 90% for Warren, 87% and 86% for Biden and Buttigieg, and 50% for Andrew Yang). Another 31% said it depends on who the nominee is, while only 16% offered a solid 'no.'
People are throwing around the word "cult" to describe Sanders followers which is real insulting.
Alternatively, I'd say the only Democratic candidate people are really excited about is Sanders, because he's the only one (possibly excepting Warren) who seems to stand for anything real. Other candidates (rightly or wrongly) are seen as Clinton II. Their votes would be votes against Trump, but a vote for Sanders is additionally a vote for something. That's why people voted for Obama, back in the HOPE poster days.
In the US, because of our stupid electoral system, there's only two real roads to the presidency. Sanders, an independent, intelligently, went with the one that offers any chance of accepting him at all. But a lot of the rest of the democrats are demonized. Some of that is just the right-wing machine, but people, people I personally know, look at the Shadow app debacle, or the reigns of Pelosi and Schumer when there isn't a ton of import riding on a single vote (and sometimes when there is), and think incompetence. The political world seems to have largely moved out from under their feet, they still seem to be operating like the right can be compromised with, and doesn't have to be fought with all their being. Sanders actually gives the Democrats a way around that perception: he's not actually a Democrat.
One of the major political parties is largely seen as co-opted and incompetent, but their alternative is the party of Actual Literal Evil. It is true, not voting against Trump is a profoundly stupid act. But there are definitely people who have to be pulled to the polls by the promise of voting for something.
posted by JHarris at 3:33 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
People are throwing around the word "cult" to describe Sanders followers which is real insulting.
Alternatively, I'd say the only Democratic candidate people are really excited about is Sanders, because he's the only one (possibly excepting Warren) who seems to stand for anything real. Other candidates (rightly or wrongly) are seen as Clinton II. Their votes would be votes against Trump, but a vote for Sanders is additionally a vote for something. That's why people voted for Obama, back in the HOPE poster days.
In the US, because of our stupid electoral system, there's only two real roads to the presidency. Sanders, an independent, intelligently, went with the one that offers any chance of accepting him at all. But a lot of the rest of the democrats are demonized. Some of that is just the right-wing machine, but people, people I personally know, look at the Shadow app debacle, or the reigns of Pelosi and Schumer when there isn't a ton of import riding on a single vote (and sometimes when there is), and think incompetence. The political world seems to have largely moved out from under their feet, they still seem to be operating like the right can be compromised with, and doesn't have to be fought with all their being. Sanders actually gives the Democrats a way around that perception: he's not actually a Democrat.
One of the major political parties is largely seen as co-opted and incompetent, but their alternative is the party of Actual Literal Evil. It is true, not voting against Trump is a profoundly stupid act. But there are definitely people who have to be pulled to the polls by the promise of voting for something.
posted by JHarris at 3:33 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
It’s not clear to me if Sanders thinks the same strategy will work for him with the same tactics or with some other tactics, but the left doesn’t function by those authoritarian rules (traditionally, anyway), so I don’t know that that’s going to work out for him.
I think any popular, populist politician gets to play that game to some extent - FDR certainly tried, though one could argue his success was mixed. Put me down as thinking it would be pretty fantastic if President Sanders could do it - and also as thinking he's obviously pretty far away from being able to do it as of yet.
But also, I don't think the "establishment Republicans" were able to find their love for Trump only out of fear. I think a whole lot of them realized that he's going to fire up the base with his rhetoric and meanwhile actually deliver for them on a lot of issues. So I think what a Sanders presidency looks like depends a lot on - can he get the Dems to pivot to a stronger fighting stance on issues the party nominally believes in, by making it clear that there is a demand for this? And if he can't, will he be able to paint the legislators who won't come along with at as stooges for the healthcare industry etc. successfully enough that he is able to get them primaried?
(and of course there's the problem of the Republicans, but everybody is going to have that problem)
posted by atoxyl at 3:37 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think any popular, populist politician gets to play that game to some extent - FDR certainly tried, though one could argue his success was mixed. Put me down as thinking it would be pretty fantastic if President Sanders could do it - and also as thinking he's obviously pretty far away from being able to do it as of yet.
But also, I don't think the "establishment Republicans" were able to find their love for Trump only out of fear. I think a whole lot of them realized that he's going to fire up the base with his rhetoric and meanwhile actually deliver for them on a lot of issues. So I think what a Sanders presidency looks like depends a lot on - can he get the Dems to pivot to a stronger fighting stance on issues the party nominally believes in, by making it clear that there is a demand for this? And if he can't, will he be able to paint the legislators who won't come along with at as stooges for the healthcare industry etc. successfully enough that he is able to get them primaried?
(and of course there's the problem of the Republicans, but everybody is going to have that problem)
posted by atoxyl at 3:37 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
In that case you have to have to check everyone's second choices, which is what the convention is for. And it is just possible that the majority, the democratic will, selects someone other than Sanders.
Too bad that’s literally impossible since primaries and caucuses do not record voters’ second-choices.
The whole point of requiring a majority instead of a plurality is in order to ensure the selection of a candidate that is acceptable to the most people.
Where by “people” you mean “rival candidates’ delegates and party superdelegates”. And yes, the majority of delegates could in good faith believe that Warren is “better” than Sanders, but in that event Warren would still be made the nominee in order to prevent the “worse” Sanders from becoming the nominee.
And yes, in that event the majority of delegates would be chosen by the voters to represent candidates other than Sanders. But an even larger majority of the delegates would have been chosen by the voters to represent candidates other than Warren, or any other single candidate!
But I get your point: the rules are the rules, and giving the nomination to somebody with fewer pledged delegates is within the rules. I’m just saying that if Sanders is denied the nomination in this way, it will be perceived by enough of his supporters as an illegitimate coup and Trump will be re-elected as a result. They won’t care that the rules were followed.
posted by moorooka at 3:39 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Too bad that’s literally impossible since primaries and caucuses do not record voters’ second-choices.
The whole point of requiring a majority instead of a plurality is in order to ensure the selection of a candidate that is acceptable to the most people.
Where by “people” you mean “rival candidates’ delegates and party superdelegates”. And yes, the majority of delegates could in good faith believe that Warren is “better” than Sanders, but in that event Warren would still be made the nominee in order to prevent the “worse” Sanders from becoming the nominee.
And yes, in that event the majority of delegates would be chosen by the voters to represent candidates other than Sanders. But an even larger majority of the delegates would have been chosen by the voters to represent candidates other than Warren, or any other single candidate!
But I get your point: the rules are the rules, and giving the nomination to somebody with fewer pledged delegates is within the rules. I’m just saying that if Sanders is denied the nomination in this way, it will be perceived by enough of his supporters as an illegitimate coup and Trump will be re-elected as a result. They won’t care that the rules were followed.
posted by moorooka at 3:39 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
I guess I’ll be heartened that I think Bernie himself and most of his supporters would prefer the nominee selected by a majority of the delegates and according to the rules created with and agreed to by Sanders to fascism. Disappointing that anyone wouldn’t.
posted by chris24 at 3:45 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 3:45 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Are you claiming that a majority of delegates could not in good faith believe that Warren is a better candidate than Sanders? That's a pretty bold claim if indeed a majority of delegates were chosen by the voters to represent candidates other than Sanders.
If Warren is a better candidate, she'll be in the lead with the greatest number of delegates. Sanders is the most effective candidate in part because he has, if you will, cleared debris from his orbit. He has no major ideological rivals while the others have not been able to establish a stable constituency. Warren hasn't. Biden hasn't. Buttigeig hasn't. Klobuchar hasn't. The others certainly haven't. That may change in the next few months, but as of now, Sanders is expectant to come in first in over 45 of the next 50+ contests, which means, he's establishing that he's the only candidate with broad appeal in every state/district/territory. He's also in the lead in every single Democratic demographic with the exception of African Americans (he's a very close second) and the elderly (where he suffers).
So if the idea of the primaries is to come to a consensus pick, Bernie Sanders is that consensus pick. He might not be selected from party establishment figures, but as of now,* he's broadly popular inside the Democratic primaries. Who else can say that?
*As always, conditions might change, but with each passing primary/caucus, Sanders is making concrete the hypotheticals.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
If Warren is a better candidate, she'll be in the lead with the greatest number of delegates. Sanders is the most effective candidate in part because he has, if you will, cleared debris from his orbit. He has no major ideological rivals while the others have not been able to establish a stable constituency. Warren hasn't. Biden hasn't. Buttigeig hasn't. Klobuchar hasn't. The others certainly haven't. That may change in the next few months, but as of now, Sanders is expectant to come in first in over 45 of the next 50+ contests, which means, he's establishing that he's the only candidate with broad appeal in every state/district/territory. He's also in the lead in every single Democratic demographic with the exception of African Americans (he's a very close second) and the elderly (where he suffers).
So if the idea of the primaries is to come to a consensus pick, Bernie Sanders is that consensus pick. He might not be selected from party establishment figures, but as of now,* he's broadly popular inside the Democratic primaries. Who else can say that?
*As always, conditions might change, but with each passing primary/caucus, Sanders is making concrete the hypotheticals.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
People are throwing around the word "cult" to describe Sanders followers which is real insulting.
I didn't just throw the word around. I was responding to a hypothetical put out by an apparent Sanders supporter:
"Sanders supporters will not vote for a candidate who reaches the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Sanders."
If this is true, it is the sign of a dangerous cult of personality. I don't know if it is true. I hope not. But apparently some people claim it is true.
posted by JackFlash at 3:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
I didn't just throw the word around. I was responding to a hypothetical put out by an apparent Sanders supporter:
"Sanders supporters will not vote for a candidate who reaches the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Sanders."
If this is true, it is the sign of a dangerous cult of personality. I don't know if it is true. I hope not. But apparently some people claim it is true.
posted by JackFlash at 3:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
If Warren is a better candidate, she'll be in the lead with the greatest number of delegates.
As pointed out above, Sanders himself doesn’t agree with your assessment as per his 2016 comments.
posted by chris24 at 3:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
As pointed out above, Sanders himself doesn’t agree with your assessment as per his 2016 comments.
posted by chris24 at 3:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
By the way, my proposal in the future to prevent things like this from happening:
1) Approval voting polls used to determine who qualifies for the debates and to help whittle the field down to around five or so.
2) Ranked choice voting in all the state primaries to further winnow down the field to two-to-three candidates, with preferences.
If these were used in the future, we would be able to assume far more of the candidates had broad-based support and it would allow voters to express preferences for someone other than their main (which would help set up coalitions and back-up plans).
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
1) Approval voting polls used to determine who qualifies for the debates and to help whittle the field down to around five or so.
2) Ranked choice voting in all the state primaries to further winnow down the field to two-to-three candidates, with preferences.
If these were used in the future, we would be able to assume far more of the candidates had broad-based support and it would allow voters to express preferences for someone other than their main (which would help set up coalitions and back-up plans).
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
I guess that the people who think Hillary Clinton should be President because she won more votes than Trump are also dangerous cultists.
posted by moorooka at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
If this is true, it is the sign of a dangerous cult of personality. I don't know if it is true. I hope not. But apparently some people claim it is true.
pascal's wager dictates that you should vote for sanders, just in case it is
i mean, if the goal is ousting trump
posted by entropicamericana at 3:54 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
pascal's wager dictates that you should vote for sanders, just in case it is
i mean, if the goal is ousting trump
posted by entropicamericana at 3:54 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
a vote for something. That's why people voted for Obama, back in the HOPE poster days.
Obama was running after 8 years of W, in the middle of the by-then catastrophic Iraq and Afghanistan wars, against a guy who championed those catastrophes, and in the immediate aftermath (like by a month) of the 2008 crash, which publicly panicked his dumbass opponent, who had also just picked an incredibly stupid person to be his VP. I don’t think Hope alone did it.
But more importantly, the electorate has become more polarized, and we are still stuck with the electoral college.
I would love it, for my own mental health, if someone could show me data suggesting this is how we win the 5 bullshit rust belt states + Florida that gave us Trump in 2016, because they are all that matter for the Presidency.
I’m not being a smartass here, I really would love to see that and maybe sleep tonight. That would be awesome.
posted by schadenfrau at 3:56 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Obama was running after 8 years of W, in the middle of the by-then catastrophic Iraq and Afghanistan wars, against a guy who championed those catastrophes, and in the immediate aftermath (like by a month) of the 2008 crash, which publicly panicked his dumbass opponent, who had also just picked an incredibly stupid person to be his VP. I don’t think Hope alone did it.
But more importantly, the electorate has become more polarized, and we are still stuck with the electoral college.
I would love it, for my own mental health, if someone could show me data suggesting this is how we win the 5 bullshit rust belt states + Florida that gave us Trump in 2016, because they are all that matter for the Presidency.
I’m not being a smartass here, I really would love to see that and maybe sleep tonight. That would be awesome.
posted by schadenfrau at 3:56 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
I guess that the people who think Hillary Clinton should be President because she won more votes than Trump are also dangerous cultists.
Hillary Clinton won a clear majority of votes, both in the primary and the general election. It has nothing to do with non-majority pluralities.
Incidentally, it was Sanders who tried to get the superdelegates at the convention to overturn the results not of a plurality, but a whopping majority of the voters.
posted by JackFlash at 3:56 PM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
Hillary Clinton won a clear majority of votes, both in the primary and the general election. It has nothing to do with non-majority pluralities.
Incidentally, it was Sanders who tried to get the superdelegates at the convention to overturn the results not of a plurality, but a whopping majority of the voters.
posted by JackFlash at 3:56 PM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
One last thing, and I'll grade papers:
If this is true, it is the sign of a dangerous cult of personality. I don't know if it is true. I hope not. But apparently some people claim it is true.
No, it's just a sign that folks of the left—the true left that want a humanistic order, a worker-owned economy, an end to capitalistic exploitation—are sick and tired of having the football yoinked from in front of them at the last moment. The moderate lane has had every Democratic pick for the last 30 years, despite losing some major contests. When is the left flank of the country allowed to drive? If Jeb! was president now instead of Trump, would workers be okay demanding the keys for once? At what point are workers allowed to say, "We have the most votes. Hand over the nomination or risk losing"? Or do we have to follow every Chuck Todd, Joy Reid, James Carville, and Chris Matthews into doing what they want for "our own good" that just happens to deny us healthcare, union protections, debt relief, and economic liberation?
If a strike is weapon against capital, can't we following warning after warning demand that capitalistic exploitation end? Is that not a tool that we are allowed to use?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:59 PM on February 23, 2020 [34 favorites]
If this is true, it is the sign of a dangerous cult of personality. I don't know if it is true. I hope not. But apparently some people claim it is true.
No, it's just a sign that folks of the left—the true left that want a humanistic order, a worker-owned economy, an end to capitalistic exploitation—are sick and tired of having the football yoinked from in front of them at the last moment. The moderate lane has had every Democratic pick for the last 30 years, despite losing some major contests. When is the left flank of the country allowed to drive? If Jeb! was president now instead of Trump, would workers be okay demanding the keys for once? At what point are workers allowed to say, "We have the most votes. Hand over the nomination or risk losing"? Or do we have to follow every Chuck Todd, Joy Reid, James Carville, and Chris Matthews into doing what they want for "our own good" that just happens to deny us healthcare, union protections, debt relief, and economic liberation?
If a strike is weapon against capital, can't we following warning after warning demand that capitalistic exploitation end? Is that not a tool that we are allowed to use?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:59 PM on February 23, 2020 [34 favorites]
If this is true, it is the sign of a dangerous cult of personality. I don't know if it is true. I hope not. But apparently some people claim it is true.
On the big Sanders groups on Facebook there’s a phrase that’s becoming a meme: “fuck around and find out”.
posted by moorooka at 4:00 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
On the big Sanders groups on Facebook there’s a phrase that’s becoming a meme: “fuck around and find out”.
posted by moorooka at 4:00 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
pascal's wager dictates that you should vote for sanders, just in case it is
Well, you've got me there. But on the other hand, I don't believe in god. So much for logic.
posted by JackFlash at 4:01 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Well, you've got me there. But on the other hand, I don't believe in god. So much for logic.
posted by JackFlash at 4:01 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
We know, you made a functionally identical comment less than an hour ago. They’ll respond if they want; the haranguing is unbecoming.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:10 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:10 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
On the big Sanders groups on Facebook there’s a phrase that’s becoming a meme: “fuck around and find out”.
Oh man I wonder why anyone perceives this as abusive or cult like or threatening
posted by schadenfrau at 4:17 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
Oh man I wonder why anyone perceives this as abusive or cult like or threatening
posted by schadenfrau at 4:17 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
Metafilter: Your favorite band candidate sucks is unelectable.
posted by Anoplura at 4:18 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Anoplura at 4:18 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
The oldest versions of that seem to be, "if bill gates keeps running his mouth we'll tax his ass at $101 billion fuck around and find out billie boy".
posted by clawsoon at 4:26 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 4:26 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
Bernie supporters: Bernie bros are a myth.
Also Bernie supporters: Fuck around and find out.
posted by chris24 at 4:27 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
Also Bernie supporters: Fuck around and find out.
posted by chris24 at 4:27 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
I'm trying to be fair to the "Warren at the convention as the compromise candidate" scenario but I'd like to see somebody who thinks it's a good idea game out exactly what they think that ticket gains and loses over Sanders/[somebody]... or over Sanders/Warren.
I will grant that it depends a lot on the relative positioning going into the convention. If Liz Warren swings a huge Super Tuesday comeback and ends up in a close second? Alright, I could buy her as a compromise candidate. I think it becomes an exponentially worse idea the further she is from the lead.
posted by atoxyl at 4:31 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
I will grant that it depends a lot on the relative positioning going into the convention. If Liz Warren swings a huge Super Tuesday comeback and ends up in a close second? Alright, I could buy her as a compromise candidate. I think it becomes an exponentially worse idea the further she is from the lead.
posted by atoxyl at 4:31 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
With over 70% of the results in, Buttigieg has slipped under the 15% line of viability and Bernie has more than double the support of Biden:
Sanders: 47.5%
Biden: 20.8%
Buttigieg: 13.7%
Warren: 9.4%
Steyer: 4.5%
Klobuchar: 4%
source (Twitter link)
posted by sallybrown at 4:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
Sanders: 47.5%
Biden: 20.8%
Buttigieg: 13.7%
Warren: 9.4%
Steyer: 4.5%
Klobuchar: 4%
source (Twitter link)
posted by sallybrown at 4:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
Hillary Clinton won a clear majority of votes, both in the primary and the general election. It has nothing to do with non-majority pluralities.
Hillary won 48.2% of the popular vote.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 4:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
Hillary won 48.2% of the popular vote.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 4:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
Bernie supporters: Bernie bros are a myth.
Also Bernie supporters: Fuck around and find out.
I love how tone policing is allowed now.
posted by Jimbob at 4:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Also Bernie supporters: Fuck around and find out.
I love how tone policing is allowed now.
posted by Jimbob at 4:34 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Again, while this is mostly harmless, it's just too early to game this out. Either Sanders or Warren would be fine, and to a lesser extent some of the others.
But even in the case that Sanders wins, we'll need a Senate that isn't trying to tear him down all the time and to block each and every one of his nominees and initiatives. So what we need is both a concerted Senate campaign and also a theory and practice of coattail politics.
My biggest ding against Bernie is that I have doubts that he can bring the coattails. And that might be a condemnation of the Democratic apparatus that can't bring candidates that harmonize with his message! But we need to find Democratic Senate candidates who can capitalize on this moment, or the moment will be lost.
If there's an inner message to the Sanders campaign it's that the status quo isn't OK and we need fundamental changes. That's a fine message to send but if those changes can't be made, it's a waste.
Perhaps the inner message of Warren's is less radical: that the status quo isn't OK, but we can futz around in the margins and fix it. This is less inspiring but it might be more pragmatic. I dunno.
But I don't know which has better coattails. Maybe the centrists (tttcs) have the best of that argument? All I know is defeating Trump is priority one, but it just delivers us to stalemate in the Senate.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:35 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
But even in the case that Sanders wins, we'll need a Senate that isn't trying to tear him down all the time and to block each and every one of his nominees and initiatives. So what we need is both a concerted Senate campaign and also a theory and practice of coattail politics.
My biggest ding against Bernie is that I have doubts that he can bring the coattails. And that might be a condemnation of the Democratic apparatus that can't bring candidates that harmonize with his message! But we need to find Democratic Senate candidates who can capitalize on this moment, or the moment will be lost.
If there's an inner message to the Sanders campaign it's that the status quo isn't OK and we need fundamental changes. That's a fine message to send but if those changes can't be made, it's a waste.
Perhaps the inner message of Warren's is less radical: that the status quo isn't OK, but we can futz around in the margins and fix it. This is less inspiring but it might be more pragmatic. I dunno.
But I don't know which has better coattails. Maybe the centrists (tttcs) have the best of that argument? All I know is defeating Trump is priority one, but it just delivers us to stalemate in the Senate.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:35 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
I love how tone policing is allowed now.
I love how threats are allowed now.
posted by chris24 at 4:38 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
I love how threats are allowed now.
posted by chris24 at 4:38 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
“Bernie bro” is a myth in the sense that Bernie’s supporters are majority female and more diverse than other candidates’. But it’s not a myth in the sense that Bernie has a large cohort of supporters who view Bernie’s opposition as fundamentally evil and will treat them accordingly.
But remember, when this stage is done, that fire will be turned on Trump, and you’ll be grateful to have them on your side
posted by moorooka at 4:40 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
But remember, when this stage is done, that fire will be turned on Trump, and you’ll be grateful to have them on your side
posted by moorooka at 4:40 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
I love how tone policing is allowed now.
From Wikipedia: “ Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and antidebate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion.”
Pointing out that threats are threatening is not tone policing; using social justice language inappropriately to make yourself seem like a victim is, however, shitty.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:42 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
From Wikipedia: “ Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and antidebate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion.”
Pointing out that threats are threatening is not tone policing; using social justice language inappropriately to make yourself seem like a victim is, however, shitty.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:42 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
“Bernie bro” is a myth in the sense that Bernie’s supporters are majority female and more diverse than other candidates’.
Yeah no. Biden still beats him with POC.
But it’s not a myth in the sense that Bernie has a large cohort of supporters who view Bernie’s opposition as fundamentally evil and will treat them accordingly.
Totally not fascist at all. Let’s jump on this bandwagon.
posted by chris24 at 4:44 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
Yeah no. Biden still beats him with POC.
But it’s not a myth in the sense that Bernie has a large cohort of supporters who view Bernie’s opposition as fundamentally evil and will treat them accordingly.
Totally not fascist at all. Let’s jump on this bandwagon.
posted by chris24 at 4:44 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
You're right; having your candidate called a rat by someone with the twitter handle "Nationalize Wrestling [rose emoji]" is a clear and present danger.
posted by Jimbob at 4:44 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Jimbob at 4:44 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
But it’s not a myth in the sense that Bernie has a large cohort of supporters who view Bernie’s opposition as fundamentally evil and will treat them accordingly.
How about this Jimbob?
posted by chris24 at 4:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
How about this Jimbob?
posted by chris24 at 4:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Hi! We're well and truly into the shitty vortex of primary season and I'm gonna need folks to do their part to not make it an absolute misery for mods and mefites alike for the next however goddam long.
If you want to hang out on MetaFilter to track the events of the various primary/caucus events and your personal as in literally-just-you feelings about stuff, great! Remember you're one person in a room full of other people all of whom in theory like it here, and moderate your behavior accordingly.
If you want to get in a scrap about shit or posture archly or or complain about how bad They are or just argue something into the ground until people stop disagreeing: it's probably making things worse around here and you need to stop. We need people to manage their own behavior, short-circuit the whole crappy loop of "but they started it" reactive escalation and tit-for-tat stuff, and ultimately find somewhere else to discuss US politics if you find that undoable.
This is not your family table at Thanksgiving, and this is not a neighborhood Facebook gripe group. Please don't treat it like either. This is me trying to toss out a little fair warning before I start just giving folks time off a lot more readily.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [58 favorites]
If you want to hang out on MetaFilter to track the events of the various primary/caucus events and your personal as in literally-just-you feelings about stuff, great! Remember you're one person in a room full of other people all of whom in theory like it here, and moderate your behavior accordingly.
If you want to get in a scrap about shit or posture archly or or complain about how bad They are or just argue something into the ground until people stop disagreeing: it's probably making things worse around here and you need to stop. We need people to manage their own behavior, short-circuit the whole crappy loop of "but they started it" reactive escalation and tit-for-tat stuff, and ultimately find somewhere else to discuss US politics if you find that undoable.
This is not your family table at Thanksgiving, and this is not a neighborhood Facebook gripe group. Please don't treat it like either. This is me trying to toss out a little fair warning before I start just giving folks time off a lot more readily.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:46 PM on February 23, 2020 [58 favorites]
On some related, but less contentious news, Orb Lady has just endorsed Bernie Sanders.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
The size of these Texas Bernie rallies is getting my hopes up in unwise ways. I wonder if Beto will weigh in.
posted by sallybrown at 4:51 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 4:51 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
60 Minutes did a Nernie interview which aired a bit earlier tonight and should shortly show up on their site. (Probably geo-locked, unfortunately.)
posted by XMLicious at 4:56 PM on February 23, 2020
posted by XMLicious at 4:56 PM on February 23, 2020
sallybrown: The size of these Texas Bernie rallies is getting my hopes up in unwise ways.
I was struck reading about the 1960 election that it was New York and California that were the Electoral College swing states. These kind of changes have happened before.
posted by clawsoon at 4:58 PM on February 23, 2020
I was struck reading about the 1960 election that it was New York and California that were the Electoral College swing states. These kind of changes have happened before.
posted by clawsoon at 4:58 PM on February 23, 2020
Looking ahead after Nevada—how the nation's largest minority group could reshape the Democratic race:
“From Nevada through March 17, the Democratic primary calendar will run through seven of the 12 states where Latinos constitute at least 10% of the total eligible voting population .... That includes California (30.5% of eligible voters), Texas (30.4%), Arizona (23.6%), Florida (20.5%), Nevada (19.7%) and Colorado (15.9%). Latinos represent almost 12% of eligible voters in Illinois, the other state voting soon with a large concentration of that population. . . . The seven Latino-heavy states voting through March 17 will award 1,207 pledged delegates to the Democratic convention. That's 46% of the 2,603 total pledged delegates that will be awarded in primaries and caucuses through February and March.”
posted by sallybrown at 5:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
“From Nevada through March 17, the Democratic primary calendar will run through seven of the 12 states where Latinos constitute at least 10% of the total eligible voting population .... That includes California (30.5% of eligible voters), Texas (30.4%), Arizona (23.6%), Florida (20.5%), Nevada (19.7%) and Colorado (15.9%). Latinos represent almost 12% of eligible voters in Illinois, the other state voting soon with a large concentration of that population. . . . The seven Latino-heavy states voting through March 17 will award 1,207 pledged delegates to the Democratic convention. That's 46% of the 2,603 total pledged delegates that will be awarded in primaries and caucuses through February and March.”
posted by sallybrown at 5:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
schadenfrau: I think what scares me the most is the extent to which this has metastasized, in the last four years, and continues to metastasize, into a culture of abuse. It has already pushed people (mostly women) out of the public sphere on the left. You don’t hear them because they’ve stopped participating, because they don’t want to be abused, or they can’t take it without getting triggered to fuck, or whatever.
This sounds like an important phenomenon, and I'd be interested in a longer read on it if you know of one.
posted by clawsoon at 5:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
This sounds like an important phenomenon, and I'd be interested in a longer read on it if you know of one.
posted by clawsoon at 5:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yeah no. Biden still beats him with POC.
You might need to get more granular than "PoC" here. Biden beat him among Black voters in Nevada by a decent margin, but lost among Latino voters by a wide margin.
As far as I know the only other candidates who have really been able to come close with either demographic are the two very rich guys, who have been able to leverage being very rich to accelerate the process of building name recognition and endorsements (but one of whom has skeletons just falling out of his closet on race).
posted by atoxyl at 5:19 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
You might need to get more granular than "PoC" here. Biden beat him among Black voters in Nevada by a decent margin, but lost among Latino voters by a wide margin.
As far as I know the only other candidates who have really been able to come close with either demographic are the two very rich guys, who have been able to leverage being very rich to accelerate the process of building name recognition and endorsements (but one of whom has skeletons just falling out of his closet on race).
posted by atoxyl at 5:19 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
I would love it, for my own mental health, if someone could show me data suggesting this is how we win the 5 bullshit rust belt states + Florida that gave us Trump in 2016, because they are all that matter for the Presidency.
Don't count out NC and Georgia. Obama won NC in 2008, and he came pretty darn close in 2012. He even came close to winning Georgia in 2012 in spite of basically spending no campaign dollars here at all. NC and Georgia are in the middle of the demographic flip, with lots of young people of color (Black, Latinx, and AAPI, and don't discount the Lumbee and Cherokee in NC, either) who just need to be excited enough to deal with all the bullshit they have to deal with to vote here. Get them excited. Help them vote.
That sure sounds a lot easier than persuading a bunch of racist white people not to vote for the racist white guy who is fulfilling all their white supremacist fantasies.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:24 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
Don't count out NC and Georgia. Obama won NC in 2008, and he came pretty darn close in 2012. He even came close to winning Georgia in 2012 in spite of basically spending no campaign dollars here at all. NC and Georgia are in the middle of the demographic flip, with lots of young people of color (Black, Latinx, and AAPI, and don't discount the Lumbee and Cherokee in NC, either) who just need to be excited enough to deal with all the bullshit they have to deal with to vote here. Get them excited. Help them vote.
That sure sounds a lot easier than persuading a bunch of racist white people not to vote for the racist white guy who is fulfilling all their white supremacist fantasies.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:24 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
South Carolina next Saturday will be an interesting test of Sanders vs Biden. It is the biggest state so far and 60% of Democrats are African American.
posted by JackFlash at 5:27 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 5:27 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Fair point atoxyl. I was basing that on his lead with black voters which comprise about 20% of the Democratic Party. Bernie does lead with latinx though they comprise about 10% of the party.
posted by chris24 at 5:31 PM on February 23, 2020
posted by chris24 at 5:31 PM on February 23, 2020
beth, purity test enthusiast @bourgeoisalien
Marianne Williamson endorsed Bernie. Level two complete. We are now Bernie bro-orbs.
You must assimilate. Resistance is futile.
We are the Brorb.
4:06 PM · Feb 23, 2020·Twitter for Android
342 Retweets 2.2K Likes
posted by Ahmad Khani at 5:32 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Marianne Williamson endorsed Bernie. Level two complete. We are now Bernie bro-orbs.
You must assimilate. Resistance is futile.
We are the Brorb.
4:06 PM · Feb 23, 2020·Twitter for Android
342 Retweets 2.2K Likes
posted by Ahmad Khani at 5:32 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
On the big Sanders groups on Facebook there’s a phrase that’s becoming a meme: “fuck around and find out”.
Man, save it for the pundits and political hacks.
posted by atoxyl at 5:32 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Man, save it for the pundits and political hacks.
posted by atoxyl at 5:32 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
I think what scares me the most is the extent to which this has metastasized, in the last four years, and continues to metastasize, into a culture of abuse.
I've seen this in a lot of different fora over the past few years. One thing I've come to expect from the Very Online people I follow is that when they re-tweet someone obscure – approvingly or disapprovingly – the person they quote often deletes their Tweet, sometimes their whole account. I have to think it's because they're getting piled on by keyboard warriors.
I think the Very Online phenomenon has a lot to do with it: the people with the hottest, freshest takes get their voices amplified and their readers feel that they're foot soldiers in an army of the outraged. It's a problem, both for their targets and for those of us who are worried about that there isn't a coalition for tackling offline problems. And that's what this selection process is about: building a left/liberal coalition to defeat the huge coalition of rentiers, polluters, fascists, and theocrats that have captured the Republican Party. There can only be one Democratic nominee for President, but I really hope each candidate's supporters remembers that (regardless of the outcome) they will need to work together with their present opponents if they're going to defeat Trump.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:35 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
I've seen this in a lot of different fora over the past few years. One thing I've come to expect from the Very Online people I follow is that when they re-tweet someone obscure – approvingly or disapprovingly – the person they quote often deletes their Tweet, sometimes their whole account. I have to think it's because they're getting piled on by keyboard warriors.
I think the Very Online phenomenon has a lot to do with it: the people with the hottest, freshest takes get their voices amplified and their readers feel that they're foot soldiers in an army of the outraged. It's a problem, both for their targets and for those of us who are worried about that there isn't a coalition for tackling offline problems. And that's what this selection process is about: building a left/liberal coalition to defeat the huge coalition of rentiers, polluters, fascists, and theocrats that have captured the Republican Party. There can only be one Democratic nominee for President, but I really hope each candidate's supporters remembers that (regardless of the outcome) they will need to work together with their present opponents if they're going to defeat Trump.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:35 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Anand Giridharadas
@AnandWrites
·
8h
This is a wake-up moment for the American power establishment.
Many in this elite are behaving like aristocrats in a dying regime — including in media.
It’s time for many to step up, rethink, and understand the dawn of what may be a new era in America.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:42 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
@AnandWrites
·
8h
This is a wake-up moment for the American power establishment.
Many in this elite are behaving like aristocrats in a dying regime — including in media.
It’s time for many to step up, rethink, and understand the dawn of what may be a new era in America.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:42 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
I haven’t seen one person in here declare they wouldn’t vote for Sanders if he got the nomination. Not one.
So why does that strawman keep getting thrown around? Knock it off, okay.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
So why does that strawman keep getting thrown around? Knock it off, okay.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:48 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Fair point atoxyl. I was basing that on his lead with black voters which comprise about 20% of the Democratic Party. Bernie does lead with latinx though they comprise about 10% of the party.
Obvs which is most important strategically also varies a lot by state. Really my bigger point is just that the Sanders campaign has clearly succeeded in building a diverse coalition, making it one of a couple that seem like they could clear that bar for a democratic victory. Whereas, you know, take your Petes - they have not!
posted by atoxyl at 5:51 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Obvs which is most important strategically also varies a lot by state. Really my bigger point is just that the Sanders campaign has clearly succeeded in building a diverse coalition, making it one of a couple that seem like they could clear that bar for a democratic victory. Whereas, you know, take your Petes - they have not!
posted by atoxyl at 5:51 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
The race is weird and will only get weirder once Bloomberg starts getting votes and further splitting the Biden-Buttigieg-Klobuchar wing, so I'm curious whether any sort of strong second-place finisher will emerge. Right now they're mostly hovering around the 15% viability threshold, which really hurts all of them. Buttigieg is in 2nd place by delegates for now, but is in real danger of not hitting the threshold in Nevada, and it's really hard to break out of the pack if you're scraping by with just a few Congressional district delegates but none from statewide viability, especially when they all seem to be trading the role of Just Over Viability Candidate between themselves rather than having one consistent contender. If it stays as it is and 5 candidates (and I guess also Tom Steyer) are splitting 55 to 60 percent of the vote relatively evenly, Sanders could rack up 200 more delegates than anyone else in California and 100 more in Texas, and at some point the math just stops working for anyone other than Sanders.
It would also be interesting to see who that other candidate would even be since not a single one of the campaigns has made the slightest move to consolidate its support with any of the others. If they just keep waiting for everyone else to be the first to bail, we'll all be in March with half of them still under 50 delegates. At that point I'd be pretty skeptical that even a sudden alignment behind a single other candidate would achieve much of anything.
posted by Copronymus at 5:55 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
It would also be interesting to see who that other candidate would even be since not a single one of the campaigns has made the slightest move to consolidate its support with any of the others. If they just keep waiting for everyone else to be the first to bail, we'll all be in March with half of them still under 50 delegates. At that point I'd be pretty skeptical that even a sudden alignment behind a single other candidate would achieve much of anything.
posted by Copronymus at 5:55 PM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
We are now Bernie bro-orbs.
Nernie Norbs.
posted by Foosnark at 6:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [18 favorites]
Nernie Norbs.
posted by Foosnark at 6:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [18 favorites]
atoxyl, I agree POC are a much more important part of Bernie’s coalition this year. My initial comment was simply disagreeing with moorooka’s comment that Bernie has the most diverse support. He definitely does beat the others others besides Joe though.
posted by chris24 at 6:05 PM on February 23, 2020
posted by chris24 at 6:05 PM on February 23, 2020
I know a lot of you aren't happy that Sanders won Nevada, and it's natural you'd want to vent a bit, but intensity of rage and absolute hatred a lot of you have been expressing in this thread is disturbing.
You know until the little hate spiral most people including a lot of previous non-sander's voters were indicating in this very thread how they were pretty happy that it looked like the convention might not be contested- and was in Sander's favor and despite their own preferences were glad Sanders was looking like a front runner- So once again I'd like a cite for the "Intense rage and absolute hatred" against Sanders you seem to be disturbed by because it looks like any vitriol on both sides is being thrown to supporters not the candidate.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 6:09 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
You know until the little hate spiral most people including a lot of previous non-sander's voters were indicating in this very thread how they were pretty happy that it looked like the convention might not be contested- and was in Sander's favor and despite their own preferences were glad Sanders was looking like a front runner- So once again I'd like a cite for the "Intense rage and absolute hatred" against Sanders you seem to be disturbed by because it looks like any vitriol on both sides is being thrown to supporters not the candidate.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 6:09 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
Can someone explain this Nernie thing?
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:09 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:09 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
It’s like “Vyger” from the old Star Trek movie: Nernie is a typo that became a god.
posted by notyou at 6:11 PM on February 23, 2020 [20 favorites]
posted by notyou at 6:11 PM on February 23, 2020 [20 favorites]
I know a lot of you aren't happy that Sanders won Nevada, and it's natural you'd want to vent a bit, but intensity of rage and absolute hatred a lot of you have been expressing in this thread is disturbing.
This is gaslighting. No one in this thread has expressed an "intensity of rage" or "absolute hatred." Please quote the comments you are talking about.
Can someone explain this Nernie thing?
Typo, from this comment early in the thread.
posted by arcolz at 6:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
This is gaslighting. No one in this thread has expressed an "intensity of rage" or "absolute hatred." Please quote the comments you are talking about.
Can someone explain this Nernie thing?
Typo, from this comment early in the thread.
posted by arcolz at 6:12 PM on February 23, 2020 [13 favorites]
Also, it's sort of gone unremarked, but although as of last week Biden had never come in higher than 4th in any Presidential primary or caucus in his entire life, by coming in 2nd in Nevada and probably getting around 7 delegates in a single contest, he's posted new personal bests, and we can now say that this is, objectively and definitively, by far the most successful set of primaries of his entire career.
posted by Copronymus at 6:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 6:15 PM on February 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
Michael Moore has claimed that there are about 20 (or dozens) of AOC type candidates running for congress and hundreds more across the country for different elected positions. I have easily seen about a dozen for congress that are ready to expand the squad. I mean Nancy Pelosi has a serious challenge. The organizing is real and many are taking their second swing, understanding where they fell short last time so have much better organizations ... and Moore is rather tuned in to party politics as he can tell Tom Perez, "You and I need to talk". He heard about AOC when she had just enter the race and was polling at about 3% and sent a film crew to meet her and she was like "How do you even know I exist?". (YouTube video 3hr 51min but linked to Moore telling the story just before AOC comes out to add to it, it was a nice moment) AOC wants more support and is building it too. That is all part of the political movement. Just because there is little visibility doesn't mean it isn't being built and the amount of votes needed often isn't huge. AOC began one living room at a time. Four people was a big turn out ... and she is explaining the concept often and inspiring more involvement.
Also, if I had money to bet like 100$, it will be a Sanders / Turner ticket ... there isn't any other real choice. There are many other great people who could be VP but Nina has been his sister is the struggle through it all, so it would only be right to offer it to her first.
I liked these endorsements too;
Patch Adams Endorses Burning Sandals in 2016...and 2020! (YouTube video 33sec)
It was true then, and it's true now. We need radical change in this country to save our species and our planet! We need a revolution of love! Feel the Bern!
Dick Van Dyke Endorses Bernie Sanders for President (YouTube video 1min58sec)
“He never has changed his attack because of pressure from the outside or when he felt the wind was blowing another way. He stuck with who he is and what he believes."
posted by phoque at 6:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Also, if I had money to bet like 100$, it will be a Sanders / Turner ticket ... there isn't any other real choice. There are many other great people who could be VP but Nina has been his sister is the struggle through it all, so it would only be right to offer it to her first.
I liked these endorsements too;
Patch Adams Endorses Burning Sandals in 2016...and 2020! (YouTube video 33sec)
It was true then, and it's true now. We need radical change in this country to save our species and our planet! We need a revolution of love! Feel the Bern!
Dick Van Dyke Endorses Bernie Sanders for President (YouTube video 1min58sec)
“He never has changed his attack because of pressure from the outside or when he felt the wind was blowing another way. He stuck with who he is and what he believes."
posted by phoque at 6:30 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Over the course of this election it has become increasingly clear that the Sanders campaign is really not fucking around here, they want it badly enough and they're competent enough to weather all the fuckery the media and the party are sending their way and press any advantage they can. Just look at how they've been handling the Iowa recounts. It's not just Bernie too, he has a team of people who are extremely politically adept and take no shit, and an honest to god popular movement behind him.
We MeFites have long been annoyed at Democratic politicians' tendency to immediately fold and give in when they meet any kind of systemic resistance. If the democratic socialist movement really does reach the white house, I think this bodes well for a Sanders administration's ability to get things done. The movement is serious about their (our) agenda and is going to do 100% of what we can to get it through.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:31 PM on February 23, 2020 [34 favorites]
We MeFites have long been annoyed at Democratic politicians' tendency to immediately fold and give in when they meet any kind of systemic resistance. If the democratic socialist movement really does reach the white house, I think this bodes well for a Sanders administration's ability to get things done. The movement is serious about their (our) agenda and is going to do 100% of what we can to get it through.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:31 PM on February 23, 2020 [34 favorites]
The race is weird and will only get weirder once Bloomberg starts getting votes
Elizabeth Warren murdered Bloomberg on national television. He's already dead; he just hasn't admitted it yet.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [27 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren murdered Bloomberg on national television. He's already dead; he just hasn't admitted it yet.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [27 favorites]
Can we stop talking about the convention now? A good chunk of this thread is people speculating madly about as yet unvoted on percentages of delegates like this was a real thing happening now, instead of the vote that actually happened.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 7:28 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by lesbiassparrow at 7:28 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
This is gaslighting.
Can we also be a little less eager to drop terms suggestive of abuse and manipulation on people who are themselves claiming unfair treatment, whether it seems objectively true or not? That's going to take the conversation into head-spinning territory pretty fast. This primary thing is pretty tense and hostile, all around!
(and again if you gotta take that out on somebody make it a James Carville or a Chris Matthews)
posted by atoxyl at 8:10 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
Can we also be a little less eager to drop terms suggestive of abuse and manipulation on people who are themselves claiming unfair treatment, whether it seems objectively true or not? That's going to take the conversation into head-spinning territory pretty fast. This primary thing is pretty tense and hostile, all around!
(and again if you gotta take that out on somebody make it a James Carville or a Chris Matthews)
posted by atoxyl at 8:10 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
Nomiki Konst (who did a ton of work inside the DNC for the Sanders side of things after 2016 (including reform commission) and knows how the machine works) explains why a contested convention is basically a non existent possibility at this point and even then impossible to take from Sanders at this point for the simple reason that super delegates are also diverse so can't be seen as a single unit needed to achieve a victory.
Bernie is the presumptive nominee. (outdoor livestream to YouTube 9min 49sec)
posted by phoque at 8:17 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Bernie is the presumptive nominee. (outdoor livestream to YouTube 9min 49sec)
posted by phoque at 8:17 PM on February 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
The Trailer: What we learned from the Nevada caucuses
In Nevada, with 60 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders has carried around 33 percent of first-preference votes. But the Sanders turnout operation helped him dominate the county convention delegate count. A precinct with seven Sanders voters, one Biden voter, one Buttigieg voter and one Warren voter, for example, would have delivered every CCD to Sanders, as only he had crossed the 15 percent viability threshold.posted by kirkaracha at 8:41 PM on February 23, 2020
That meant, for Sanders, that winning a third of the vote (so far) has been worth nearly half of the CCDs.
So... Ummm... Bernie was on 60 minutes tonight...
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:41 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Bernie Sanders: We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?Bernie. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Holy shit please stop defending communist autocrats.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:41 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
I'm gonna file that one as "not wrong but I dunno if it's gonna help you in Florida."
posted by atoxyl at 8:47 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 8:47 PM on February 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
Cuba's average life expectancy is pretty much exactly the same as in the USA, with the average male life expectancy actually being higher, despite being an impoverished island besieged for 60 years by the most powerful empire on Earth.
It's true that in many aspects, Cuba is an against-all-odds success story. Knee-jerk anti-Cuba anti-truth might help you among some descendants of expats in Florida and other commie-hating demographics, but I'm told by liberals that truth and facts are important.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:53 PM on February 23, 2020 [18 favorites]
It's true that in many aspects, Cuba is an against-all-odds success story. Knee-jerk anti-Cuba anti-truth might help you among some descendants of expats in Florida and other commie-hating demographics, but I'm told by liberals that truth and facts are important.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:53 PM on February 23, 2020 [18 favorites]
Ted Cruz spent half of 2016 yelling at Obama for not demonizing Castro or the Cuban regime enough, how much did it help him or hurt anyone's impressions of Obama?
posted by Copronymus at 8:55 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 8:55 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
That Cuba thing is blown out of proportion.
Peter Shulman
When the original tweet that set off the hyperventilating started going around I *almost* tweeted something to the effect of ‘I’ve never seen a Josh Kraushaar tweet that was unfavorable to Dems that wasn’t a quote taken out of context’ & I regret that I didn’t trust my experience
There's a whole thread on it from Patrick Iber behind his tweet link. Patrick is a history prof specializing on Latin America and the Cold War at U of Wisc. Which is not to say his opinion is definitive, but he's not a Twitter rando
posted by chris24 at 9:01 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
Peter Shulman
When the original tweet that set off the hyperventilating started going around I *almost* tweeted something to the effect of ‘I’ve never seen a Josh Kraushaar tweet that was unfavorable to Dems that wasn’t a quote taken out of context’ & I regret that I didn’t trust my experience
Patrick Iber
Here's the full excerpt from the 60 Minutes interview, in case you're only seeing tiny pieces. Sanders is explaining that one of the reason that ordinary people didn't rise up against Castro more was that he put in place widely popular programs in 59-62. That's 100% true
There's a whole thread on it from Patrick Iber behind his tweet link. Patrick is a history prof specializing on Latin America and the Cold War at U of Wisc. Which is not to say his opinion is definitive, but he's not a Twitter rando
posted by chris24 at 9:01 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
Castro was great on healthcare and education, but brutal on freedom of thought and assembly. Bernie's right when he says that Castro was not all bad, but it's disturbing that he would use this mixed record to defend authoritarianism. On preview, Bernie's comment makes a lot more sense in context. Still...
posted by xammerboy at 9:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 9:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Not to mention he twice said he condemned the autocratic actions of the Castro regime and Anderson Cooper's narration explained he made the comments in the context of an explanation as to why the Cuban people hadn't risen up to overthrow Castro.
Yeah, he probably isn't going to win any votes among angry Cuban expats, but are we ever gonna grow up about this shit?
Edit: please point out where he defended authoritarianism.
posted by eagles123 at 9:06 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
Yeah, he probably isn't going to win any votes among angry Cuban expats, but are we ever gonna grow up about this shit?
Edit: please point out where he defended authoritarianism.
posted by eagles123 at 9:06 PM on February 23, 2020 [9 favorites]
I don't think he was defending authoritarianism. He specifically in the full quote says he spoke out at the time and now against it. He was answering a question about why the people didn't rise up more and gave one possible reason.
posted by chris24 at 9:07 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 9:07 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
schadenfrau I'm pretty sure that any serious strategist on the Democratic side has to work on the assumption that Florida is a guaranteed loss because the state government is 100% owned by the Republicans and they will abuse it to cheat and give Florida's EV's to Trump no matter what the actual vote was.
Though, yeah, Sanders' unforced error of praising Castro was really fucking stupid. It's one reason why I was behind Warren back when it looked like she had a chance. Sanders has good politics, but he's almost as much of a walking gaffe factory as Biden.
posted by sotonohito at 9:08 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Though, yeah, Sanders' unforced error of praising Castro was really fucking stupid. It's one reason why I was behind Warren back when it looked like she had a chance. Sanders has good politics, but he's almost as much of a walking gaffe factory as Biden.
posted by sotonohito at 9:08 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Progressive Jewish group IfNotNowWhen calls for Chris Matthews to apologize for his antisemitic remarks about Sanders.
posted by sotonohito at 9:09 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 9:09 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
I didn't think I'd live to see the day when an Anderson Cooper video gave a potential controversy involving a left-wing politician a more fair treatment than Metafilter commenters, but I guess if you live long enough you see everything.
posted by eagles123 at 9:13 PM on February 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 9:13 PM on February 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
Gotta say it's pretty refreshing that when our version of the bold, truth-telling, tell-it-like-it-is, non-focus-grouped outsider goes off script, he tends to say things that are true and not racist.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:13 PM on February 23, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:13 PM on February 23, 2020 [24 favorites]
Sanders: implies that something positive happened in Cuba
Metafilter: Sanders said he'd do what to Chris Matthews in Central Park?!
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:18 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
Metafilter: Sanders said he'd do what to Chris Matthews in Central Park?!
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:18 PM on February 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
If you have to explain why you aren't wrong, you fucked up.
If you have to explain why something isn't corrupt, you fucked up.
If you have to explain why it wasn't **REALLY** praising a dictator, you fucked up.
It doesn't matter if you're right or not. What matters, all that matters, is how the politically disengaged types who only know what they see in the headlines or what FOX or CNN shows them. They're disinterested, don't give a shit about explanations, and they hold the fate of the country in their hands.
Yes, Sanders was totally right, accurate, correct, and saying it was still really fucking stupid. Because you have to spend several minutes explaining why he wasn't praising a dictator while his detractors only need to play a five second clip or show a single headline.
It won't cost him the election, everyone fucks up, but the rule is simple: if you have to explain you've already lost that point.
You'll never go wrong if you expect the US voting public to be unwilling to listen to even a thirty second explanation. If you have to explain then you fucked up.
Remember the (almost certainly fictional) story about LBJ wanting to claim his opponent fucked pigs? His advisers said it wasn't true and LBJ is supposed to have said "I know, I want to make the son of a bitch deny it!" The story is probably fiction, but it underscores the idea: if you have to explain, you lost the point.
It doesn't matter if you're right. As a leftist with intellectual and academic pretensions I hate that. Our left leaning media loves to show us people explaining and winning by explaining, it was one of the major draws to the show West Wing. President Bartlett was always explaining things and by doing so making the right wing twits look like twits. It's how we desperately want the world to work.
But the world doesn't work that way.
Explanations lose. If you have to explain then you've lost. So never put yourself in a position where you have to explain why what you did wasn't really corrupt, or racist, or dictator praising. It doesn't matter if you're really right or not, you'll still lose.
posted by sotonohito at 9:27 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
If you have to explain why something isn't corrupt, you fucked up.
If you have to explain why it wasn't **REALLY** praising a dictator, you fucked up.
It doesn't matter if you're right or not. What matters, all that matters, is how the politically disengaged types who only know what they see in the headlines or what FOX or CNN shows them. They're disinterested, don't give a shit about explanations, and they hold the fate of the country in their hands.
Yes, Sanders was totally right, accurate, correct, and saying it was still really fucking stupid. Because you have to spend several minutes explaining why he wasn't praising a dictator while his detractors only need to play a five second clip or show a single headline.
It won't cost him the election, everyone fucks up, but the rule is simple: if you have to explain you've already lost that point.
You'll never go wrong if you expect the US voting public to be unwilling to listen to even a thirty second explanation. If you have to explain then you fucked up.
Remember the (almost certainly fictional) story about LBJ wanting to claim his opponent fucked pigs? His advisers said it wasn't true and LBJ is supposed to have said "I know, I want to make the son of a bitch deny it!" The story is probably fiction, but it underscores the idea: if you have to explain, you lost the point.
It doesn't matter if you're right. As a leftist with intellectual and academic pretensions I hate that. Our left leaning media loves to show us people explaining and winning by explaining, it was one of the major draws to the show West Wing. President Bartlett was always explaining things and by doing so making the right wing twits look like twits. It's how we desperately want the world to work.
But the world doesn't work that way.
Explanations lose. If you have to explain then you've lost. So never put yourself in a position where you have to explain why what you did wasn't really corrupt, or racist, or dictator praising. It doesn't matter if you're really right or not, you'll still lose.
posted by sotonohito at 9:27 PM on February 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
Incredible the way people are freaking out over such an absolutely innocuous remark, in light of all the things that were said by the last man to be elected President. If 2016 can teach us anything it’s that the media’s idea of a disqualifying comment is no such thing.
posted by moorooka at 9:39 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 9:39 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
> If 2016 can teach us anything it’s that the media’s idea of a disqualifying comment is no such thing.
...for a Republican.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:43 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
...for a Republican.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:43 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
One thing almost everyone in this thread has done in this thread is talk past each other about what the likely convention scenarios will be and jumped pretty much right to an argument about the worst-case scenario “stealing the nomination from Bernie”.
As a reminder, politics is about the exercise of power. In a democratic system, that is measured by how many people are on your side. I know this is restating what should be obvious, but bear with me, because some things that seemed obvious to me clearly aren’t obvious to everyone.
In the Democratic primary system, you need delegates. Nobody will get the nomination at the convention without a majority of delegates. Now, if you get a majority of delegates locked up during the primary process, great! The convention becomes a formality. Any opposing candidates must come to you if they want a position or policy in the administration.
Now, if you can’t get a majority, the tactics change a bit. You need to come to your opponents and search for common ground. What do you have to give to get their support? Maybe it’s the promise of a job. Maybe you have to make a deal on some policy. You trade horses. Don’t want to get rolled at the convention? Make good trades.
Looking at 538, the odds for Bernie getting a majority have jumped to almost 50/50. The odds of him getting a plurality are over 66%. And not a weak plurality, either. They’re forecasting in the 1800 range, which is pretty good. If you add in Warren’s delegates, you get over the top. This is a good thing! Winning a majority is within reason and if you don’t, there is a natural ally who could put you over the top for very little cost. Likely a cabinet position that they would be well qualified for anyways and no meaningful policy concessions.
Which is why the tenor of this conversation makes no damn sense to me. You would think he’s barely holding on and the skullduggery of the other candidates is a given.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:44 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
As a reminder, politics is about the exercise of power. In a democratic system, that is measured by how many people are on your side. I know this is restating what should be obvious, but bear with me, because some things that seemed obvious to me clearly aren’t obvious to everyone.
In the Democratic primary system, you need delegates. Nobody will get the nomination at the convention without a majority of delegates. Now, if you get a majority of delegates locked up during the primary process, great! The convention becomes a formality. Any opposing candidates must come to you if they want a position or policy in the administration.
Now, if you can’t get a majority, the tactics change a bit. You need to come to your opponents and search for common ground. What do you have to give to get their support? Maybe it’s the promise of a job. Maybe you have to make a deal on some policy. You trade horses. Don’t want to get rolled at the convention? Make good trades.
Looking at 538, the odds for Bernie getting a majority have jumped to almost 50/50. The odds of him getting a plurality are over 66%. And not a weak plurality, either. They’re forecasting in the 1800 range, which is pretty good. If you add in Warren’s delegates, you get over the top. This is a good thing! Winning a majority is within reason and if you don’t, there is a natural ally who could put you over the top for very little cost. Likely a cabinet position that they would be well qualified for anyways and no meaningful policy concessions.
Which is why the tenor of this conversation makes no damn sense to me. You would think he’s barely holding on and the skullduggery of the other candidates is a given.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:44 PM on February 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Trump gaffes like that all the time, but he DGAF and neither do the people who like him and like what he does. Gaffes are obsolete once you're shameless. Whether Sanders can pull that off remains to be seen. But it's not a given he can't.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:49 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:49 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
I absolutely agree that you don't want to be explaining complex things to the American people and like you, things like this is why I prefer Warren. That said, while you don't want to be explaining, you also don't want to be apologizing or accepting of bullshit attacks. As Trump has shown, people respond to and believe people who think and act like they're right. So when these "gaffes" happen, it's better to fight back and not accept their framing rather than let them see Ds saying "damn, he shouldn't have said that." Get on your heels and it'll never end and you'll never have momentum. And at least when we do it, the power move will have the advantage of being true as opposed to Trump who does it constantly with lies. When they bring it up, say "he's actually right and besides, I didn't see you say shit about Trump praising Kim who has tens of thousands of Christians in camps." Yes the press loves IOKIYAR, but throw it in their face every day.
posted by chris24 at 9:49 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 9:49 PM on February 23, 2020 [16 favorites]
Yeah, there's been three primaries so far and there's only been one candidate that's collected a notable number of delegates in each. It's way more likely that, once Sanders gets within striking distance of the nomination and it's personally expedient to appear part of the movement, suddenly there'll be a bunch of centre-left people coming out of the woodwork ready to endorse Sanders.
Remember when AOC protested Pelosi's office and Pelosi was all 'I admire the passion of our newest Democrats and look forward to working with them on the issue of climate change?' Democrats are used to the idea of having a fractious coalition and pivoting when the winds change. It seems more natural for them to suddenly declare they're With The People's Candidate once it's more politically expedient for them to do so than to decry that Sanders Doesn't Speak For Americans.
posted by Merus at 10:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Remember when AOC protested Pelosi's office and Pelosi was all 'I admire the passion of our newest Democrats and look forward to working with them on the issue of climate change?' Democrats are used to the idea of having a fractious coalition and pivoting when the winds change. It seems more natural for them to suddenly declare they're With The People's Candidate once it's more politically expedient for them to do so than to decry that Sanders Doesn't Speak For Americans.
posted by Merus at 10:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
I absolutely agree that you don't want to be explaining complex things to the American people and like you, things like this is why I prefer Warren.
Depends on the issue I think. One of the things I like about Sanders as stump speaker is the directness of his message on issues like health care, his ability to just say "we are going to do this because it's morally right and we are going to make everyone pay their fair share" - he makes it sound possible, a matter of political will rather than inherent complexity, and he gives voters enough credit to assume they can understand concepts like progressive taxation, which is an important hump to get over to be able to do any number of other things.
And of course I love that he's a guy who said he wanted to abolish the CIA in 1974 - in 1974? You betcha! - and I think to some extent conventional wisdom can overestimate how much the average person these days cares about Cold Warrior sort of stuff. On the other hand I think in cases like this he'd be better off falling back on "we don't want any more wars, we want to normalize relations with Cuba, U.S. intervention in Latin America has largely come to no good" etc. as his approach to survive the questions about whether he has issued sufficient condemnation of XYZ regime versus trying a nuanced explanation of the whole history of the Cuban Revolution.
posted by atoxyl at 10:26 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Depends on the issue I think. One of the things I like about Sanders as stump speaker is the directness of his message on issues like health care, his ability to just say "we are going to do this because it's morally right and we are going to make everyone pay their fair share" - he makes it sound possible, a matter of political will rather than inherent complexity, and he gives voters enough credit to assume they can understand concepts like progressive taxation, which is an important hump to get over to be able to do any number of other things.
And of course I love that he's a guy who said he wanted to abolish the CIA in 1974 - in 1974? You betcha! - and I think to some extent conventional wisdom can overestimate how much the average person these days cares about Cold Warrior sort of stuff. On the other hand I think in cases like this he'd be better off falling back on "we don't want any more wars, we want to normalize relations with Cuba, U.S. intervention in Latin America has largely come to no good" etc. as his approach to survive the questions about whether he has issued sufficient condemnation of XYZ regime versus trying a nuanced explanation of the whole history of the Cuban Revolution.
posted by atoxyl at 10:26 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Several deleted, for reasons well-known to all. Stop.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:42 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by taz (staff) at 12:42 AM on February 24, 2020
schadenfrau I'm pretty sure that any serious strategist on the Democratic side has to work on the assumption that Florida is a guaranteed loss because the state government is 100% owned by the Republicans and they will abuse it to cheat and give Florida's EV's to Trump no matter what the actual vote was.
Is it worse than it's been before? I don't know specifically but it seems like a poor excuse - there are some demographics in Florida that would probably be good for him and lots of states will have voter suppression. It's possible he had a handicap there anyway because of past comments, and he could never pass as a hardliner (which isn't worth doing for Dems now anyway I think). It just seems like a subject where it's a better idea to talk present than past.
(not concern trolling just playing pretend advisor)
posted by atoxyl at 12:51 AM on February 24, 2020
Is it worse than it's been before? I don't know specifically but it seems like a poor excuse - there are some demographics in Florida that would probably be good for him and lots of states will have voter suppression. It's possible he had a handicap there anyway because of past comments, and he could never pass as a hardliner (which isn't worth doing for Dems now anyway I think). It just seems like a subject where it's a better idea to talk present than past.
(not concern trolling just playing pretend advisor)
posted by atoxyl at 12:51 AM on February 24, 2020
Anybody who praises Castro’s education system is obviously a left wing BOZO and could never be president!
posted by lattiboy at 1:03 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by lattiboy at 1:03 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
On a more related note to the thread, I don’t think the amount of capital T theory being pushed into the mainstream is being properly appreciated. Sanders yelled into Bloomberg’s face that he didn’t do shit to get his billions and stole the productivity of his workers on a national debate stage and was WILDLY cheered for it.
I have never bought into accelerationism before, but boy howdy something is happening.
posted by lattiboy at 1:23 AM on February 24, 2020 [22 favorites]
I have never bought into accelerationism before, but boy howdy something is happening.
posted by lattiboy at 1:23 AM on February 24, 2020 [22 favorites]
If you have to explain why it wasn't **REALLY** praising a dictator, you fucked up.
This presumes the person saying that you're praising a dictator is acting honestly and in good-faith, which we know that Republicans do not do. They lie about everything, and spending all your time correcting them is a losing proposition.
posted by mikelieman at 4:03 AM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
This presumes the person saying that you're praising a dictator is acting honestly and in good-faith, which we know that Republicans do not do. They lie about everything, and spending all your time correcting them is a losing proposition.
posted by mikelieman at 4:03 AM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
Depends on the issue I think.
Oh yeah. I think having to correct a supposed gaffe with a complicated explanation is trouble. I think Bernie and Liz both do a good job of explaining/simplifying their agenda. On supposed gaffes I just think instead of trying to justify/correct/explain you just state your position and flip the script. Don't back down, attack them.
And the CIA thing is another good example like Cuba of a bullshit attack. Despite what Rs, Max Boot or whoever is saying, it wasn't some awful, traitorous thing to think the CIA should be cut back then. As a Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had been a Nixon advisor, introduced a bill in 1995 to eliminate the CIA. In 1960s, Truman, who created the CIA and Dean Acheson called for abolishing it. JFK said it should be "scattered to the four winds."
posted by chris24 at 4:04 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
Oh yeah. I think having to correct a supposed gaffe with a complicated explanation is trouble. I think Bernie and Liz both do a good job of explaining/simplifying their agenda. On supposed gaffes I just think instead of trying to justify/correct/explain you just state your position and flip the script. Don't back down, attack them.
And the CIA thing is another good example like Cuba of a bullshit attack. Despite what Rs, Max Boot or whoever is saying, it wasn't some awful, traitorous thing to think the CIA should be cut back then. As a Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had been a Nixon advisor, introduced a bill in 1995 to eliminate the CIA. In 1960s, Truman, who created the CIA and Dean Acheson called for abolishing it. JFK said it should be "scattered to the four winds."
posted by chris24 at 4:04 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
@DecisionDeskHQ:
NV Caucus County Convention Delegate Results - Total of 96% of precincts reporting
Sanders 46.8%
Biden 20.4%
Buttigieg 13.9%
Warren 9.8%
Steyer 4.6%
Klobuchar 4.2%
Total votes cast so far (first alignment): 98,897.
Full results here:
posted by chris24 at 4:52 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
NV Caucus County Convention Delegate Results - Total of 96% of precincts reporting
Sanders 46.8%
Biden 20.4%
Buttigieg 13.9%
Warren 9.8%
Steyer 4.6%
Klobuchar 4.2%
Total votes cast so far (first alignment): 98,897.
Full results here:
posted by chris24 at 4:52 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
In the full context not designed to be a false gotcha moment suitable for getting people het up on Twitter (and apparently MeFi) it is clear that was not a gaffe by Sanders. When explaining why more ppl did not rise up against authoritarians in any context, pointing out social programs that benefit people as contributing to that is perfectly normal. One might even say necessary. I wonder if there's any parallel with certain policy measures put in place by the Trump admin to prevent discord among segments of the population (see: tax cuts for rich ppl.)
The speed with which the false narrative of "Bernie praises Castro" was repeated here is disappointing.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:48 AM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
The speed with which the false narrative of "Bernie praises Castro" was repeated here is disappointing.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:48 AM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
As is the fact that I feel pressure to clarify here on MeFi that I am not a Bernie bro, Warren is my first choice, Bernie a close second, blah blah blah blah blah.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:49 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by lazaruslong at 5:49 AM on February 24, 2020
I wonder if there's any parallel with certain policy measures put in place by the Trump admin to prevent discord among segments of the population (see: tax cuts for rich ppl.)
And subsidies for farmers.
posted by chris24 at 6:06 AM on February 24, 2020
And subsidies for farmers.
posted by chris24 at 6:06 AM on February 24, 2020
I was happy to see Bernie give a reasonable perspective on the Castro regime. Castro was a dictator and I’m no fan of political repression, but it has to be said: if you’re a socialist of any stripe, you’re probably going to feel some fondness for the only socialist Latin American leader of the 20th century to actually make it out alive with their country’s sovereignty in tact, at a time when the US was trying to railroad every country in the region into serving as compliant tributaries to Capital.
Like, my favorite of those guys was the democratic socialist Allende, but I gotta respect the hustle, you know?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:17 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
Like, my favorite of those guys was the democratic socialist Allende, but I gotta respect the hustle, you know?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:17 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
Sanders had no reason to mention Castro's name at all and it was a huge unforced error. If he wanted to thread that needle he needed to go with something like "even Cuba, a country that has been existing on a shoestring budget for the better part of a century, has managed to run programs of universal literacy and universal healthcare. You're telling me the richest country in the world can't do it?"
He's got the fire and brimstone, and the populist fury but he needs better instincts about not scaring the damn normies.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:20 AM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
He's got the fire and brimstone, and the populist fury but he needs better instincts about not scaring the damn normies.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:20 AM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
I might be wrong, but it feels like the US isn't kneejerk afraid of socialism and communism the way it used to be. I really doubt this is going to make any appreciable impact on anything.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:24 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:24 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
He was asked about something he said in 80’s. Did you even watch the 60 minutes piece? Should he have refused to answer the question?
posted by eagles123 at 6:25 AM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 6:25 AM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
I’ve defended Sanders on this response but I do think in the future he needs to be smarter in how he responds to minimize the opportunity for people of bad faith to capitalize. Not that he needs to refuse to answer, but answer in a way that turns it around to current issues and problems and highlights Trump’s hypocrisy on the issues. His response earlier to Chuck Todd that I posted where he said Trump’s fealty to Putin and Kim were the real pandering to communists is an example. His job now is to win an election, not defend historical socialism.
But like OSBA said, I do think the socialism attack has been muted a bit by Rs constantly calling everything socialism for the last few decades. People like the ACA now, they’ve always liked SS and Medicare. So when they hear them called socialism they think maybe that’s not so bad.
posted by chris24 at 6:33 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
But like OSBA said, I do think the socialism attack has been muted a bit by Rs constantly calling everything socialism for the last few decades. People like the ACA now, they’ve always liked SS and Medicare. So when they hear them called socialism they think maybe that’s not so bad.
posted by chris24 at 6:33 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
He was asked about something he said in 80’s.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:34 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Here he is explaining why the Cuban people didn't rise up and help the U.S. overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro: "…he educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society, you know?"OK What sounds better:
Bernie Sanders: We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?or
Cuba, a country that has been existing on a shoestring budget for the better part of a century, even run by a tinpot dictatot, has managed to run programs of universal literacy and universal healthcare much like every other developed nation in the world except us. You're telling me the richest country in the world can't do it?Bernie needs to challenge people. He can't go in there with a "well Castro wasn't all bad". He needs to go in there with "we need to be better than this asshole and currently, he's winning". Hell, the USG convinced the American people to put a damn man on the moon with everyone pointing out "we need to be better than the USSR and currently, they're winning".
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:34 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
I cannot understand why there's some unwritten rule that mentions of Castro can only be brought up in the negative. Mentions of any socialist has to only brought up as a negative (unless they're European; then it's more acceptable).
Sanders praised Winston Churhill in 2015 even though he is at least partially responsible for millions of dead on the subcontinent and can somewhat be accurately labelled a "genuine genocidaire." How on earth is it considered worse to talk about the positives of Communist Cuba while allowing praise of Churchill? How was Nelson Mandela allowed to be praised despite the terrorist actions of the ANC (with which I make no bones).
In the end, we can excuse any atrocity if it's in the name of a market economy and we will condemn any benefit if it's attached to a leftist ideology. Let's at least be honest with ourselves and stop the selective outrage at some forms of human rights abuses and not others.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:35 AM on February 24, 2020 [22 favorites]
Sanders praised Winston Churhill in 2015 even though he is at least partially responsible for millions of dead on the subcontinent and can somewhat be accurately labelled a "genuine genocidaire." How on earth is it considered worse to talk about the positives of Communist Cuba while allowing praise of Churchill? How was Nelson Mandela allowed to be praised despite the terrorist actions of the ANC (with which I make no bones).
In the end, we can excuse any atrocity if it's in the name of a market economy and we will condemn any benefit if it's attached to a leftist ideology. Let's at least be honest with ourselves and stop the selective outrage at some forms of human rights abuses and not others.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:35 AM on February 24, 2020 [22 favorites]
He was asked about something he said in 80’s. Did you even watch the 60 minutes piece? Should he have refused to answer the question?
Well no, but he should have had better political instincts. I am a huge Bernie supporter and I think that this was in fact a misstep.
Sanders needs to readjust a little. We know, he knows, EVERYONE knows that it is all hands on deck to bring down the progressive monster and save capital from even the slightest inconvenience, and everyone from the radical right to the lair of the Democratic Party is on the brute squad. Sound bites still matter, and Sanders needs to be coached on thinking more carefully how every bit of his public presentation can be used against him, even out of context. Heck, ESPECIALLY out of context.
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:39 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Well no, but he should have had better political instincts. I am a huge Bernie supporter and I think that this was in fact a misstep.
Sanders needs to readjust a little. We know, he knows, EVERYONE knows that it is all hands on deck to bring down the progressive monster and save capital from even the slightest inconvenience, and everyone from the radical right to the lair of the Democratic Party is on the brute squad. Sound bites still matter, and Sanders needs to be coached on thinking more carefully how every bit of his public presentation can be used against him, even out of context. Heck, ESPECIALLY out of context.
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:39 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Two interesting pieces from The Atlantic:
Bernie Sanders Is George McGovern - "The similarities between 2020 and 1972 are too astonishing to ignore. But there’s one big difference."
When Will Moderates Learn Their Lesson? - "If centrists can’t move past their doctrine and recognize when their candidates are unelectable, then how will Democrats ever beat Trump?"
posted by Ouverture at 6:41 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
Bernie Sanders Is George McGovern - "The similarities between 2020 and 1972 are too astonishing to ignore. But there’s one big difference."
When Will Moderates Learn Their Lesson? - "If centrists can’t move past their doctrine and recognize when their candidates are unelectable, then how will Democrats ever beat Trump?"
posted by Ouverture at 6:41 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
I cannot understand why there's some unwritten rule that mentions of Castro can only be brought up in the negative.
Because we're trying to remove a protofascist that's occupying the White House and we will probably need Florida. Republicans haven't gone full on authoritarian and had it magically stick. They've been priming their electorate for decades. We can't expect to walk in there with the political equivalent of "ACKSHULLY parts of socialism aren't that bad" and expect to fix forty years of programming in one election cycle.
To put it bluntly, if this election is a referendum on Trump, we will probably win. If this election is a referendum on how Americans feel about socialism, we have a good chance of losing.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:42 AM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
Because we're trying to remove a protofascist that's occupying the White House and we will probably need Florida. Republicans haven't gone full on authoritarian and had it magically stick. They've been priming their electorate for decades. We can't expect to walk in there with the political equivalent of "ACKSHULLY parts of socialism aren't that bad" and expect to fix forty years of programming in one election cycle.
To put it bluntly, if this election is a referendum on Trump, we will probably win. If this election is a referendum on how Americans feel about socialism, we have a good chance of losing.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:42 AM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
Exactly, the best way to change people’s opinions of socialism is having Bernie win and be a good president. Not fight every past historical battle over perceptions of it during the election.
posted by chris24 at 6:44 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 6:44 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Your Childhood Pet Rock, you've said your say about the Castro thing. Please drop it now.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:45 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by taz (staff) at 6:45 AM on February 24, 2020
Pro-Castro statements seem to be a major trigger for Cubans of a certain age.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:46 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:46 AM on February 24, 2020
Yeah, well, pro-socialism statements seemed to be a major trigger for Americans of a certain age, and look where we are now.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:49 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:49 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes he should have refused to answer the questing by pivoting to a solid talking point and redirecting the interview. Something like
"I'm not here to talk about dead dictators, I'm here to talk about how we can save nearly half a trillion dollars and the lives of hundred of thousands of Americans every year be stitching to M4A"
posted by sotonohito at 6:52 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
"I'm not here to talk about dead dictators, I'm here to talk about how we can save nearly half a trillion dollars and the lives of hundred of thousands of Americans every year be stitching to M4A"
posted by sotonohito at 6:52 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
Minnesota is having precinct caucuses tomorrow, and has a presidential primary as part of Super Tuesday next week. (The DFL has listed the functional differences between the two.) Was disappointed to find out that the MN primary is first-past-the-post. The candidates were set in December, so there are 15 choices and uncommitted (no write-in). Not sure if it's worth going to the caucus to complain about it.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:54 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:54 AM on February 24, 2020
Latest 538 forecast:
Chance Of Winning A Plurality Of Pledged Delegates:
Sanders 69%
Biden 17%
Bloomberg 11%
Warren 2%
Buttigieg 1%
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:57 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Chance Of Winning A Plurality Of Pledged Delegates:
Sanders 69%
Biden 17%
Bloomberg 11%
Warren 2%
Buttigieg 1%
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:57 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
The (538 report of) state-by-state polls of various candidates vs Trump is interesting. Look at Florida, VA, Mich, PA, Wis. over the last month. Sanders has risen to the position of beating Trump by more points in these swing states than any other candidate.
posted by TreeRooster at 7:08 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by TreeRooster at 7:08 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Sanders has probably already shown he can talk about anything he wants in a campaign, and it won't affect the voting of people who hate Trump.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:15 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Harry Caul at 7:15 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
(Equivocation: Florida is not as clear as the others; there are conflicting polls.)
posted by TreeRooster at 7:16 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by TreeRooster at 7:16 AM on February 24, 2020
The issue with Sanders not being the candidate is not that the highly motivated snake emoji posting "bros" on twitter won't vote for him in the general.
Actually there are a number of possibilities which have distinctly different outcomes:
1) Sanders does not win even a plurality
2) He does win a plurality but it is very close (30% / 29% / etc.) - brokered convention ends up with another candidate
3) He wins a plurality and it is not close (40% / 15% / etc.) - brokered convention ends up with another candidate
4) He wins a plurality or majority and is the nominee.
I think that if (1) were to happen, many of his supporters would fall into un-enthusiastic line. However that is now a vanishingly unlikely outcome.
If (2) were to happen there is a real issue with democratic legitimacy. I get that the party has processes and that everyone signed up to them but that is not a convincing argument to anyone other than rule loving technocrats. As others have pointed out, there is actually no way of knowing what the second choices of the Democratic selectorate are. Everyone will be guessing that their candidate best reflects what people want.
(3) is the same as (2) but much, much worse. From a rules point of view it is identical but the optics are horrific.
People who are that engaged with politics will vote and they will overwhelmingly vote for the nominee (except if the nominee is Bloomberg). We know that from the last election as well. Even the bro-iest of the bros, like the Chapo hosts have admitted that obviously they will (although they live in New York so doesn't matter). By definition, anyone who threatens to do this online is so involved with politics that they will not actually do it.
The real problems are:
1) What many of these people will not do is campaign as enthusiastically for another nominee, since he has the largest and most engaged volunteer operation this may hurt.
2) Most people are not highly-online politics junkies. There is a risk that some of the people who find Sanders very motivating (but not so much that they are active campaigners) will stay home if the nominee is another candidate. See also the recent discussion on MeFi about the effect of turnout on election outcome. That isn't a threat - it can't be because those people by definition are not engaged enough to be controlled in a block vote.
3) Most of all: what will Donny do to someone who couldn't even win his own party's internal election? He will hammer, and hammer, and hammer that the whole thing is a dirty trick. Imagine, he gets to run as being sympathetic to "crazy Bernie" who was robbed by a bunch of party insiders. "He was a crazy commy but at least he was honest". Trump is at his most effective when he has an establishment to fight against. A candidate coming out of a brokered convention who was not the plurality winner will stink of establishment and there is nothing that can wash that off.
posted by atrazine at 7:18 AM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
Actually there are a number of possibilities which have distinctly different outcomes:
1) Sanders does not win even a plurality
2) He does win a plurality but it is very close (30% / 29% / etc.) - brokered convention ends up with another candidate
3) He wins a plurality and it is not close (40% / 15% / etc.) - brokered convention ends up with another candidate
4) He wins a plurality or majority and is the nominee.
I think that if (1) were to happen, many of his supporters would fall into un-enthusiastic line. However that is now a vanishingly unlikely outcome.
If (2) were to happen there is a real issue with democratic legitimacy. I get that the party has processes and that everyone signed up to them but that is not a convincing argument to anyone other than rule loving technocrats. As others have pointed out, there is actually no way of knowing what the second choices of the Democratic selectorate are. Everyone will be guessing that their candidate best reflects what people want.
(3) is the same as (2) but much, much worse. From a rules point of view it is identical but the optics are horrific.
People who are that engaged with politics will vote and they will overwhelmingly vote for the nominee (except if the nominee is Bloomberg). We know that from the last election as well. Even the bro-iest of the bros, like the Chapo hosts have admitted that obviously they will (although they live in New York so doesn't matter). By definition, anyone who threatens to do this online is so involved with politics that they will not actually do it.
The real problems are:
1) What many of these people will not do is campaign as enthusiastically for another nominee, since he has the largest and most engaged volunteer operation this may hurt.
2) Most people are not highly-online politics junkies. There is a risk that some of the people who find Sanders very motivating (but not so much that they are active campaigners) will stay home if the nominee is another candidate. See also the recent discussion on MeFi about the effect of turnout on election outcome. That isn't a threat - it can't be because those people by definition are not engaged enough to be controlled in a block vote.
3) Most of all: what will Donny do to someone who couldn't even win his own party's internal election? He will hammer, and hammer, and hammer that the whole thing is a dirty trick. Imagine, he gets to run as being sympathetic to "crazy Bernie" who was robbed by a bunch of party insiders. "He was a crazy commy but at least he was honest". Trump is at his most effective when he has an establishment to fight against. A candidate coming out of a brokered convention who was not the plurality winner will stink of establishment and there is nothing that can wash that off.
posted by atrazine at 7:18 AM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
I will say that the 60 minutes interview was heavily edited to appear more “sound bitey” than maybe it seemed as it was being conducted. In other words, the interview may have been more conversational and less confrontational than the impression the final edit leaves for some. I think Cooper’s narration had about as much speaking time as Sander’s responses. And of course it generated a clickbate headline on CNN.
Even given that, I did not come away from watching it with the impression that Sander’s was defending Cuba or even Socialism as a construct.
I really think the only people that care about it are people who wouldn’t be happy unless Sanders also committed to walking back Obama’s rapproachment with Cuba - which he won’t do.
To me, it’s better to talk about what what you are for than constantly wring your hands about incoming attacks. The interview as edited didn’t give Sander’s a chance to do much of that because it was as much Cooper explaining Sanders to people with Sander’s interview answers inserted as support than a segment designed to allow Sander’s to introduce himself in an interview. Even given that, I really didn’t see much there that was new.
posted by eagles123 at 7:20 AM on February 24, 2020
Even given that, I did not come away from watching it with the impression that Sander’s was defending Cuba or even Socialism as a construct.
I really think the only people that care about it are people who wouldn’t be happy unless Sanders also committed to walking back Obama’s rapproachment with Cuba - which he won’t do.
To me, it’s better to talk about what what you are for than constantly wring your hands about incoming attacks. The interview as edited didn’t give Sander’s a chance to do much of that because it was as much Cooper explaining Sanders to people with Sander’s interview answers inserted as support than a segment designed to allow Sander’s to introduce himself in an interview. Even given that, I really didn’t see much there that was new.
posted by eagles123 at 7:20 AM on February 24, 2020
> I might be wrong, but it feels like the US isn't kneejerk afraid of socialism and communism the way it used to be.
A lot of voters that grew up during the cold war still have a kneejerk reaction to the word "socialism".
Vermont is a small state where campaigning relies heavily on retail politics. In that environment, Sanders could call himself a "democratic socialist", and when he went around Vermont holding town-hall events at little towns across the state, he could explain what he meant by that and answer voters' questions. Voters in Vermont obviously decided they liked his version of socialism. They elected him and reelected numerous times first as mayor of Burlington, then to the House, and then the Senate. He even managed to get cross-over votes from people who usually vote Republican.
Pulling that off nationwide where politics is much more a matter of sound-bites and paid advertising, rather than the Vermont model of 'talk to voters and answer their questions', is going to be difficult. But if he wins the nomination, he's going to have pull it off somehow.
posted by nangar at 7:45 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
A lot of voters that grew up during the cold war still have a kneejerk reaction to the word "socialism".
Vermont is a small state where campaigning relies heavily on retail politics. In that environment, Sanders could call himself a "democratic socialist", and when he went around Vermont holding town-hall events at little towns across the state, he could explain what he meant by that and answer voters' questions. Voters in Vermont obviously decided they liked his version of socialism. They elected him and reelected numerous times first as mayor of Burlington, then to the House, and then the Senate. He even managed to get cross-over votes from people who usually vote Republican.
Pulling that off nationwide where politics is much more a matter of sound-bites and paid advertising, rather than the Vermont model of 'talk to voters and answer their questions', is going to be difficult. But if he wins the nomination, he's going to have pull it off somehow.
posted by nangar at 7:45 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Jesus, I know I should stay away but WaPo is going off the rails into crazy town.Sure, it's a joke news source that should be taken about as seriously as Fox News, but dang.
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:51 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:51 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
Not to put to find a point on it but isn’t he pulling it off now? He won nearly half the delegates in Nevada in a 5 or 6 way race
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:52 AM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:52 AM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
Not to put to find a point on it but isn’t he pulling it off now? He won nearly half the delegates in Nevada in a 5 or 6 way race
To some folks he's going to be a disaster fringe candidate up to and including his inauguration. Hell, expect hand-wringing about Sanders' electability three years into his first presidential term.
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:55 AM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
To some folks he's going to be a disaster fringe candidate up to and including his inauguration. Hell, expect hand-wringing about Sanders' electability three years into his first presidential term.
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:55 AM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
Yes, good point, MisantropicPainforest. There's evidence that Sanders is pulling this off with Democratic primary voters. (The evidence is called "winning", and he's doing that.)
posted by nangar at 8:04 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by nangar at 8:04 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
Republicans have been decrying any policy that would increase taxes as "socialism", and I assume that's helped to rehabilitate the term and ironically created an environment where President Sanders is a possibility. And I will cackle if republicans' refusal to work with Obamacare (because they needed it to be a socialist bogeyman and they were afraid to give Obama a win) results in M4A.
posted by jomato at 8:07 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by jomato at 8:07 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
The question of, “can this candidate who is winning a primary pivot and win in the general election” happens every four years and is a fundamentally unanswerable one. It’s functionality indistinguishable from concern trolling and should be read as such.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:15 AM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:15 AM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
Bloomberg has made a tactical pivot in the wake of Nevada and leading up to SC (where he’s also not on the ballot). He was supposed to hold a CNN-moderated town hall tonight right before Sanders held a similar one—instead, he’s postponed that to Wednesday, the night after the Tuesday debate. This morning, he rolled out attack ads on Sanders’ gun record and his campaign is echoing this in calls with reporters. Seems like his strategy while he waits to be on a ballot will be to deflect attacks on his weaknesses into attacks on Sanders.
In comparison, Warren is doing the opposite, deflecting questions about Sanders’ weaknesses into answers about Bloomberg. (That being said, my guess is she will do more of a two-step on Sanders in the debate tomorrow night, the way she did to Klobuchar last debate: defend him from Bloomberg’s attacks and then jab him with something to distinguish her from him.)
(All links to twitter.)
posted by sallybrown at 8:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
In comparison, Warren is doing the opposite, deflecting questions about Sanders’ weaknesses into answers about Bloomberg. (That being said, my guess is she will do more of a two-step on Sanders in the debate tomorrow night, the way she did to Klobuchar last debate: defend him from Bloomberg’s attacks and then jab him with something to distinguish her from him.)
(All links to twitter.)
posted by sallybrown at 8:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
It is just so galling to hear people speak with any authority on how politics will play out at this point. Nobody knows! 2008, 2010, 2016, and 2018 all might as well have happened in different galaxies as the outcomes all contradicted one another!
The knee jerk liberal reaction of worrying about what a bunch of professional liars and bad faith actors will say is very clearly a losing game. It muddles your message and keeps you constantly in fear of pissing off some rando centrists whose decisions are based on fickle horseshit you have no control over like "They yell too much!" or that they "Don't seem 'presidential' ".
At this point my only axiom is "do what is morally right and fight like the world hangs in the balance".
posted by lattiboy at 8:45 AM on February 24, 2020 [51 favorites]
The knee jerk liberal reaction of worrying about what a bunch of professional liars and bad faith actors will say is very clearly a losing game. It muddles your message and keeps you constantly in fear of pissing off some rando centrists whose decisions are based on fickle horseshit you have no control over like "They yell too much!" or that they "Don't seem 'presidential' ".
At this point my only axiom is "do what is morally right and fight like the world hangs in the balance".
posted by lattiboy at 8:45 AM on February 24, 2020 [51 favorites]
Pulling that off nationwide where politics is much more a matter of sound-bites and paid advertising, rather than the Vermont model of 'talk to voters and answer their questions', is going to be difficult. But if he wins the nomination, he's going to have pull it off somehow.
But it’s not a national election, so no he doesn’t, and right now that’s the thing bringing me comfort (along with some mention of improving swing state polls upthread). It will be easier to pull this off in the handful of swing states that will determine the Presidential election. Unfortunately Bernie hasn’t tested that strategy, particularly amongst older voters, while foreign state actors have had access to an enormously effective propaganda machine (Facebook). Similarly...
2008, 2010, 2016, and 2018 all might as well have happened in different galaxies as the outcomes all contradicted one another!
Not really. Obama only won 2008 by 52-47, even after 8 years of W, the Iraq war, and the crash. 2010 wasn’t a huge surprise either. The intervening years saw the rise of the right and the consolidation of various propaganda networks, and then 2015-2016 saw it all blow up with Russian interference.
I think Putin couldn’t ratfuck 2018 precisely because it was (relatively speaking) a national election. But because of the electoral college, he absolutely can ratfuck every presidential election, since they’re really only decided by a handful of states.
And as with the right and white nationalism, and as with whatever bullshit he stirred up amongst the Bernie bro’s, he just has to light the match. The gasoline is already there. And once the fire is lit there doesn’t seem to be any way to put it out, because people would rather die dumb than admit they got played.
I hate almost everything about all of this. The only thing I do not hate is the aforementioned widespread acceptance of basic ideas, like that human suffering should not be a profit center, or that we need to do something about the oncoming climate catastrophe, but I also live in fear that this is how those ideas get sabotaged for at least the next four years. And we don’t have another four years. We just don’t.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:35 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
But it’s not a national election, so no he doesn’t, and right now that’s the thing bringing me comfort (along with some mention of improving swing state polls upthread). It will be easier to pull this off in the handful of swing states that will determine the Presidential election. Unfortunately Bernie hasn’t tested that strategy, particularly amongst older voters, while foreign state actors have had access to an enormously effective propaganda machine (Facebook). Similarly...
2008, 2010, 2016, and 2018 all might as well have happened in different galaxies as the outcomes all contradicted one another!
Not really. Obama only won 2008 by 52-47, even after 8 years of W, the Iraq war, and the crash. 2010 wasn’t a huge surprise either. The intervening years saw the rise of the right and the consolidation of various propaganda networks, and then 2015-2016 saw it all blow up with Russian interference.
I think Putin couldn’t ratfuck 2018 precisely because it was (relatively speaking) a national election. But because of the electoral college, he absolutely can ratfuck every presidential election, since they’re really only decided by a handful of states.
And as with the right and white nationalism, and as with whatever bullshit he stirred up amongst the Bernie bro’s, he just has to light the match. The gasoline is already there. And once the fire is lit there doesn’t seem to be any way to put it out, because people would rather die dumb than admit they got played.
I hate almost everything about all of this. The only thing I do not hate is the aforementioned widespread acceptance of basic ideas, like that human suffering should not be a profit center, or that we need to do something about the oncoming climate catastrophe, but I also live in fear that this is how those ideas get sabotaged for at least the next four years. And we don’t have another four years. We just don’t.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:35 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
It's interesting to see Bloomberg running to the left of Sanders on gun control. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out, both in the primaries and the general election.
posted by JackFlash at 9:42 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 9:42 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
The absurd power the being ascribed to Russia has truly reached galaxy brain levels. They're going to buy some Facebook ads and have a bunch of bots saying wild, stupid shit. The Koch Bros, AIPAC, the NRA, and Bloomberg will be doing way, way more effect things and yet I don't see the pants-shitting about that.
posted by lattiboy at 9:47 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by lattiboy at 9:47 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
2008, 2010, 2016, and 2018 all might as well have happened in different galaxies as the outcomes all contradicted one another!
'08 and '16 were typical angry change votes after 8 years of one president, and '10 and '18 were were typical backlashes in the House against the general election. And they all were in the deadlocked trend of Republicans losing the popular vote (except for '04) since 1989.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:47 AM on February 24, 2020
'08 and '16 were typical angry change votes after 8 years of one president, and '10 and '18 were were typical backlashes in the House against the general election. And they all were in the deadlocked trend of Republicans losing the popular vote (except for '04) since 1989.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:47 AM on February 24, 2020
The American Chopper socialism meme pretty much sums it up:
SOCIALISM NEVER WORKS
NORWAY IS SOCIALIST AND THEY'RE DOING GREAT
THEY'RE NOT SOCIALIST THEY'RE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES WITH STRONG WELFARE POLICIES
THEN LET'S ADOPT THOSE POLICIES
NO THAT'S SOCIALISM
posted by clawsoon at 9:47 AM on February 24, 2020 [49 favorites]
SOCIALISM NEVER WORKS
NORWAY IS SOCIALIST AND THEY'RE DOING GREAT
THEY'RE NOT SOCIALIST THEY'RE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES WITH STRONG WELFARE POLICIES
THEN LET'S ADOPT THOSE POLICIES
NO THAT'S SOCIALISM
posted by clawsoon at 9:47 AM on February 24, 2020 [49 favorites]
And as with the right and white nationalism, and as with whatever bullshit he stirred up amongst the Bernie bro’s, he just has to light the match.
A. What, specifically are you even talking about here? Because it looks like a contentless smear, vague conspiratorial intimations, not anything real. We should be better than this.
B. Enough with the "bernie bro" epithet, it erases the PoC and women supporters of the Sanders campaign, which has the most diverse group of supporters in this race.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:57 AM on February 24, 2020 [24 favorites]
A. What, specifically are you even talking about here? Because it looks like a contentless smear, vague conspiratorial intimations, not anything real. We should be better than this.
B. Enough with the "bernie bro" epithet, it erases the PoC and women supporters of the Sanders campaign, which has the most diverse group of supporters in this race.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:57 AM on February 24, 2020 [24 favorites]
From the same 60 Minutes Interview, Sanders also talks about intervening in Taiwan if it got attacked by China:
Cooper: If China took military action against Taiwan, is something you would...?
Sanders: It's something...yeah. I mean I think we have got to make it clear to countries around the world that we will not sit by and allow invasions to take place, absolutely.
I think this is much more important than his remarks on Castro. This is at least can be interpreted as continuing support of the "status quo" for Taiwan. He also mentions his support of NATO. I think that's good, because it shows he knows the importance of rebuilding relationships with US allies after Trump.
posted by FJT at 9:59 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
Cooper: If China took military action against Taiwan, is something you would...?
Sanders: It's something...yeah. I mean I think we have got to make it clear to countries around the world that we will not sit by and allow invasions to take place, absolutely.
I think this is much more important than his remarks on Castro. This is at least can be interpreted as continuing support of the "status quo" for Taiwan. He also mentions his support of NATO. I think that's good, because it shows he knows the importance of rebuilding relationships with US allies after Trump.
posted by FJT at 9:59 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
The Sanders revolution has, since its inception, been a project that seeks to replace existing power structures -- first by cooperation with them (e.g. Bernie's long history of caucusing with Democrats and partnership with progressives in the Democratic party), then co-opting them (e.g. his use of the Democratic party as a host organism from which he can launch his Presidential campaigns), and, ultimately, casting them aside. The two-party system isn't going anywhere, and Bernie knows this, so it's almost a certainty that the end result of this transition maintains the Democratic party label, but with him at the top, and centrists marginalized. Despite the "revolution" rhetoric, he understands the importance of maintaining the integrity of the coalition that has allowed him to get to this point for as long as it's useful, and we see clearly after three early contests that it's been very useful to him.
What I think we're seeing from many in his Very Online contingent recently is a belief that it's time to wind down the remnants of cooperation and ramp up the takeover to ensure victory in November. In their mind, the party leaders and moderate Democrats were the reason he didn't get the nomination in 2016, and to avoid a repeat, it's important not only for him to be seen as the frontrunner, but also to anticipate obstacles to his nomination and swiftly dispatch them. Hence the focus on nightmare convention scenarios and hypocritical suggestions that other candidates should drop out.
All of this business about how the rules of the party are a sham and how electing anyone other than the plurality delegate winner would be a perversion of the process assumes that Bernie has no plan to win via those established rules. But how could he not have such a plan? He's no fool. Of course he's going to keep his options open, and it's not like speaking out against the party establishment is off brand for him, so he'll keep doing that. But there is no question in my mind that his people have a firm grasp on the number of superdelegates they can count on, as well as which ones might be gettable under different scenarios.
I believe he also understands, despite the protests of many of his most impassioned followers, that he needs the votes of many traditional Democratic voters for which he was not their second or even third choice. His campaign organization is a force to be reckoned with, but if he's fortunate enough to win the nomination, it is going to be fighting against massive and powerful forces in the opposite direction. Even the most ambitious estimates of record turnout among key demographics in the Democratic base don't get you to 270 in a fair fight without a strong showing from moderates -- and we know it won't be a fair fight.
This doesn't mean pandering to the Rust Belt Trumpists, but it does mean tailoring the message to the audience, and becoming more comfortable with some dissonance between those messages. Trump had zero problems code-switching when he was targeting a moderate audience vs. his base, and it served him well, with the media falling for narratives about how he would be a foreign policy dove who protected Social Security and made significant infrastructure investments, and with low-information moderates falling for it as well.
Of course, Trump was lying about all of those promises, but Sanders doesn't even have to. He has a great message for laid off rural Ohio factory workers, and he has a great message for Latinx urban healthcare workers. He can promise tangible improvements to the lives of debt-saddled millennial college grads, but also make a convincing case that a Sanders economy would improve the lives of seniors. One set of messages may be emphasized more heavily in Nevada than in Florida, but he can credibly promise to help so many constituencies across the political spectrum, simply by virtue of the fact that he's unafraid to say that government should help people.
For this reason, I believe Bernie will not be going in the direction that many of his most animated supporters want him to. His message will remain passionate and defiant, but also hopeful and constructive. He will look to use his electoral wins to build support within the ranks of superdelegates rather than poisoning the well with premature talk of what might happen if he doesn't go in with a pledged majority. He will cheerfully accept the support of moderates without compromising his principles, and, where necessary, will have his surrogates fine-tune the way the message is delivered to compete hard in as many winnable states as possible. He knows he will need all of these things (and then some) to overcome the GOP's massive advantages of incumbency, media bias toward conservatism, online disinformation campaigns, and a willingness to break the law to subvert the will of voters.
Bernie knows that the prize is in November, and that he doesn't need to sacrifice the size of his coalition to ensure the integrity of his campaign.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:59 AM on February 24, 2020 [11 favorites]
What I think we're seeing from many in his Very Online contingent recently is a belief that it's time to wind down the remnants of cooperation and ramp up the takeover to ensure victory in November. In their mind, the party leaders and moderate Democrats were the reason he didn't get the nomination in 2016, and to avoid a repeat, it's important not only for him to be seen as the frontrunner, but also to anticipate obstacles to his nomination and swiftly dispatch them. Hence the focus on nightmare convention scenarios and hypocritical suggestions that other candidates should drop out.
All of this business about how the rules of the party are a sham and how electing anyone other than the plurality delegate winner would be a perversion of the process assumes that Bernie has no plan to win via those established rules. But how could he not have such a plan? He's no fool. Of course he's going to keep his options open, and it's not like speaking out against the party establishment is off brand for him, so he'll keep doing that. But there is no question in my mind that his people have a firm grasp on the number of superdelegates they can count on, as well as which ones might be gettable under different scenarios.
I believe he also understands, despite the protests of many of his most impassioned followers, that he needs the votes of many traditional Democratic voters for which he was not their second or even third choice. His campaign organization is a force to be reckoned with, but if he's fortunate enough to win the nomination, it is going to be fighting against massive and powerful forces in the opposite direction. Even the most ambitious estimates of record turnout among key demographics in the Democratic base don't get you to 270 in a fair fight without a strong showing from moderates -- and we know it won't be a fair fight.
This doesn't mean pandering to the Rust Belt Trumpists, but it does mean tailoring the message to the audience, and becoming more comfortable with some dissonance between those messages. Trump had zero problems code-switching when he was targeting a moderate audience vs. his base, and it served him well, with the media falling for narratives about how he would be a foreign policy dove who protected Social Security and made significant infrastructure investments, and with low-information moderates falling for it as well.
Of course, Trump was lying about all of those promises, but Sanders doesn't even have to. He has a great message for laid off rural Ohio factory workers, and he has a great message for Latinx urban healthcare workers. He can promise tangible improvements to the lives of debt-saddled millennial college grads, but also make a convincing case that a Sanders economy would improve the lives of seniors. One set of messages may be emphasized more heavily in Nevada than in Florida, but he can credibly promise to help so many constituencies across the political spectrum, simply by virtue of the fact that he's unafraid to say that government should help people.
For this reason, I believe Bernie will not be going in the direction that many of his most animated supporters want him to. His message will remain passionate and defiant, but also hopeful and constructive. He will look to use his electoral wins to build support within the ranks of superdelegates rather than poisoning the well with premature talk of what might happen if he doesn't go in with a pledged majority. He will cheerfully accept the support of moderates without compromising his principles, and, where necessary, will have his surrogates fine-tune the way the message is delivered to compete hard in as many winnable states as possible. He knows he will need all of these things (and then some) to overcome the GOP's massive advantages of incumbency, media bias toward conservatism, online disinformation campaigns, and a willingness to break the law to subvert the will of voters.
Bernie knows that the prize is in November, and that he doesn't need to sacrifice the size of his coalition to ensure the integrity of his campaign.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:59 AM on February 24, 2020 [11 favorites]
I think Putin couldn’t ratfuck 2018 precisely because it was (relatively speaking) a national election. Also, Hillary Clinton wasn't running anywhere, so he careth not.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:05 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 10:05 AM on February 24, 2020
Enough with the "bernie bro" epithet
After the win in Nevada, it should now be "Los Hermanos de Bernado."
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:06 AM on February 24, 2020 [17 favorites]
After the win in Nevada, it should now be "Los Hermanos de Bernado."
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:06 AM on February 24, 2020 [17 favorites]
It's interesting to see Bloomberg running to the left of Sanders on gun control.
Bernie has always had a slight problem getting into the heads of people who are not sharing his struggles. I am just commenting as a Vermonter who is fine with him but not always in his camp. In Vermont there is almost no gun control (we got our first laws in the last two years, everything else was what the feds required) and very little gun violence. This is a LOT more about our small, homogenous population and a lot less about guns. As a result, he's never had to have a particularly nuanced opinion about guns, and he doesn't. I think it's a thing he's likely to work on because, unlike Bloomberg, I think he may be telling the truth about what he's going to try to accomplish.
Do not want to argue with anyone about any of these topics, but he's been a Vermont politician since 1981 and he's kind of known to us.
posted by jessamyn at 10:10 AM on February 24, 2020 [20 favorites]
Bernie has always had a slight problem getting into the heads of people who are not sharing his struggles. I am just commenting as a Vermonter who is fine with him but not always in his camp. In Vermont there is almost no gun control (we got our first laws in the last two years, everything else was what the feds required) and very little gun violence. This is a LOT more about our small, homogenous population and a lot less about guns. As a result, he's never had to have a particularly nuanced opinion about guns, and he doesn't. I think it's a thing he's likely to work on because, unlike Bloomberg, I think he may be telling the truth about what he's going to try to accomplish.
Do not want to argue with anyone about any of these topics, but he's been a Vermont politician since 1981 and he's kind of known to us.
posted by jessamyn at 10:10 AM on February 24, 2020 [20 favorites]
"Dick Van Dyke Endorses Bernie Sanders for President"
Dick Van Dyke hosted at least one fundraiser for Sanders four years ago, as well. It makes my dad, who will turn 90 a few weeks after the election in November, so happy to know that he is not the oldest Bernie supporter.
posted by maurice at 10:16 AM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
Dick Van Dyke hosted at least one fundraiser for Sanders four years ago, as well. It makes my dad, who will turn 90 a few weeks after the election in November, so happy to know that he is not the oldest Bernie supporter.
posted by maurice at 10:16 AM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
Mod note: few comments removed. Do not start with 1. sneering dismissiveness about Warren supporters 2. sneering dismissiveness about Sanders supporters 3. "Russia is wrapped up in all this" allegations 4. Fighting with other commenters instead of flagging and moving on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:20 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:20 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Also if you think Cubans in Florida were going to go for Bernie until that interview....lol, for real.
The Cuban Revolution was over 65 years ago. Most of the original Cuban exiles are dead. The younger generations have no memory of Cuba and are less hardcore Republican, although there is still a lingering political machine.
posted by JackFlash at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2020
The Cuban Revolution was over 65 years ago. Most of the original Cuban exiles are dead. The younger generations have no memory of Cuba and are less hardcore Republican, although there is still a lingering political machine.
posted by JackFlash at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2020
If efficacy of Russian meddling is about perverting normal discourse, I'd say they've been a lot more effective on Sarah Kendzior than Luke O'Neil. If you think every time you see a 'but go off' reply on Twitter and that Putin was responsible, I'd recommend building some really elaborate block and mute lists for the next eight months.
posted by 99_ at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by 99_ at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
Is there an opening for Sanders to pivot from talking about gun control as an individual issue to regulation of the gun manufacturers, similar to regulation of other large industries?
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:22 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:22 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
From Columbia Journalism Review's "The Media Today" digest/column: As Bernie Sanders wins in Nevada, pundits freak out (Jon Allsop)
This lack of representativeness [or lack of diversity of political viewpoints among journalists] isn’t just a problem because it limits the range of ideas we get to substantively debate (though that is certainly a big concern). Whatever you think of its merits, it also distorts our coverage of the horserace—if we skew our opinion programming toward elites, we miss large swathes of viewpoints that are influential in the country. Trump’s rise proved this in 2016, yet still we seem surprised by the Sanders surge. That’s unforgivably complacent; as a result, much of the national political conversation feels panicked and reactive.posted by ZeusHumms at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Barack Obama got a lot of shit for wanting to normalize relations with Cuba. He won Florida.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
Other Democratic presidents have weathered much worse Cuban crises in their careers. The forgotten story of how refugees almost ended Bill Clinton’s career < WaPo
posted by Harry Caul at 10:38 AM on February 24, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 10:38 AM on February 24, 2020
It’s looking like early voting was about 3/4 of the vote total in Nevada.
3 takeaways:
1. The debate was probably too late to affect things, at least in Nevada specifically.
2. People who vote early are people who are pretty sure. And Bernie’s supporters are definitely pretty sure.
3. Nevada’s “caucus” is like 75% of the way to a primary with ranked choice voting. Let’s see if they just do that going forward.
There’s only one state caucus left, and it’s the same deal with early ranked voting.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:41 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
3 takeaways:
1. The debate was probably too late to affect things, at least in Nevada specifically.
2. People who vote early are people who are pretty sure. And Bernie’s supporters are definitely pretty sure.
3. Nevada’s “caucus” is like 75% of the way to a primary with ranked choice voting. Let’s see if they just do that going forward.
There’s only one state caucus left, and it’s the same deal with early ranked voting.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:41 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Barack Obama got a lot of shit for wanting to normalize relations with Cuba. He won Florida.
He won Florida before actually going through with it.
posted by Etrigan at 10:42 AM on February 24, 2020
He won Florida before actually going through with it.
posted by Etrigan at 10:42 AM on February 24, 2020
Sanders sends Democratic establishment into panic mode
After Bernie Sanders' landslide Nevada win, it's time for Democrats to unite behind him
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:49 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
After Bernie Sanders' landslide Nevada win, it's time for Democrats to unite behind him
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:49 AM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sanders just took the lead in black voter support according to Morning Consult.
The latest Morning Consult tracking poll also finds Sanders leading the field among black voters for the first time as the race moves to South Carolina, the second successive state with a significant black population that former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign views as a firewall. Thirty-three percent of black Democratic primary voters said they’re backing Sanders, compared with 29 percent who said Biden, within the subsample’s 4-point margin of error.
Winning black voters was the entire theory of Biden's campaign and now that appears to be dissolving. Nobody else even registers with this group except Steyer.
posted by lattiboy at 10:58 AM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
The latest Morning Consult tracking poll also finds Sanders leading the field among black voters for the first time as the race moves to South Carolina, the second successive state with a significant black population that former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign views as a firewall. Thirty-three percent of black Democratic primary voters said they’re backing Sanders, compared with 29 percent who said Biden, within the subsample’s 4-point margin of error.
Winning black voters was the entire theory of Biden's campaign and now that appears to be dissolving. Nobody else even registers with this group except Steyer.
posted by lattiboy at 10:58 AM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
After Bernie Sanders' landslide Nevada win, there are still 50+ primaries left. Nathan Robinson can fuck off.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
Ah didn't realize that link was to a Nathan J. Robinson article, definitely clicking now. Thanks for the heads up @tonycpsu.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:07 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 11:07 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
A good argument from Jeet Heer about why prominent MSNBC voices and Never Trumpers are upset about Sanders’ success:
posted by sallybrown at 11:07 AM on February 24, 2020 [17 favorites]
Some of the already-existing hosts of MSNBC were natural Never Trump voices, notably Joe Scarborough. But the network became increasingly receptive to pundits like William Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, and Max Boot. The alliance between centrist liberals and erstwhile Republican led to the creation of an ancien régime resistance, an opposition to Trump rooted in nostalgia....Once upon a time, the myth tells us, America was governed by stalwart centrists like John McCain, Tip O’Neill, and George H.W. Bush, men who were always willing to walk across the aisle to work with their foes. They presided over a functioning Republic, now being torn apart by savage partisanship, which led to the rise of Trump.The major difference I see between Biden supporters and Sanders supporters in my life is this same divergence: the idea of Trump as aberrant and the goal being “let’s get back to where we were” vs. the idea of Trump presenting racist/hideous/corrupt solutions to very real problems and the goal being “let’s use new progressive solutions to treat those problems.”
The project of the ancien régime resistance has been to try to return America to that prelapsarian paradise of bipartisan comity. The idea was that if liberals and conservatives could work together to defeat Trump, then in the future there could be more cooperation along centrist lines....The Russia narrative was a perfect chance for centrist liberals and neoconservatives to bond over a shared enemy, one that could be blamed for Trump’s presidency....
Sanders has no interest in restoring the lost center. He clearly believes the only way to fight Trumpism is with a robust progressive program.
posted by sallybrown at 11:07 AM on February 24, 2020 [17 favorites]
I fully understand the "There are 50 primaries left!" attitude. It makes sense! Unless you actually look at the map, financial situation, and timing of those 50 primaries. There are EIGHT DAYS until Super Tuesday! EIGHT!
Can anybody please lay out a plausible scenario where the entire center and right-wing of the party coalesce around a single candidate, build large field operations, advertise in prohibitively expensive media markets, get any meaningful POC support, and bleed support from an ascendant left-wing candidate? I mean this sincerely as it is beyond my imagination. In eight days.
posted by lattiboy at 11:09 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
Can anybody please lay out a plausible scenario where the entire center and right-wing of the party coalesce around a single candidate, build large field operations, advertise in prohibitively expensive media markets, get any meaningful POC support, and bleed support from an ascendant left-wing candidate? I mean this sincerely as it is beyond my imagination. In eight days.
posted by lattiboy at 11:09 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
Or maybe you just believe that we shouldn't use sabermetric analysis to try to judge the outcome after 2.2% of the country has had their chance to weigh in. If staying in the race until mid-July was okay for Sanders in 2016, staying in past February should be pretty uncontroversial. And yet.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:12 AM on February 24, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:12 AM on February 24, 2020 [14 favorites]
We don't even have to wait until Super Tuesday. If Biden doesn't win SC, he's out. There's a 69% chance Sanders wins most delegates. If he wins SC, that number jumps up quite a bit. SC was Bidens to win early on, and where he was polling best. Its hard to imagine Buttegieg or Warren winning with such low support from POC.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:14 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:14 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
That said there's still considerable uncertainty about who will win, even though its most likely to be Sanders. Also we don't have to wait that long to find everything out.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:17 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:17 AM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: comment removed - it's not other commenters' jobs to scenario-plan and prognosticate to your satisfaction. Participate in the conversation already in progress in this thread, on the topic of the thread. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:21 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:21 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
FWIW, Sanders ground team is ON IT in Florida. I get emails and texts daily inviting me to events they have in my area. I am Team Warren, but I'm totally fine with Bernie. Warren hasn't got any campaign staff here (or at least they haven't contacted me, even though I've signed up and have donated financially) and the volunteer events are people getting together to write postcards (which is great and helpful, but there's not been any outreach beyond that). I'm putting my energy and most of my money behind Donna Deegan who is running for Rutherford's House seat. I think Sanders has it well in hand and we have got to get another D in the House.
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:21 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:21 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
Enough with the "bernie bro" epithet
"Bernie bro" is not a label to describe Bernie's supporters as "bros." It's a very specific demographic, sometimes AKA "the dirtbag left" who think the ends justify the means and harass folks for not supporting Sanders in the right way.
A lot of lovely people support Sanders. They're not "Bernie bros." But the folks on Twitter who find my tweets about how I think Warren is the brain to Sanders' heart, and say "if she had any brains, she'd drop out and stop sabotaging Bernie"? Yeah, those guys are inevitably white men who have used the "importance" of Bernie's "revolution" as an excuse to harass.
It's really annoying when people are all, "they're not all bernie bros," because it was never meant to apply to the demographic at large. It's the Chapo Trap House fucks and their ilk, not the folks voting for Bernie because he's actually looking out for them.
posted by explosion at 11:23 AM on February 24, 2020 [26 favorites]
"Bernie bro" is not a label to describe Bernie's supporters as "bros." It's a very specific demographic, sometimes AKA "the dirtbag left" who think the ends justify the means and harass folks for not supporting Sanders in the right way.
A lot of lovely people support Sanders. They're not "Bernie bros." But the folks on Twitter who find my tweets about how I think Warren is the brain to Sanders' heart, and say "if she had any brains, she'd drop out and stop sabotaging Bernie"? Yeah, those guys are inevitably white men who have used the "importance" of Bernie's "revolution" as an excuse to harass.
It's really annoying when people are all, "they're not all bernie bros," because it was never meant to apply to the demographic at large. It's the Chapo Trap House fucks and their ilk, not the folks voting for Bernie because he's actually looking out for them.
posted by explosion at 11:23 AM on February 24, 2020 [26 favorites]
It's really annoying when people are all, "they're not all bernie bros," because it was never meant to apply to the demographic at large.
I take your point and I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but the phrase "bernie bro" originated from Bernie's opposition in the 2016 primary, who used it to indiscriminately tar his supporters as angry white men unfit for polite society. It's a stereotype that has been primarily used to criticize Sanders for not having diverse enough support (which, of course, was never the case, and is especially not the case today).
You can use the phrase whichever way you like, but trust me that you're going against the popular understanding of the term, and anyone on the broader left is probably going to take it as an insult.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 11:28 AM on February 24, 2020 [17 favorites]
I take your point and I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but the phrase "bernie bro" originated from Bernie's opposition in the 2016 primary, who used it to indiscriminately tar his supporters as angry white men unfit for polite society. It's a stereotype that has been primarily used to criticize Sanders for not having diverse enough support (which, of course, was never the case, and is especially not the case today).
You can use the phrase whichever way you like, but trust me that you're going against the popular understanding of the term, and anyone on the broader left is probably going to take it as an insult.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 11:28 AM on February 24, 2020 [17 favorites]
Maybe words just don't mean anything any more. I mean, "deplorable" was meant as an out for Trump supporters to say, "oh no, I'm one of those economically anxious folks, NOT deplorable," and then they just said, "oh no, I'm proudly deplorable."
Bernie Bros in 2016 were the same folks then as they are now. I was a Sanders supporter then and literally never had that epithet lobbed at me.
It's just maddening that people don't say, "hey it's a bit of a tainted term that's shifted meaning," but instead actually tell me that it always meant the new meaning, like I wasn't around for 2016.
posted by explosion at 11:35 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Bernie Bros in 2016 were the same folks then as they are now. I was a Sanders supporter then and literally never had that epithet lobbed at me.
It's just maddening that people don't say, "hey it's a bit of a tainted term that's shifted meaning," but instead actually tell me that it always meant the new meaning, like I wasn't around for 2016.
posted by explosion at 11:35 AM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
The Bernie Bros will be one of the narratives which will be used to give rich, white liberals an excuse to be dissuaded for voting Bernie if he gets the nomination.
Their hearts will be heavy, unlike their tax burden.
posted by fullerine at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [20 favorites]
Their hearts will be heavy, unlike their tax burden.
posted by fullerine at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [20 favorites]
We already decided it’s either
orbro
or
brorb
bro
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
orbro
or
brorb
bro
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
> The Bernie Bros will be one of the narratives which will be used to give rich, white liberals an excuse to be dissuaded for voting Bernie if he gets the nomination.
Y'all can keep repeating this nonsense, but numbers don't lie.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:49 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
Y'all can keep repeating this nonsense, but numbers don't lie.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:49 AM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
There is nothing compelling to attack Sanders on, which is why there is such an emphasis on attacking the incivility of some of supporters. I’d hope that people can be cautious with this narrative since it will be the sum of Trump’s 2020 playbook also. The fact is that there are some people, often of the younger generation, who are filled with fury over the state of the world, and view the political process as a life-or-death struggle for the well-being of millions and the fate of the planet. It’s not just a bunch of assholes looking for an excuse to bully.
posted by moorooka at 11:51 AM on February 24, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 11:51 AM on February 24, 2020 [13 favorites]
Honestly, Sanders supporters should probably want as many of the other candidates to stay in as long as possible, because having 6 people fighting over the anti-Sanders vote is significantly better for him than 2 or 3. Assuming he continues to do very well in popular vote totals and is still the only candidate above 15% in pretty much every Congressional district, anyone who gets 5-14% of the vote is basically giving him free delegates. There's plenty of time from June-November to worry about unifying the party. As I keep reminding myself, we still have 8 more months of this shit, there's still tons of time to see how this all plays out.
As far as when candidates should be dropping out for their own good or the good of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, the timeline on that is probably a lot shorter, even though it seems pretty unlikely that any of them will do it unless Biden completely blows South Carolina. One of the things about proportionally allocated elections is that once there's a front-runner, it's very difficult to dislodge them because even if the 2nd place candidate surges into the lead in later elections, they're winning 80-70, not 150-0. In 2008, Obama built up a lead of about 100 delegates by the beginning of March, and even though Clinton won a lot of March, April, and May states, just 100 delegates (around 3% of the total number of pledged delegates that year) is a huge hurdle when in pretty much any state outside of California/Texas/New York, picking up more than 10-15 delegates over your opponent is a near-impossibility. I remember looking at delegate trackers that spring and trying to figure out who was going to win, and realizing that it was almost impossible for her once he'd opened up that lead. All the horse-race journalism, all the Jeremiah Wright stuff, all the fiddling with superdelegates and Michigan and Florida, none of it mattered in the end because of the fundamental difficulty of overtaking Obama's February lead. Plus, this race doesn't even have a clear runner-up, so they stand a good chance of all getting repeatedly crushed until Sanders's lead is even bigger than Obama's was.
posted by Copronymus at 11:53 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
As far as when candidates should be dropping out for their own good or the good of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, the timeline on that is probably a lot shorter, even though it seems pretty unlikely that any of them will do it unless Biden completely blows South Carolina. One of the things about proportionally allocated elections is that once there's a front-runner, it's very difficult to dislodge them because even if the 2nd place candidate surges into the lead in later elections, they're winning 80-70, not 150-0. In 2008, Obama built up a lead of about 100 delegates by the beginning of March, and even though Clinton won a lot of March, April, and May states, just 100 delegates (around 3% of the total number of pledged delegates that year) is a huge hurdle when in pretty much any state outside of California/Texas/New York, picking up more than 10-15 delegates over your opponent is a near-impossibility. I remember looking at delegate trackers that spring and trying to figure out who was going to win, and realizing that it was almost impossible for her once he'd opened up that lead. All the horse-race journalism, all the Jeremiah Wright stuff, all the fiddling with superdelegates and Michigan and Florida, none of it mattered in the end because of the fundamental difficulty of overtaking Obama's February lead. Plus, this race doesn't even have a clear runner-up, so they stand a good chance of all getting repeatedly crushed until Sanders's lead is even bigger than Obama's was.
posted by Copronymus at 11:53 AM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]
Almost 20 years back, a relative was running for the state legislature here. I wasn't working at the time, so this was basically my full time (unpaid) job. He lost in the primary but we're still proud of how much we did... it wasn't for lack of effort. Anyway, he's a Dem and was running as such. We got our walk lists and info from the local Democratic Party office. That's where we had a rude awakening. There were two seats, and two candidates which the local party clearly preferred. While they didn't outright come out in support of them, it was pretty obvious. The local cliques were closed up tight. A lot of the same people are still involved.
Now that Sanders has a strong chance to win the nomination, I'm seeing a lot of "concern" from opinion writers, certain anonymous corners of the party, etc. Their concern is less about winning and losing the election and more about losing their status in the party. There are a lot of kingmakers out there who are feeling threatened. It's not just on the national level, but on the state and local level as well. The cliques are still closed up tight. They are in a very tough spot right now, one for which I have very little sympathy. If Bernie wins the election and the presidency, a lot of these people are going to lose their power within the party. If he wins a plurality of delegates and is denied the nomination at a contested convention, the party will burn to the ground. If he wins the nomination and they refuse to campaign for him, that will fracture the party. A lot of people are facing the prospect of a sea change and they don't have lifeboats. Expect many of them to start fighting back, because they will.
The problem for the current Democratic Party establishment isn't Nernie Sanders (don't y'all dare forget that I'm the founder of the Nernie movement) but instead the people that will vote for him. If there was a candidate that could bring out the Millenials and Generation Z, it's Sanders. There are a lot more of these voters than there are Boomers. (Us Gen X'ers will just play nice here, we're used to keeping things running quietly in the background.) These younger voters have neither the interest in keeping the status quo in the party nor the tolerance for centrist policy. If these younger voters end up getting active at the state and local levels, you won't recognize the Democratic party come 2030. And that is not a bad thing unless you're protecting your little political fiefdom.
posted by azpenguin at 11:55 AM on February 24, 2020 [25 favorites]
Now that Sanders has a strong chance to win the nomination, I'm seeing a lot of "concern" from opinion writers, certain anonymous corners of the party, etc. Their concern is less about winning and losing the election and more about losing their status in the party. There are a lot of kingmakers out there who are feeling threatened. It's not just on the national level, but on the state and local level as well. The cliques are still closed up tight. They are in a very tough spot right now, one for which I have very little sympathy. If Bernie wins the election and the presidency, a lot of these people are going to lose their power within the party. If he wins a plurality of delegates and is denied the nomination at a contested convention, the party will burn to the ground. If he wins the nomination and they refuse to campaign for him, that will fracture the party. A lot of people are facing the prospect of a sea change and they don't have lifeboats. Expect many of them to start fighting back, because they will.
The problem for the current Democratic Party establishment isn't Nernie Sanders (don't y'all dare forget that I'm the founder of the Nernie movement) but instead the people that will vote for him. If there was a candidate that could bring out the Millenials and Generation Z, it's Sanders. There are a lot more of these voters than there are Boomers. (Us Gen X'ers will just play nice here, we're used to keeping things running quietly in the background.) These younger voters have neither the interest in keeping the status quo in the party nor the tolerance for centrist policy. If these younger voters end up getting active at the state and local levels, you won't recognize the Democratic party come 2030. And that is not a bad thing unless you're protecting your little political fiefdom.
posted by azpenguin at 11:55 AM on February 24, 2020 [25 favorites]
Bloomberg pulled out of his town hall on CNN tonight to “focus on debate prep”.
Lol Sanders better bring a flame retardant suit tomorrow. Everyone is going to be gunning for him.
posted by eagles123 at 11:56 AM on February 24, 2020 [9 favorites]
Lol Sanders better bring a flame retardant suit tomorrow. Everyone is going to be gunning for him.
posted by eagles123 at 11:56 AM on February 24, 2020 [9 favorites]
Almost 20 years back, a relative was running for the state legislature here. I wasn't working at the time, so this was basically my full time (unpaid) job. He lost in the primary but we're still proud of how much we did... it wasn't for lack of effort. Anyway, he's a Dem and was running as such. We got our walk lists and info from the local Democratic Party office. That's where we had a rude awakening. There were two seats, and two candidates which the local party clearly preferred. While they didn't outright come out in support of them, it was pretty obvious. The local cliques were closed up tight. A lot of the same people are still involved.
I can tell a similar story from two years back, and all of our local Democratic Party organizations were all the worse for being entirely out of power for decades.
posted by Etrigan at 11:58 AM on February 24, 2020 [13 favorites]
I can tell a similar story from two years back, and all of our local Democratic Party organizations were all the worse for being entirely out of power for decades.
posted by Etrigan at 11:58 AM on February 24, 2020 [13 favorites]
One of the things about proportionally allocated elections is that once there's a front-runner, it's very difficult to dislodge them because even if the 2nd place candidate surges into the lead in later elections, they're winning 80-70, not 150-0.
Both Clinton in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 stayed in the race long after they had a realistic chance to win.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:59 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
Both Clinton in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 stayed in the race long after they had a realistic chance to win.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:59 AM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
It's interesting to see Bloomberg running to the left of Sanders on gun control. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out, both in the primaries and the general election.
That's been one of the main things other candidates (or at least their supporters) have hit him on since 2016.
Not an uncontroversial opinion I'm sure but I used to think this was good for him. Of all the issues one could compromise on to distinguish oneself with the proverbial rural white working class voter that would easily be my first pick. Certain things are so intractable, and "guns" is really two or three issues anyway: handguns (and urban violence more specifically), rampage killings with rifles, organized domestic terrorism/militias. Not to mention the Michael Bloomberg idea of tough on guns has a bit of overlap with stop and frisk...
Anyway, at this point I think it could be one of those issues where opinions are so polarized that it is impossible to thread the needle, though - it seems like Sanders' team may perceive it that way now.
posted by atoxyl at 12:00 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
That's been one of the main things other candidates (or at least their supporters) have hit him on since 2016.
Not an uncontroversial opinion I'm sure but I used to think this was good for him. Of all the issues one could compromise on to distinguish oneself with the proverbial rural white working class voter that would easily be my first pick. Certain things are so intractable, and "guns" is really two or three issues anyway: handguns (and urban violence more specifically), rampage killings with rifles, organized domestic terrorism/militias. Not to mention the Michael Bloomberg idea of tough on guns has a bit of overlap with stop and frisk...
Anyway, at this point I think it could be one of those issues where opinions are so polarized that it is impossible to thread the needle, though - it seems like Sanders' team may perceive it that way now.
posted by atoxyl at 12:00 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
I don’t think the Bernie Bro critique will be part of the main stage fight with Trump. The outspoken Trump supporters value rudeness as a sign that a politician is willing to tell it like it is and cruelty as a demonstration of raw power. The secret Trump supporters have already put aside civility as a necessary quality. You can go to a Trump rally and see printed t-shirts much cruder and crueler than even the most irritating Bernie Bro stereotype. If anything, the racist Pepe the frog shitheads will find the worst of the worst Bernie Bro memes amusing. (This should be embarrassing to the creators of those memes rather than taken as a positive.)
Trump has already spelled out his attack—“Crazy Bernie.” To me it says Trump doesn’t have a handle on this fight yet. His supporters like cartoonishness and crazy ideas. What’s crazier than building a giant wall for an entire country? Trump’s gamble is the racism at the heart of his campaign is what’s keeping his people in line, and that they wouldn’t prefer a candidate who has equally outsize ideas without the heaping dose of bigotry. What if all the white guys in Pennsylvania diners are genuine when they say they’d prefer a “forgotten man” whisperer who isn’t a piece of shit in his personal life?
posted by sallybrown at 12:02 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
Trump has already spelled out his attack—“Crazy Bernie.” To me it says Trump doesn’t have a handle on this fight yet. His supporters like cartoonishness and crazy ideas. What’s crazier than building a giant wall for an entire country? Trump’s gamble is the racism at the heart of his campaign is what’s keeping his people in line, and that they wouldn’t prefer a candidate who has equally outsize ideas without the heaping dose of bigotry. What if all the white guys in Pennsylvania diners are genuine when they say they’d prefer a “forgotten man” whisperer who isn’t a piece of shit in his personal life?
posted by sallybrown at 12:02 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
Bernie Bro is now a Bloomberg talking point that is part of his half-billion dollar effort so far to dampen enthusiasm for what is factually and indisputably - backed by every poll and exit poll - the most diverse multi-racial working class base of support in the race. The objective of the smear as it always has been is to make supporting Bernie's campaign look trashy and sexist and a reflection of your own character should you so choose to endorse him. Anyone still using it or engaging in Bernie discussion tropes about white bros being rude on twitter is playing right into Bloomberg's bullshit.
posted by windbox at 12:03 PM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by windbox at 12:03 PM on February 24, 2020 [15 favorites]
Well, despite the horrible scenario building in the Bloomberg thread, in which I was definitely guilty in participating, it looks like he's out. At least, if Bloomberg gets the nomination, it'd mean the Democratic process will have been so broken that he won't be president.
One of the comments on the Krugman article at The New York Times linked above reads like, I'd vote for any Democrat except Sanders, but if it's Sanders then I and millions of others will vote for Trump. I guess this will be one of the main approaches pro-Trump trolls will take on mainstream sites. This comment was marked as a "Times Pick", whatever that means.
If Sanders ends up getting the nomination, I predict that the majority of the mainstream liberal establishment will fall in behind him eventually, some others will dither around to the end, and the remainer will take off their masks in a really unpleasant way.
posted by bright flowers at 12:04 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
One of the comments on the Krugman article at The New York Times linked above reads like, I'd vote for any Democrat except Sanders, but if it's Sanders then I and millions of others will vote for Trump. I guess this will be one of the main approaches pro-Trump trolls will take on mainstream sites. This comment was marked as a "Times Pick", whatever that means.
If Sanders ends up getting the nomination, I predict that the majority of the mainstream liberal establishment will fall in behind him eventually, some others will dither around to the end, and the remainer will take off their masks in a really unpleasant way.
posted by bright flowers at 12:04 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
"The idea that democratic socialism and white nationalism are equidistant from some imaginary political center is fascist propaganda"
Sometimes a thought is articulated for you in real time!
posted by lattiboy at 12:07 PM on February 24, 2020 [22 favorites]
Sometimes a thought is articulated for you in real time!
posted by lattiboy at 12:07 PM on February 24, 2020 [22 favorites]
I don’t think the Bernie Bro critique will be part of the main stage fight with Trump.
Yeah this is clearly an intra-party, primary thing. I had to look up who wrote the article suggesting that Trump would pivot to attacking Sanders' supporters' "toxic masculinity" (the actual choice of words, in an essay taking about things Donald Trump would say) and betrayal of Hillary Clinton. It was David Frum, which should already say a lot of what you need to know, but it's just absurd on the face of it.
I'm sure somebody will try hitting him on the weird essays and all that but there's no way Trump is going to draw attention to his opponent having a large base of fanatical supporters, given that this is basically Trump's own main lens through which he perceives political success.
posted by atoxyl at 12:18 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yeah this is clearly an intra-party, primary thing. I had to look up who wrote the article suggesting that Trump would pivot to attacking Sanders' supporters' "toxic masculinity" (the actual choice of words, in an essay taking about things Donald Trump would say) and betrayal of Hillary Clinton. It was David Frum, which should already say a lot of what you need to know, but it's just absurd on the face of it.
I'm sure somebody will try hitting him on the weird essays and all that but there's no way Trump is going to draw attention to his opponent having a large base of fanatical supporters, given that this is basically Trump's own main lens through which he perceives political success.
posted by atoxyl at 12:18 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
What if all the white guys in Pennsylvania diners are genuine when they say they’d prefer a “forgotten man” whisperer who isn’t a piece of shit in his personal life?
I want to believe.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 12:25 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
I want to believe.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 12:25 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
If Sanders ends up getting the nomination, I predict that the majority of the mainstream liberal establishment will fall in behind him eventually, some others will dither around to the end, and the remainer will take off their masks in a really unpleasant way.
I wonder how many voters will make all the right Democrat mouth sounds before and after the general election but would, in their darkest and most private moment in the voting booth, push the Trump button to stave off some perceived threat to capital.
I have a feeling that number is higher than you'd expect, and I have a feeling there are more than a few of those folks in political leadership positions.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:26 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
I wonder how many voters will make all the right Democrat mouth sounds before and after the general election but would, in their darkest and most private moment in the voting booth, push the Trump button to stave off some perceived threat to capital.
I have a feeling that number is higher than you'd expect, and I have a feeling there are more than a few of those folks in political leadership positions.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:26 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
The good news is that we are many and they are few.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:29 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:29 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
The great thing about shy Tory / Bradley effect speculation is that it's unfalsifiable until it's too late. But keep fighting that last war.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2020
posted by tonycpsu at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2020
I have a feeling that number is higher than you'd expect, and I have a feeling there are more than a few of those folks in political leadership positions.
I mean I don't think the Dem leadership sort of people who genuinely love the party as an institution are going to.
Bigtime donor class people though - I mean of course.
posted by atoxyl at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2020
I mean I don't think the Dem leadership sort of people who genuinely love the party as an institution are going to.
Bigtime donor class people though - I mean of course.
posted by atoxyl at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2020
I would think a lot of those people (rich people who reliably vote Democrat) are in solid blue states. Because the rich people in swing or red states wouldn’t be flipping, they are already with Trump. I bet we will hear a lot about it because a lot of rich people have high profiles in the media, though, so it could have a broader influence, but that’s only if they go public.
posted by sallybrown at 12:33 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 12:33 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
I also think, if we’re talking one step below “rich”—like the comfortable suburban white women who turned out for the Dems in NC—having Obama and other moderate figures step in and embrace the nominee is going to have a big calming effect. There was a piece last week saying Obama will support any of the candidates. Bloomberg even today, when he brought out attack ads against Bernie, said he will support any of the candidates!
posted by sallybrown at 12:38 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 12:38 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
The wildcard this time around is how the younger voters turn out. If Bernie is the nominee, and they turn out in force (and they have the numbers to make a huge difference if they just vote) then I don't think the polls are going to be able to reflect that.
posted by azpenguin at 12:40 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by azpenguin at 12:40 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's interesting to see Bloomberg running to the left of Sanders on gun control. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out, both in the primaries and the general election.
That's been one of the main things other candidates (or at least their supporters) have hit him on since 2016.
Guns is a tricky issue as you point out because it is a large issue. Part of Sanders reluctance on guns may steam from his earlier socialist days. Socialists don't want workers to disarm while the police are still very armed and will kill you, and the belief in unilateral disarmament and "trust the police to wield violence on your behalf" just don't exist for marginalized communities. I think any attempt to lessen the amount of gun deaths should be 1) demilitarization of police, 2) regulation of gun manufacturers, and 3) taking white nationalism and toxic masculinity seriously and trying to fight the battle there. I think Sanders could actually come to a solution on firearms that keeps vulnerable people still armed and helps decrease the danger to everyone.
My solution is to think of the right to bear arms as collective to the community so that communities can defend themselves from fascist violence—from wherever it comes. Every established gun club should have a well-regulated armory to allow the safe storage of large firearms that can be retrieved for practice and for the general alarm if the community is under attack.
I wonder how many voters will make all the right Democrat mouth sounds before and after the general election but would, in their darkest and most private moment in the voting booth, push the Trump button to stave off some perceived threat to capital.
I was thinking about this, but how many Democratic voters actually own capital? How many own businesses and are large landlords? There's a lot more workers than owners.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:42 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
That's been one of the main things other candidates (or at least their supporters) have hit him on since 2016.
Guns is a tricky issue as you point out because it is a large issue. Part of Sanders reluctance on guns may steam from his earlier socialist days. Socialists don't want workers to disarm while the police are still very armed and will kill you, and the belief in unilateral disarmament and "trust the police to wield violence on your behalf" just don't exist for marginalized communities. I think any attempt to lessen the amount of gun deaths should be 1) demilitarization of police, 2) regulation of gun manufacturers, and 3) taking white nationalism and toxic masculinity seriously and trying to fight the battle there. I think Sanders could actually come to a solution on firearms that keeps vulnerable people still armed and helps decrease the danger to everyone.
My solution is to think of the right to bear arms as collective to the community so that communities can defend themselves from fascist violence—from wherever it comes. Every established gun club should have a well-regulated armory to allow the safe storage of large firearms that can be retrieved for practice and for the general alarm if the community is under attack.
I wonder how many voters will make all the right Democrat mouth sounds before and after the general election but would, in their darkest and most private moment in the voting booth, push the Trump button to stave off some perceived threat to capital.
I was thinking about this, but how many Democratic voters actually own capital? How many own businesses and are large landlords? There's a lot more workers than owners.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:42 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
I was thinking about this, but how many Democratic voters actually own capital? How many own businesses and are large landlords? There's a lot more workers than owners.
Yes, my concern would be less about how they vote in the ballot box compared to how much money they decide to, er, deprioritize, from electoral initiatives due to a candidate threatening the business as usual model they have materially benefited from.
posted by Ouverture at 12:49 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes, my concern would be less about how they vote in the ballot box compared to how much money they decide to, er, deprioritize, from electoral initiatives due to a candidate threatening the business as usual model they have materially benefited from.
posted by Ouverture at 12:49 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
I was thinking about this, but how many Democratic voters actually own capital? How many own businesses and are large landlords? There's a lot more workers than owners.
I think there are quite a few highly paid workers who believe they are capital or at least feel more solidarity with capital than labor. A comfortable worker making $200k+ may find it socially necessary to present as a Democrat, but would probably be looking down the barrel of increased taxes and a temporary bull market. Heck, I remember reading on this very site from a liberal who just couldn't justify a hit to the healthcare-heavy portfolio.
Also, never underestimate the capacity of the petite bourgeoisie to vote out of malice for people they perceive to be beneath them.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:52 PM on February 24, 2020
I think there are quite a few highly paid workers who believe they are capital or at least feel more solidarity with capital than labor. A comfortable worker making $200k+ may find it socially necessary to present as a Democrat, but would probably be looking down the barrel of increased taxes and a temporary bull market. Heck, I remember reading on this very site from a liberal who just couldn't justify a hit to the healthcare-heavy portfolio.
Also, never underestimate the capacity of the petite bourgeoisie to vote out of malice for people they perceive to be beneath them.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:52 PM on February 24, 2020
Mod note: Folks, move on from the "Democrats are going to vote for Trump because..." derail
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:53 PM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:53 PM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
The big attack against Sanders is just gonna come in the form of the word "socialist." When Warren was last asked, "Why do you call yourself a capitalist," her read-between-the-lines answer was in effect, "you won't listen to me if I don't."
If Sanders and his folks are smart, they'll break out the Truman quote about how the right labels whatever they don't like as "socialism," and position it as them just sort of reclaiming the label.
That said, there are folks like my uncle and his friends who think Trump's a clown, but somehow got indoctrinated into "better dead than red," so just won't vote Sanders no matter what.
posted by explosion at 12:57 PM on February 24, 2020
If Sanders and his folks are smart, they'll break out the Truman quote about how the right labels whatever they don't like as "socialism," and position it as them just sort of reclaiming the label.
That said, there are folks like my uncle and his friends who think Trump's a clown, but somehow got indoctrinated into "better dead than red," so just won't vote Sanders no matter what.
posted by explosion at 12:57 PM on February 24, 2020
Sanders just took the lead in black voter support according to Morning Consult.
Once again, people should be cautioned to take these poll sub-samples with a grain of salt. It is likely that this poll result has a margin of error of plus or minus 10%, so essentially meaningless. (Yes, I know they can claim more accuracy, but unless they show their work, don't believe it.)
posted by JackFlash at 1:01 PM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
Once again, people should be cautioned to take these poll sub-samples with a grain of salt. It is likely that this poll result has a margin of error of plus or minus 10%, so essentially meaningless. (Yes, I know they can claim more accuracy, but unless they show their work, don't believe it.)
posted by JackFlash at 1:01 PM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
This primary is the real world test of 2 incompatible theories:
1) Any socialist will scare away too many moderates and agreeing to Sanders as the nominee is guaranteeing 4 more years of Trump. The intensity of his supporters and their demeanor will only add to that alienation. We cannot take that risk.
2) A non-movement politician cannot fundamentally change the electoral map and we will simply be replaying 2016 with any nominee except Bernie. Their supporters lack the intensity required of the current situation. We cannot take that risk.
Literally nobody knows which is correct and we're all airing the anxiety over this at each other.
posted by lattiboy at 1:05 PM on February 24, 2020 [38 favorites]
1) Any socialist will scare away too many moderates and agreeing to Sanders as the nominee is guaranteeing 4 more years of Trump. The intensity of his supporters and their demeanor will only add to that alienation. We cannot take that risk.
2) A non-movement politician cannot fundamentally change the electoral map and we will simply be replaying 2016 with any nominee except Bernie. Their supporters lack the intensity required of the current situation. We cannot take that risk.
Literally nobody knows which is correct and we're all airing the anxiety over this at each other.
posted by lattiboy at 1:05 PM on February 24, 2020 [38 favorites]
Part of Sanders reluctance on guns may steam from his earlier socialist days. Socialists don't want workers to disarm while the police are still very armed and will kill you, and the belief in unilateral disarmament and "trust the police to wield violence on your behalf" just don't exist for marginalized communities.
Unless you can provide evidence of Sanders ever making this argument, I'll just assume it is just wishful thinking. My best guess is that Sanders is simply pandering to his local Vermont constituency which is less concerned about city gun violence and more about hunting and Second Amendment rights.
posted by JackFlash at 1:05 PM on February 24, 2020 [9 favorites]
Unless you can provide evidence of Sanders ever making this argument, I'll just assume it is just wishful thinking. My best guess is that Sanders is simply pandering to his local Vermont constituency which is less concerned about city gun violence and more about hunting and Second Amendment rights.
posted by JackFlash at 1:05 PM on February 24, 2020 [9 favorites]
Also, brain damaged psychos (like me!) are exposed to the worst supporters of all candidates, so inevitably we think the absolute worst of the whole. I have to actively remind myself that the overwhelming majority of people voting on these contests, regardless of their support, are good people who just want the best for them and theirs.
posted by lattiboy at 1:09 PM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by lattiboy at 1:09 PM on February 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
Right now, very few delegates have been awarded. *If* 538's averages are right (big if), though, the pledged delegate race is essentially over on Super Tuesday. Current count is Nernie 45, Pete 25, Biden 15, Warren 8, Amy 7. They have Biden and Sanders both picking up about 20 delegates in SC. On Super Tuesday, though, they're looking at Bernie picking up a lead of as much as 350 delegates.
The usual caveats apply... these races can be hard to poll and we have no idea how good their model has it. However, if anything close to this scenario comes to pass, no one will catch him. The only hope for others would be a brokered convention and that's really bad news for the party.
posted by azpenguin at 1:11 PM on February 24, 2020
The usual caveats apply... these races can be hard to poll and we have no idea how good their model has it. However, if anything close to this scenario comes to pass, no one will catch him. The only hope for others would be a brokered convention and that's really bad news for the party.
posted by azpenguin at 1:11 PM on February 24, 2020
I agree with JackFlash here, but as I said earlier I kinda think it would be good if he could successfully pander to such constituencies nationally on that issue - much preferable to me than running to the center on, say, abortion - or at least if it was enough to make him look like a "different sort of democrat." It's possible that a position does not exist that would satisfy the hardcore gun guys without pissing off core Dem voters though.
posted by atoxyl at 1:13 PM on February 24, 2020
posted by atoxyl at 1:13 PM on February 24, 2020
Unless you can provide evidence of Sanders ever making this argument, I'll just assume it is just wishful thinking. My best guess is that Sanders is simply pandering to his local Vermont constituency which is less concerned about city gun violence and more about hunting and Second Amendment rights.
I mean, okay, but if Vermonters feel that way, is that really pandering?
posted by lazaruslong at 1:22 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
I mean, okay, but if Vermonters feel that way, is that really pandering?
posted by lazaruslong at 1:22 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
if Vermonters feel that way, is that really pandering?
Yes, because our votes for president don't count and we don't otherwise share much in the way of values with the other demographics that care about those things (Vermont's always been socially pretty liberal even as we fight about gun stuff).
posted by jessamyn at 1:28 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Yes, because our votes for president don't count and we don't otherwise share much in the way of values with the other demographics that care about those things (Vermont's always been socially pretty liberal even as we fight about gun stuff).
posted by jessamyn at 1:28 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Idk I guess pandering has a pretty negative connotation for me. He’s the senator from Vermont and is supposed to represent their views, so I guess I just don’t get pandering out of that. But I dunno, maybe I’m wrong.
posted by lazaruslong at 1:52 PM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by lazaruslong at 1:52 PM on February 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
We're about to find out how many centrists and good liberals are actually A-OK with children in cages, muslim bans, and Kavenaugh courts so long as poor people don't get healthcare
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:59 PM on February 24, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:59 PM on February 24, 2020 [24 favorites]
I guess pandering has a pretty negative connotation for me.
I think we agree. I think the word has negative connotations and I was just thinking you were saying something a little different. For me, the fact that Bernie's lines on these topics work with rural Vermonters don't mean they will work with Trump's base who, while they agree on some of the topics (absence of gun control) aren't prepared with some of the other things he wants, even if it might work to their interests ultimately.
posted by jessamyn at 2:03 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think we agree. I think the word has negative connotations and I was just thinking you were saying something a little different. For me, the fact that Bernie's lines on these topics work with rural Vermonters don't mean they will work with Trump's base who, while they agree on some of the topics (absence of gun control) aren't prepared with some of the other things he wants, even if it might work to their interests ultimately.
posted by jessamyn at 2:03 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Gun control is a very hot issue with leftists, especially since open fascism came back into fashion. I'm deeply conflicted on it myself.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think Sanders is basically politicking here. Dog whistling to the left that he's not going to take their weapons away, and comforting liberals by agreeing with popular, less powerful gun control measures.
posted by lattiboy at 2:15 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
I don't think it's unreasonable to think Sanders is basically politicking here. Dog whistling to the left that he's not going to take their weapons away, and comforting liberals by agreeing with popular, less powerful gun control measures.
posted by lattiboy at 2:15 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Here are Sander's promises on gun control from his website:
posted by octothorpe at 2:46 PM on February 24, 2020 [11 favorites]
- Take on the NRA and its corrupting effect on Washington.That at least seems like a good start.
- Expand background checks.
- End the gun show loophole. All gun purchases should be subject to the same background check standards.
- Ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians.
- Prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.
- Implement a buyback program to get assault weapons off the streets.
- Regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own.
- Crack down on “straw purchases” where people buy guns for criminals.
- Support “red flag” laws and legislation to ensure we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers
- Ban the 3-D printing of firearms and bump stocks
posted by octothorpe at 2:46 PM on February 24, 2020 [11 favorites]
Unlike universal healthcare, gun laws are one thing that liberals never seem to tell leftists to be “realistic” about in terms of what can pass the Senate
posted by moorooka at 2:47 PM on February 24, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 2:47 PM on February 24, 2020 [14 favorites]
Unlike universal healthcare, gun laws are one thing that liberals never seem to tell leftists to be “realistic” about in terms of what can pass the Senate
Almost like "realism" is a cynical ploy to dispirit real change in favor of a status quo they have lived comfortably in their whole lives!
posted by lattiboy at 3:34 PM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
Almost like "realism" is a cynical ploy to dispirit real change in favor of a status quo they have lived comfortably in their whole lives!
posted by lattiboy at 3:34 PM on February 24, 2020 [16 favorites]
This primary is the real world test of 2 incompatible theories:
I know! I was riding in the car with my dad yesterday, riding past some signs in the median, and one of the was for Nernie. My dad is a boomer, super liberal, super social justice advocate (literally, in his retired job as a social justice advocate attorney), and he said "gosh, what about Bernie?" He went on to ask how people could be voting for him, given the pejorative "socialist" label and how so many people wouldn't vote for a socialist.
I told him I was voting for Nernie, a lot because his politics line up best with mine, but also because I think this is going to come down to a debate performance. Trump's base isn't going to grow, I don't think. I think this is going to come down to who can put on the best show against Trump in a few debates on TV. If someone, and I probably think it would be Nernie or Warren, can get on the air and trash that MF and his policies, and his ideas, and his rhetoric, and everything he does I think they can get the democratic moderates out to vote and just overwhelm the Trump base.
I want to think it is policy, or making sure everyone can go to the doctor as they should be allowed, or have actual food to eat or diapers to put on their kids, that will get people out to vote blue, but I don't think that that will actually work. I think trashing the president and his discriminatory policies will turn out the few that might decide this election. And we have to be out ahead of the disinformation like the "Biden investigation" or what the fuck ever Giuliani is doing at the moment. And by the way, where is he these days?
But whatever, this hate has got to stop.
posted by Snowishberlin at 3:38 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
I know! I was riding in the car with my dad yesterday, riding past some signs in the median, and one of the was for Nernie. My dad is a boomer, super liberal, super social justice advocate (literally, in his retired job as a social justice advocate attorney), and he said "gosh, what about Bernie?" He went on to ask how people could be voting for him, given the pejorative "socialist" label and how so many people wouldn't vote for a socialist.
I told him I was voting for Nernie, a lot because his politics line up best with mine, but also because I think this is going to come down to a debate performance. Trump's base isn't going to grow, I don't think. I think this is going to come down to who can put on the best show against Trump in a few debates on TV. If someone, and I probably think it would be Nernie or Warren, can get on the air and trash that MF and his policies, and his ideas, and his rhetoric, and everything he does I think they can get the democratic moderates out to vote and just overwhelm the Trump base.
I want to think it is policy, or making sure everyone can go to the doctor as they should be allowed, or have actual food to eat or diapers to put on their kids, that will get people out to vote blue, but I don't think that that will actually work. I think trashing the president and his discriminatory policies will turn out the few that might decide this election. And we have to be out ahead of the disinformation like the "Biden investigation" or what the fuck ever Giuliani is doing at the moment. And by the way, where is he these days?
But whatever, this hate has got to stop.
posted by Snowishberlin at 3:38 PM on February 24, 2020 [6 favorites]
I put the odds of Trump showing up to any debate, regardless of Dem nominee, at roughly 5%. Why on earth would he do it? There is no upside for him and it isn't required.
posted by lattiboy at 3:42 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by lattiboy at 3:42 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
I put the odds of Trump showing up to any debate, regardless of Dem nominee, at roughly 5%.
I was thinking about that not too long ago. I highly doubt any network would do this, but if he refuses to show, I think they should go ahead and still air, but let the D nominee have all the time. Still ask questions, of course. Just only of the D candidate.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 3:48 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
I was thinking about that not too long ago. I highly doubt any network would do this, but if he refuses to show, I think they should go ahead and still air, but let the D nominee have all the time. Still ask questions, of course. Just only of the D candidate.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 3:48 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Or have him represented by an empty chair, in the best Republican tradition. Or maybe lure Trump back to the debate stage with the chair he humped in 2016.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:03 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 4:03 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Speaking of Florida and voting: Floridians voting by mail in 2020 elections are being asked to put their email addresses and home and mobile phone numbers, along with their signatures, on the outside of the ballot envelopes they mail back to the elections office — allowing the information to be seen and harvested by anyone who comes in contact with the envelope.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:14 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 4:14 PM on February 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
I've been voting by mail for nearly 20 years in San Francisco County and the return envelopes have always asked for address, signature email and phone number. Is this really that big of a deal?
posted by flamk at 4:39 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by flamk at 4:39 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Lol Sanders better bring a flame retardant suit tomorrow. Everyone is going to be gunning for him.
I'm sure he has practice. Whatever they'd throw at him would be what was thrown at him (and his supporters) last time around.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:41 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm sure he has practice. Whatever they'd throw at him would be what was thrown at him (and his supporters) last time around.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:41 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
It is just so galling to hear people speak with any authority on how politics will play out at this point. Nobody knows! 2008, 2010, 2016, and 2018 all might as well have happened in different galaxies as the outcomes all contradicted one another!
The knee jerk liberal reaction of worrying about what a bunch of professional liars and bad faith actors will say is very clearly a losing game. It muddles your message and keeps you constantly in fear of pissing off some rando centrists whose decisions are based on fickle horseshit you have no control over like "They yell too much!" or that they "Don't seem 'presidential' ".
At this point my only axiom is "do what is morally right and fight like the world hangs in the balance".
Just quoting this insanely good post which should be at the top of every thread about the election and is literally what I keep saying to undecided voters when I’m canvassing for Nerdarb.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:09 PM on February 24, 2020 [11 favorites]
The knee jerk liberal reaction of worrying about what a bunch of professional liars and bad faith actors will say is very clearly a losing game. It muddles your message and keeps you constantly in fear of pissing off some rando centrists whose decisions are based on fickle horseshit you have no control over like "They yell too much!" or that they "Don't seem 'presidential' ".
At this point my only axiom is "do what is morally right and fight like the world hangs in the balance".
Just quoting this insanely good post which should be at the top of every thread about the election and is literally what I keep saying to undecided voters when I’m canvassing for Nerdarb.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:09 PM on February 24, 2020 [11 favorites]
I've been voting by mail for nearly 20 years in San Francisco County and the return envelopes have always asked for address, signature email and phone number. Is this really that big of a deal?
On the inside envelope, that’s all fine and good. They want this stuff on the outer envelope. That’s a big problem.
posted by azpenguin at 5:23 PM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
On the inside envelope, that’s all fine and good. They want this stuff on the outer envelope. That’s a big problem.
posted by azpenguin at 5:23 PM on February 24, 2020 [7 favorites]
California Secretary of State's Best Practices for Vote-By-Mail Envelope Design.
posted by ryanrs at 5:32 PM on February 24, 2020
posted by ryanrs at 5:32 PM on February 24, 2020
De Blasio to Buttigieg: “Try to Not Be So Smug When You Just Got Your Ass Kicked” (Daniel Politi, Slate)
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:58 PM on February 24, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:58 PM on February 24, 2020 [9 favorites]
Truth is truth.
posted by eagles123 at 6:43 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 6:43 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
I guess pandering has a pretty negative connotation for me.
Pandas previously.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:58 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Pandas previously.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:58 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Washington State mail ballots ask for a signature on the outside, to compare against your driver's license or state ID signature. Mismatches are flagged. You can optionally provide contact information (email or phone) in case problems like these arise, and they can get in touch.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:27 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:27 PM on February 24, 2020 [3 favorites]
Is it too late for a Berten/Nernie ticket?
posted by Marticus at 8:36 PM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Marticus at 8:36 PM on February 24, 2020 [10 favorites]
Here in Pima County, you put your ballot in an envelope. You sign that envelope. You then put that envelope into another envelope that has everything preprinted, no postage necessary, and mail it in. When they receive it, they open the outer envelope, check the signature on the inner envelope, and then put it in the stack to be opened and counted on Election Day. The signature is not visible until the outer envelope is opened at the elections office.
posted by azpenguin at 8:40 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by azpenguin at 8:40 PM on February 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
Voting tech gone wrong: How scrambled data upended a Nevada caucus site (Steven Rosenfeld, Salon)
(This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.)
(This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.)
'No matter how good the technology might have been, the human errors that marred the process weren’t anticipated'The results from early voting were supposed to be tabulated and sent to the various precincts as a starting point. Live results from the precinct caucuses were to use that data as a starting point. The problem was that early voting results often were assigned to the wrong precinct. Precinct chairs often figured this out and went to paper.
Yet all of that technology and brainpower that put together a sophisticated voting system didn't anticipate the human errors that marred the process. Some of the people manning the system — no doubt overtired and pressing ahead—made the data-entry mistakes handling blocks of data that went through the system the following day. When the early voting data resurfaced in precinct caucuses in Henderson and elsewhere, it led to breakdowns.posted by ZeusHumms at 7:15 AM on February 25, 2020
State polling for Maryland came out this morning. It doesn’t vote until late April, but it’s an interesting combination of diverse in race and religion; wealth concentrated in elite suburbs of DC but has both poor urban and poor rural areas; part of the Acela corridor; federal government workforce; and traditionally Democratic politics but friendly to Republican gubernatorial candidates:
Sanders 24%
Biden 18%
Bloomberg 16%
Buttigieg 7%
Klobuchar 6%
Warren 6%
Both Baltimore’s mayor and DC’s mayor have endorsed Bloomberg. I would have guessed it would be one of Biden’s best states (neighboring Delaware / moderate history / federal government workers who remember the last administration fondly / Catholic population). And still Sanders is ahead.
posted by sallybrown at 8:03 AM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sanders 24%
Biden 18%
Bloomberg 16%
Buttigieg 7%
Klobuchar 6%
Warren 6%
Both Baltimore’s mayor and DC’s mayor have endorsed Bloomberg. I would have guessed it would be one of Biden’s best states (neighboring Delaware / moderate history / federal government workers who remember the last administration fondly / Catholic population). And still Sanders is ahead.
posted by sallybrown at 8:03 AM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
These conditions would be considered a war crime anywhere else:
posted by Ouverture at 8:04 AM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
So many of us are cold ... Some of us need medical attention … It's been more than 12 hours now. They ridicule us if we start to complain. And the conditions here are atrocious. It's dirty. It’s smelly. It’s filthy. We don’t have a blanket ... We are sitting on the floor. There's dirt on the floor. There’s oil on the floor. It's smelling bad. We are like a hundred people in a very small room … It's almost like rats in a hole ... I mean, all our clothes are dirty, our hands are dirty. We had to eat an apple with our extremely dirty hands because we have no tissue paper, nothing to clean our hands with. We are just basically packed. Nobody can sit down. They don't even give us a plastic bag to sit on. They don't even give anything to lie down on. We just have to lie on the hard floor, basically. And there is not enough space for everybody to lie down because we have to sit so close.I'm curious how Bloomberg supporters feel about this aspect of his record.
posted by Ouverture at 8:04 AM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
So did Bloomberg basically ruin Biden's chances without getting enough support to win himself? Doomed the centrist option by convincing himself he was the only one who could save it?
posted by clawsoon at 9:12 AM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 9:12 AM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
My guess is that the endorsement of Mayors for Bloomberg May matter even less than they usually do, because most people perceive them (correctly) as bought endorsements.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:19 AM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:19 AM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
So did Bloomberg basically ruin Biden's chances without getting enough support to win himself?
It seems like the centrist campaigns were betting that Biden’s support would collapse at some point and that they would be able to step in and fill his place as people panicked about one of the progressive candidates winning. Turns out Biden never really collapsed, just slumped; his combination of experience and appeal to a diverse coalition is very tough for other centrists to imitate; and the base isn’t panicking and is in fact embracing the progressive leader. Meanwhile the other centrists are playing bumper cars.
posted by sallybrown at 9:31 AM on February 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
It seems like the centrist campaigns were betting that Biden’s support would collapse at some point and that they would be able to step in and fill his place as people panicked about one of the progressive candidates winning. Turns out Biden never really collapsed, just slumped; his combination of experience and appeal to a diverse coalition is very tough for other centrists to imitate; and the base isn’t panicking and is in fact embracing the progressive leader. Meanwhile the other centrists are playing bumper cars.
posted by sallybrown at 9:31 AM on February 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
Looks like Bloomberg's surrogates are going on the news today crowing about how he's going to spend the entire debate attacking Sanders. All they seem to have is stale 2015 oppo, so I'm not expecting much from them.
It'll probably be a good look for Bernie, tbh. He's very good at fielding disingenuous attacks, and watching him take ineffectual blows from the world's most unlikeable billionaire, the exact kind of person the Sanders campaign is always talking about, it could be a pretty clarifying moment.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:58 AM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
It'll probably be a good look for Bernie, tbh. He's very good at fielding disingenuous attacks, and watching him take ineffectual blows from the world's most unlikeable billionaire, the exact kind of person the Sanders campaign is always talking about, it could be a pretty clarifying moment.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:58 AM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
MisantropicPainforest, I'm not so sure most people are that perceptive. Local radio stations air an ad that's basically President Obama speaking of "Mayor Bloomberg" in highly-complimentary terms, and a neighbor thought it meant he was endorsing Bloomberg in the here and now. [Me: That's an old clip, from when they were both in-office? It's not an endorsement. Neighbor: No, Obama's saying Mayor because Bloomberg can still use the title, like Obama's always President Obama? Bloomberg, not Biden, can you believe it!]
Some of Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign ads give the impression that Barack Obama has a glowing rapport with the former New York mayor. (WaPo, Feb. 19, 2020) Of course, Obama has not yet made an endorsement in the 2020 campaign. Former presidents usually don’t do that in their party primaries.
Here's what a campaign mailer from Bloomberg looks like, if you're curious. During his tenure as mayor, "We also cut the number of uninsured people by nearly 40% [...] and expanded health care for working families in New York City." These strides were thanks to state-level policy changes, though, including expanded Medicaid eligibility. (Politifact, Jan. 23, 2020) He was critical of Obamacare, IRL; in the letter, "we're" going to save it, etc.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:14 AM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
Some of Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign ads give the impression that Barack Obama has a glowing rapport with the former New York mayor. (WaPo, Feb. 19, 2020) Of course, Obama has not yet made an endorsement in the 2020 campaign. Former presidents usually don’t do that in their party primaries.
Here's what a campaign mailer from Bloomberg looks like, if you're curious. During his tenure as mayor, "We also cut the number of uninsured people by nearly 40% [...] and expanded health care for working families in New York City." These strides were thanks to state-level policy changes, though, including expanded Medicaid eligibility. (Politifact, Jan. 23, 2020) He was critical of Obamacare, IRL; in the letter, "we're" going to save it, etc.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:14 AM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
Both Baltimore’s mayor and DC’s mayor have endorsed Bloomberg. I would have guessed it would be one of Biden’s best states (neighboring Delaware / moderate history / federal government workers who remember the last administration fondly / Catholic population). And still Sanders is ahead.
As a 20 year resident of Baltimore, this sounds right.
Dem leadership has been historically opaque, and often corrupt. On the streets, DSA, WFP and Sanders movements for $15 an hour have been very popular.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:18 AM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
As a 20 year resident of Baltimore, this sounds right.
Dem leadership has been historically opaque, and often corrupt. On the streets, DSA, WFP and Sanders movements for $15 an hour have been very popular.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:18 AM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
An eternally wrong professional moustache at the NYT editorial board has another terrible idea that is unfortunately making the rounds. (tldr: Thomas Friedman, unity ticket.)
posted by St. Oops at 10:46 AM on February 25, 2020
posted by St. Oops at 10:46 AM on February 25, 2020
SC Debate tonight, 8 PM eastern, CBS, with Michael Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer:
South Carolina Democratic debate: Everything you need to know
5 Things To Watch For In Tuesday's South Carolina Democratic Debate
Will The South Carolina Debate Be All About Stopping Sanders?
South Carolina primary on Saturday.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:09 AM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
South Carolina Democratic debate: Everything you need to know
5 Things To Watch For In Tuesday's South Carolina Democratic Debate
Will The South Carolina Debate Be All About Stopping Sanders?
South Carolina primary on Saturday.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:09 AM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Deleted several about guns. This is not a megathread on politics generally. Still less is it a thread where we will finally, at last, hash out all remaining ideological disputes between liberals and leftists.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 11:09 AM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 11:09 AM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
Harry Reid is now, after the NV caucus, calling for the abolishment of caucuses in their entirity.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:31 AM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:31 AM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
We received our first Bloomberg mailer. It’s a large glossy two-page foldout with a cover of a black photo centered on a group of golden, glowing candles with copy along the lines of “too many have died - Mike will stop the NRA.” As with most of the ads I have seen online, it’s pretty effective. I dunno how disingenuous it is, but it should have strong appeal to Seattle voters. I would guess voters in Spokane will not be receiving the same mailer.
posted by mwhybark at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2020
posted by mwhybark at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2020
I got that Bloomberg letter yesterday (southern Arizona.) I wonder what the target list is. I’m a “four star” voter here since I’ve voted in the last two primaries and the last two generals. (Well, I vote in every election, save that bond election a couple of years ago that I had absolutely zero idea that it was happening until 5pm the day of...) Campaigns will focus on people like me first because I’m pretty much a lock to be voting. I wonder if they’re going further down the voter participation ladder.
posted by azpenguin at 11:42 AM on February 25, 2020
posted by azpenguin at 11:42 AM on February 25, 2020
That actually brings up something that I don't see mentioned at all - Bloomberg's openly in the race, spending money, and the NRA has been quiet. He is their boogeyman - they pushed for indemnification of gun dealers because of his funding lawsuits against them - and yet they've been silent. I think that they've been hurt badly by everything that came out last year.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:45 AM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:45 AM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
the NYT editorial board has another terrible idea
This is almost a daily occurrence.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:47 AM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
This is almost a daily occurrence.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:47 AM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
Did Bloomberg not have to get permission to use that Obama clip in his ad? That has seemed fishy from day 1.
posted by Clustercuss at 12:08 PM on February 25, 2020
posted by Clustercuss at 12:08 PM on February 25, 2020
Did Bloomberg not have to get permission to use that Obama clip in his ad? That has seemed fishy from day 1.
Opposing politicians are allowed to use clips of each other, aren't they? So why not "friends"?
posted by clawsoon at 12:23 PM on February 25, 2020
Opposing politicians are allowed to use clips of each other, aren't they? So why not "friends"?
posted by clawsoon at 12:23 PM on February 25, 2020
2008, 2010, 2016, and 2018 all might as well have happened in different galaxies as the outcomes all contradicted one another!Sure, but politics is a dice game, and 2012 and 2016 were the same odds – 2/3. I'll say that again because I find it absurdly profound: every election is probabilistic based on a million uncontrollable things, but the basic odds for Obama/Romney were essentially the same – two out of three in favor of the Democrat – as Hillary/Trump. You run 2016 a dozen times and Trump wins about four. You run 2012 a dozen times and Romney wins about four. The counterfactual histories should boggle your mind.
Taking a step back to acknowledge this truth helps me understand the lack of contradiction between elections. There are other dynamics worth looking at – sexism, race relations, voter disenfranchisement, re-election, outsider versus Washington player – but to me it says that any neoliberal off the shelf is going to have basically the same kind of favorable but not-great odds against opponents as unlikable as a serial rapist or the guy who fired you and all your friends to make another million.
(I know you didn't include 2012 in your list; I just find this fact so interesting.)
posted by daveliepmann at 12:25 PM on February 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
I dunno how disingenuous it is,
I don't know, if there's any issue I'd give Bloomberg credit for its gun control. Everytown For Gun Safety has done a lot of good work.
Doesn't mean he should be president (he should not), but not surprising he would call out the NRA / his gun control support as its probably the issue he's on the strongest footing with Democrats on.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:35 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
I don't know, if there's any issue I'd give Bloomberg credit for its gun control. Everytown For Gun Safety has done a lot of good work.
Doesn't mean he should be president (he should not), but not surprising he would call out the NRA / his gun control support as its probably the issue he's on the strongest footing with Democrats on.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:35 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
It's natural that a billionaire would want to restrict gun ownership to the police (who enforce property relations through violence) and rich people (who can afford to get around gun ownership laws).
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 1:46 PM on February 25, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 1:46 PM on February 25, 2020 [16 favorites]
Bloomberg's most concrete "gun-control" policy measure was permitting racially-targeted police brutality, and with him as president you'd see the same but squared or cubed.
posted by Rust Moranis at 1:50 PM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 1:50 PM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
That actually brings up something that I don't see mentioned at all - Bloomberg's openly in the race, spending money, and the NRA has been quiet.
Quiet where? Not in their emails, which are often about "Bloomberg-backed legislation to destroy your Second Amendment rights," nor on their social media.
What's hurt them has been the dissolution of NRATV, which has also distanced their most vocal spokespeople like Dana Loesch, Grant Stinchfield, etc. amid all the ongoing lawsuits. So while they're not silent, their voice isn't being amplified nearly as loudly as it was even a year ago.
posted by Superplin at 1:53 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
Quiet where? Not in their emails, which are often about "Bloomberg-backed legislation to destroy your Second Amendment rights," nor on their social media.
What's hurt them has been the dissolution of NRATV, which has also distanced their most vocal spokespeople like Dana Loesch, Grant Stinchfield, etc. amid all the ongoing lawsuits. So while they're not silent, their voice isn't being amplified nearly as loudly as it was even a year ago.
posted by Superplin at 1:53 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm just hunkering down for 7 days until it's an obvious question of whether non-leading candidates actually line up behind Bloomberg (not likely) or eventually over the next few months endorse Sanders (more likely). I may make 7 days worth of popcorn.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:57 PM on February 25, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 1:57 PM on February 25, 2020
2008, 2010, 2016, and 2018 all might as well have happened in different galaxies as the outcomes all contradicted one another!
Sure, but politics is a dice game, and 2012 and 2016 were the same odds – 2/3. I'll say that again because I find it absurdly profound: every election is probabilistic based on a million uncontrollable things, but the basic odds for Obama/Romney were essentially the same – two out of three in favor of the Democrat – as Hillary/Trump. You run 2016 a dozen times and Trump wins about four. You run 2012 a dozen times and Romney wins about four. The counterfactual histories should boggle your mind.
Taking a step back to acknowledge this truth helps me understand the lack of contradiction between elections. There are other dynamics worth looking at – sexism, race relations, voter disenfranchisement, re-election, outsider versus Washington player – but to me it says that any neoliberal off the shelf is going to have basically the same kind of favorable but not-great odds against opponents as unlikable as a serial rapist or the guy who fired you and all your friends to make another million.
(I know you didn't include 2012 in your list; I just find this fact so interesting.)
Clinton got almost as many votes in 2016 as Obama got in 2012 (she got about 70,000 less, which at almost 66 million votes is statistical noise.) Trump, however, got 2 million more than Romney. And yet, as we well know, Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. Still, here we are. The takeaway is that there were more people willing to vote for Trump than there were for Romney (*cough* racism *cough*), while Clinton and Obama got about the same amount of votes as each other.
I don't know what to make of this upcoming election. There is a certain cadre of diehard Trump supporters who are locked in no matter what, so he definitely has a fairly high vote floor. If Nernie is the nominee, then I would expect the turnout among the 18-30 set to be historic. Where does everyone else go? In normal election cycles, the Democratic nominee would pretty much be a lock to win in an election like this. We do not live in normal times any longer.
posted by azpenguin at 2:02 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sure, but politics is a dice game, and 2012 and 2016 were the same odds – 2/3. I'll say that again because I find it absurdly profound: every election is probabilistic based on a million uncontrollable things, but the basic odds for Obama/Romney were essentially the same – two out of three in favor of the Democrat – as Hillary/Trump. You run 2016 a dozen times and Trump wins about four. You run 2012 a dozen times and Romney wins about four. The counterfactual histories should boggle your mind.
Taking a step back to acknowledge this truth helps me understand the lack of contradiction between elections. There are other dynamics worth looking at – sexism, race relations, voter disenfranchisement, re-election, outsider versus Washington player – but to me it says that any neoliberal off the shelf is going to have basically the same kind of favorable but not-great odds against opponents as unlikable as a serial rapist or the guy who fired you and all your friends to make another million.
(I know you didn't include 2012 in your list; I just find this fact so interesting.)
Clinton got almost as many votes in 2016 as Obama got in 2012 (she got about 70,000 less, which at almost 66 million votes is statistical noise.) Trump, however, got 2 million more than Romney. And yet, as we well know, Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. Still, here we are. The takeaway is that there were more people willing to vote for Trump than there were for Romney (*cough* racism *cough*), while Clinton and Obama got about the same amount of votes as each other.
I don't know what to make of this upcoming election. There is a certain cadre of diehard Trump supporters who are locked in no matter what, so he definitely has a fairly high vote floor. If Nernie is the nominee, then I would expect the turnout among the 18-30 set to be historic. Where does everyone else go? In normal election cycles, the Democratic nominee would pretty much be a lock to win in an election like this. We do not live in normal times any longer.
posted by azpenguin at 2:02 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
'08 and '16 were typical angry change votes after 8 years of one president, and '10 and '18 were were typical backlashes in the House against the general election. And they all were in the deadlocked trend of Republicans losing the popular vote (except for '04) since 1989. See E Klein's recent tome Why We're Polarized on how typical the last 5 elections have been of each other in voting.
If Russian/corporate micro-targeting can't make as much use of their tools as they could in exactly the same way, as in 2016 with 12 months of MSM help, Sanders will be fine.
posted by Harry Caul at 2:12 PM on February 25, 2020
If Russian/corporate micro-targeting can't make as much use of their tools as they could in exactly the same way, as in 2016 with 12 months of MSM help, Sanders will be fine.
posted by Harry Caul at 2:12 PM on February 25, 2020
Bloomberg's most concrete "gun-control" policy measure
MAIG/Everytown has supported multiple successful gun control initiatives and candidates. So this is not true unless you limit it to his time as mayor and just ignore everything since.
While apparently some leftists prefer unrestricted gun ownership, the vast majority of both Americans and Democrats want more gun control. As someone who has spent a lot of time in sane countries, it's a pretty high priority issue for me.
That said, I'd much rather have him continue to support it the way he has. He would not be a good President at all.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:33 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
MAIG/Everytown has supported multiple successful gun control initiatives and candidates. So this is not true unless you limit it to his time as mayor and just ignore everything since.
While apparently some leftists prefer unrestricted gun ownership, the vast majority of both Americans and Democrats want more gun control. As someone who has spent a lot of time in sane countries, it's a pretty high priority issue for me.
That said, I'd much rather have him continue to support it the way he has. He would not be a good President at all.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:33 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
But the Dems still need to get a lot more voters into the fold.
So I work in a college program for disabled students that provides a lot of independent living training, and I brought up voter registration to our director today. She told me a bunch of our students are super anxious and don’t want to vote because they have no idea how or what to expect. It’s scary and new and with the stress they’re under as college students they just... don’t want to deal with it.
We talk a lot about voting access, but I’m wondering how much that kind of thing is going on. I mean I know my program skews towards people who would find this difficult, but. I had forgotten how scary it was for me to vote for the first time (and how I accidentally voted Republican for one of the positions, because I didn’t know going in there were more races than just governor, and picked at random because I wasn’t sure if my ballot would get thrown out as ‘incomplete’ or something if I put nobody down, and I was too embarrassed to ask). So I’m curious how we might go about providing first time voters with more education about the actual process and what to expect, and what impact that might have.
posted by brook horse at 2:36 PM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
So I work in a college program for disabled students that provides a lot of independent living training, and I brought up voter registration to our director today. She told me a bunch of our students are super anxious and don’t want to vote because they have no idea how or what to expect. It’s scary and new and with the stress they’re under as college students they just... don’t want to deal with it.
We talk a lot about voting access, but I’m wondering how much that kind of thing is going on. I mean I know my program skews towards people who would find this difficult, but. I had forgotten how scary it was for me to vote for the first time (and how I accidentally voted Republican for one of the positions, because I didn’t know going in there were more races than just governor, and picked at random because I wasn’t sure if my ballot would get thrown out as ‘incomplete’ or something if I put nobody down, and I was too embarrassed to ask). So I’m curious how we might go about providing first time voters with more education about the actual process and what to expect, and what impact that might have.
posted by brook horse at 2:36 PM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
You know Sanders is the front runner because everyone is going to be gunning for him tonight. When the Republicans did that to Trump in 2016 it just seemed to elevate him and harden his base within the party. We’ll see what happens with the Democrats.
posted by eagles123 at 2:56 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by eagles123 at 2:56 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
I've been assuming this recent CNN op-ed by Joe Lockhart (press secretary for Bill Clinton) is a good example of the game plan for tonight and the next week:
posted by chortly at 4:26 PM on February 25, 2020
If Bloomberg has any chance of winning the nomination, he has to redirect his resources during the primary and run ads against Sanders -- not Trump.It should be an interesting first hour of the debate.
Bloomberg needs to use the next $400 million in ad spending to attack Sanders on his potential weaknesses in a general election and highlight how far left his campaign is. Hitting him on his past record on guns is a must.
Bloomberg also needs to drive home the fact that very little of what Sanders has proposed has any chance of being implemented without serious challenges and major compromises, as even, for example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admitted on Medicare for All.
Sanders' praise of Soviet-backed regimes is ripe for political attack ads -- and if Bloomberg doesn't take advantage of this, Trump certainly will in the fall. Finally, Sanders' legislative record of achievements is lacking, and the difficulty he faces in garnering support among both Democratic or Republican lawmakers can be highlighted.
Bloomberg has a narrow window of time to shift his strategy. As Tim Miller, who served as Jeb Bush's communications director in 2016 wrote in The Bulwark, a big lesson from 2016 is "attack the freaking front-runner for God's sake ... If Mike's goal is to actually beat Bernie -- and not just finish Super Tuesday with a gentleman's 18 percent and embark on a long, losing slog in the hopes something crazy happens -- then his paid media needs to shift to targeting Bernie immediately. Let me emphasize this: Immediately, today, five minutes ago, the fork NOW."
posted by chortly at 4:26 PM on February 25, 2020
It’s amazing there are seven candidates in tonight’s debate. Even the clown car 2016 Republican primary was down to five candidates on stage at this point (and only four in their March debates).
posted by mbrubeck at 5:02 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by mbrubeck at 5:02 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
If they hadn't changed the debate rules about number of donors recently to allow Bloomberg in, they'd be down to 6 by now.
posted by clawsoon at 5:06 PM on February 25, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 5:06 PM on February 25, 2020 [7 favorites]
I'm curious how Bloomberg supporters feel about this aspect of his record.
My guess, honestly, is "pretty positively." I wouldn't underestimate the road rage that a significant number of "pro-business moderates," petit-bourgeois burghers, and other worshippers of financial power have for actual, IRL protestors. They might claim to support protest in some abstract kind of way, sure -- but when it gets down to brass tacks, I think a lot of them truly believe that if you inconvenience them or make their lives very slightly more difficult, you deserve whatever treatment you get, and you should be grateful it wasn't worse.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:09 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
My guess, honestly, is "pretty positively." I wouldn't underestimate the road rage that a significant number of "pro-business moderates," petit-bourgeois burghers, and other worshippers of financial power have for actual, IRL protestors. They might claim to support protest in some abstract kind of way, sure -- but when it gets down to brass tacks, I think a lot of them truly believe that if you inconvenience them or make their lives very slightly more difficult, you deserve whatever treatment you get, and you should be grateful it wasn't worse.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:09 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
We’ll see what happens with the Democrats.
The sooner the infighting burns off, the better off we will be. I hope the Dem elites get this.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:16 PM on February 25, 2020 [7 favorites]
The sooner the infighting burns off, the better off we will be. I hope the Dem elites get this.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:16 PM on February 25, 2020 [7 favorites]
Bloomberg needs to use the next $400 million in ad spending to attack Sanders on his potential weaknesses in a general election and highlight how far left his campaign is. Hitting him on his past record on guns is a must.
The US' Presidential elections are very different from the Parliamentary systems I'm used to, but I can't help thinking that it's crazy for Democratic candidates to be spending tens or hundreds of millions attacking each other less than a year from the election. In the greater picture it's not even wasted money; it's effectively a gift to the Republicans.
I know people like the idea of the scrappy underdog candidate emerging from obscurity by public acclaim as opposed to the venal compromise candidate selected by party bosses in smoke-filled rooms, but what you apparently have is a highly gameable system that creates months of bad publicity and costs hundreds of millions. Maybe just clean up the party system and then have a party conference choose the nominee?
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:21 PM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
The US' Presidential elections are very different from the Parliamentary systems I'm used to, but I can't help thinking that it's crazy for Democratic candidates to be spending tens or hundreds of millions attacking each other less than a year from the election. In the greater picture it's not even wasted money; it's effectively a gift to the Republicans.
I know people like the idea of the scrappy underdog candidate emerging from obscurity by public acclaim as opposed to the venal compromise candidate selected by party bosses in smoke-filled rooms, but what you apparently have is a highly gameable system that creates months of bad publicity and costs hundreds of millions. Maybe just clean up the party system and then have a party conference choose the nominee?
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:21 PM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
This debate audience makes me hate the Democratic party. How you can applaud a guy who funds Republicans and does the stuff Warren is saying? It's all true. I hope the money is good. Also, it's impossible to have a rational conversation on budgeting in 45 second increments.
posted by eagles123 at 5:29 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 5:29 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
Most. Hilarious. Debate. Ever.
Much better than any recent SNL skit.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:33 PM on February 25, 2020
Much better than any recent SNL skit.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:33 PM on February 25, 2020
Note: The only guaranteed way to get a ticket to this “debate” is to become a “sponsor”, which costs between 1750 and 3200 dollars.
posted by eagles123 at 5:45 PM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 5:45 PM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
I've said this oh so many times I am tired of it.
Debate moderators need to frikkin moderate.
Cut the damn mics when the candidates time is up. Cut the damn mics when someone talks over the person who has the stage.
I'm not sure that will make the debates more productive, but at least the moderators are... ya know.... moderating.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:47 PM on February 25, 2020 [12 favorites]
Debate moderators need to frikkin moderate.
Cut the damn mics when the candidates time is up. Cut the damn mics when someone talks over the person who has the stage.
I'm not sure that will make the debates more productive, but at least the moderators are... ya know.... moderating.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:47 PM on February 25, 2020 [12 favorites]
okay so that thing that just happened where joe biden interrupted klobuchar to claim he had written the bill that she was talking about, and that in reality she herself had written was... something. it's like a crack team of researchers got together to devise a scenario that could make klobuchar seem sympathetic.
in a just world biden would be forced to get MANSPLAINER tattooed on his forehead after pulling that crap.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 5:53 PM on February 25, 2020 [18 favorites]
in a just world biden would be forced to get MANSPLAINER tattooed on his forehead after pulling that crap.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 5:53 PM on February 25, 2020 [18 favorites]
Biden and Bloomberg clearly have very vocal cheering sections in the audience.
posted by eagles123 at 5:55 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 5:55 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
I assume every reputable news outlet is currently investigating how tickets were assigned and what fraction of available tickets went to $1750 a pop sponsors. So we'll probably find out the situation soon enough.
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on February 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on February 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
Maybe just clean up the party system and then have a party conference choose the nominee?
There are processes that would be less acrimonious, brutal, and resource-intensive while simultaneously being more democratic. My dream: the primary is two or three months long and culminates in an approval vote, where people can select as many candidates as they want. Fin. No need for party elites to second-guess the preferences of voters (which they seem to be bad at anyway).
posted by en forme de poire at 5:59 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
There are processes that would be less acrimonious, brutal, and resource-intensive while simultaneously being more democratic. My dream: the primary is two or three months long and culminates in an approval vote, where people can select as many candidates as they want. Fin. No need for party elites to second-guess the preferences of voters (which they seem to be bad at anyway).
posted by en forme de poire at 5:59 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
There already was a news article on it on a local tv station because people were complaining. That's where I heard about the prices. Unfortunately I can't link on my tablet.
posted by eagles123 at 6:03 PM on February 25, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 6:03 PM on February 25, 2020
Biden tried to simultaneously say homebuyers and homeowners and what he said was "homeboners"
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:06 PM on February 25, 2020 [40 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:06 PM on February 25, 2020 [40 favorites]
Well at least some good came out of this shit.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:07 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:07 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
Thank God the moderator finally told Pete to shut up and stop interrupting.
posted by eagles123 at 6:08 PM on February 25, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 6:08 PM on February 25, 2020
Want a guaranteed seat at the Democratic debate in Charleston? It’ll cost a lot of cash.
“The Charleston County Democratic Party website says "The only guaranteed way to get a ticket is to become a sponsor of the debate." Sponsorship ranges from $1,750 to $3,200 each for attendance to multiple “First in the South” events.
Charleston County Democratic Party Chair Colleen Condon said neither the state nor local party knows how many tickets will be available to the general public. She said tickets are first handed out to organizers. Then, campaigns may get some tickets to disperse among supporters.
"This is something that the average person doesn’t usually get to go to," Condon said. "The Gaillard is only so big and this is something that is just a hot ticket from across the country. These kind of events really are set up for sponsors and things like that."
posted by sallybrown at 6:08 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
“The Charleston County Democratic Party website says "The only guaranteed way to get a ticket is to become a sponsor of the debate." Sponsorship ranges from $1,750 to $3,200 each for attendance to multiple “First in the South” events.
Charleston County Democratic Party Chair Colleen Condon said neither the state nor local party knows how many tickets will be available to the general public. She said tickets are first handed out to organizers. Then, campaigns may get some tickets to disperse among supporters.
"This is something that the average person doesn’t usually get to go to," Condon said. "The Gaillard is only so big and this is something that is just a hot ticket from across the country. These kind of events really are set up for sponsors and things like that."
posted by sallybrown at 6:08 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
The insanely priced "debate sponsor" tickets are featured in some other state debates, too. Don't get wrong -- it's bad! -- but we're only taking notice of it here because the crowd is so hyped for Bloomberg that it doesn't seem like it could be a plausible organic development.
posted by grandiloquiet at 6:14 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by grandiloquiet at 6:14 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
We also don’t know how many sponsors there actually are in the audience and how many tickets were handed out to organizers. I think it’s just as plausible the boos were a prearranged tactic coming from a loud but small group arranged by a campaign’s organizers/supporters.
posted by sallybrown at 6:19 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:19 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
"South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum." -- James L. Petigru
posted by kirkaracha at 6:22 PM on February 25, 2020
posted by kirkaracha at 6:22 PM on February 25, 2020
I agree. It's still notable to me how different the audience reactions were between Nevada and this debate. I can't imagine an audience at a Democratic debate not caring about sexual harassment allegations.
posted by eagles123 at 6:23 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 6:23 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
So just to be a clear a billionaire buys out every single channel and plasters his face and voice everywhere, the DNC changes the debate qualifiers so he can get on stage, the tickets to the debate itself cost thousands and are only secured by "VIPs" who cheer his completely tepid nonsense, and ads air during the debate are for said billionaire candidate + mysterious PAC that is anti-single payer. This is somehow feeling just as disturbing as 2016 if not more so
posted by windbox at 6:36 PM on February 25, 2020 [41 favorites]
posted by windbox at 6:36 PM on February 25, 2020 [41 favorites]
Sanders pulls that subversive controversial move of mentioning actual US history to a US audience.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:38 PM on February 25, 2020 [26 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 6:38 PM on February 25, 2020 [26 favorites]
what you apparently have is a highly gameable system that creates months of bad publicity and costs hundreds of millions
You should see our health care system!
posted by mwhybark at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2020 [26 favorites]
You should see our health care system!
posted by mwhybark at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2020 [26 favorites]
also our higher-education and real-estate markets!
posted by mwhybark at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by mwhybark at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2020 [10 favorites]
Pete is so annoying that he is even getting the crowd on Sanders' side. I also liked when Sanders stared down the guy who tried to boo him when he cited Obama in his Cuba defence. Biden came out looking kind of dumb in that exchange.
posted by eagles123 at 6:52 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 6:52 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
Ok last question is “What are some words that you live by?” Just for a second imagine what if Bernie just put his lips on the mic and said “Fuck around and find out”
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:53 PM on February 25, 2020 [25 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:53 PM on February 25, 2020 [25 favorites]
The audience was weird, yes, but Bloomberg isn't going to be the nominee. I will eat a hat if he is.
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
I've learned from Sam Wang that objects I commit to eating if something terrible happens should be bite-size
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:20 PM on February 25, 2020 [33 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:20 PM on February 25, 2020 [33 favorites]
Yeah, if the past four years taught me anything, it's never say never. I mean, Biden is probably going to win South Carolina, not necessarily because of this debate, but because of the politics of the state. Then what? The dude is a rambling mess.
posted by eagles123 at 7:29 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 7:29 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
Kornacki gets it.
@SteveKornackiposted by Rust Moranis at 7:43 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
How were tickets distributed for this debate?
you know i am hesitant to say this but it is possible that the behavior of five of the seven people on that stage and also especially the behavior of the moderators indicates that possibly the quality of political discourse in american mass media is, like, bad.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 8:14 PM on February 25, 2020 [26 favorites]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 8:14 PM on February 25, 2020 [26 favorites]
In a society without a collective sense of the sacred, vital functions of civic life become infiltrated with the profane.
posted by eagles123 at 8:19 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by eagles123 at 8:19 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
What is the process to make debates stop looking like that?
posted by lazugod at 8:39 PM on February 25, 2020
posted by lazugod at 8:39 PM on February 25, 2020
What is the process to make debates stop looking like that?
posted by lazugod at 10:39 PM on February 25 [+] [!]
Put them on PBS, have the moderators cut the mics, draft newspaperpeople as moderators, and get the hell rid of the commercials
posted by TheProfessor at 8:54 PM on February 25, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by lazugod at 10:39 PM on February 25 [+] [!]
Put them on PBS, have the moderators cut the mics, draft newspaperpeople as moderators, and get the hell rid of the commercials
posted by TheProfessor at 8:54 PM on February 25, 2020 [19 favorites]
Get rid of the audience. This isn't a pro wrestling show with heels and faces.
posted by JackFlash at 8:59 PM on February 25, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 8:59 PM on February 25, 2020 [15 favorites]
The League of Women Voters seemed to have better debates, but they had "no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public".
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:20 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:20 PM on February 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
what he said was "homeboners"
But enough about my sex life
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:37 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
But enough about my sex life
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:37 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
try the veal
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:48 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:48 PM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
Most. Hilarious. Debate. Ever.
Much better than any recent SNL skit.
The Nevada debate was genuinely full of feel-good moments - arguably largely because it did have a heel. This just seems to have been a weird mess.
posted by atoxyl at 9:59 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
Much better than any recent SNL skit.
The Nevada debate was genuinely full of feel-good moments - arguably largely because it did have a heel. This just seems to have been a weird mess.
posted by atoxyl at 9:59 PM on February 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
This isn't a pro wrestling show with heels and faces.
like it's an episode of The Voice or some other elimination song and dance reality TV shit.
But that's what it is. Trying to deny this will only make it hurt more.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:52 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
like it's an episode of The Voice or some other elimination song and dance reality TV shit.
But that's what it is. Trying to deny this will only make it hurt more.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:52 PM on February 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
A “debate” held on a commercial network run by multi millionaires, an audience stacked with high dollar DNC contributors, and in between segments, a barrage of ads for one of the two billionaires who are running.
We live in an oligarchy and that was a shitty puppet show. We did this to ourselves, no boogey man Russians needed.
Burn it all down.
posted by lattiboy at 12:05 AM on February 26, 2020 [30 favorites]
We live in an oligarchy and that was a shitty puppet show. We did this to ourselves, no boogey man Russians needed.
Burn it all down.
posted by lattiboy at 12:05 AM on February 26, 2020 [30 favorites]
Metafilter: We did this to ourselves
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:19 AM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:19 AM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
USA: We did this to ourselves
posted by pyramid termite at 12:30 AM on February 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:30 AM on February 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
i am coming here to you today to say again (re selfdoings):
nernie
posted by mwhybark at 12:34 AM on February 26, 2020 [10 favorites]
nernie
posted by mwhybark at 12:34 AM on February 26, 2020 [10 favorites]
1) No audience.
2) Limit to one or two topics per night (we’ve had like 7 debates)
3) More than 2 minutes to make a statement and 45 seconds for rebuttals
4) Allow for multiple rounds of rebuttals
5) Mike gets cut if you go more than 20 seconds over your time and when it’s not your turn
posted by eagles123 at 3:23 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
2) Limit to one or two topics per night (we’ve had like 7 debates)
3) More than 2 minutes to make a statement and 45 seconds for rebuttals
4) Allow for multiple rounds of rebuttals
5) Mike gets cut if you go more than 20 seconds over your time and when it’s not your turn
posted by eagles123 at 3:23 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
Mike should get cut just for showing up.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:50 AM on February 26, 2020 [23 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:50 AM on February 26, 2020 [23 favorites]
I wonder if the people criticizing Sanders for praising Cuba ever said something nice about the "Asian Tigers", which were mostly run by authoritarian dictators (Park in South Korea, Chiang+Chiang in Taiwan, Lee in Singapore) during their times of maximum economic growth.
posted by clawsoon at 5:21 AM on February 26, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 5:21 AM on February 26, 2020 [6 favorites]
The fact-checking articles for the SC debate are something to behold.
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:53 AM on February 26, 2020
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:53 AM on February 26, 2020
I wonder if the people criticizing Sanders for praising Cuba ever said something nice about the "Asian Tigers", which were mostly run by authoritarian dictators (Park in South Korea, Chiang+Chiang in Taiwan, Lee in Singapore) during their times of maximum economic growth.
We don't even need to go abroad or that far back. How many presidents and presidential candidates have spoken fondly or even literally embraced Henry Kissinger, someone who makes Castro look entirely unambitious?
When Bernie spoke out against him in the 2016 primary, that was the moment I realized there was something truly different about him.
posted by Ouverture at 7:10 AM on February 26, 2020 [12 favorites]
We don't even need to go abroad or that far back. How many presidents and presidential candidates have spoken fondly or even literally embraced Henry Kissinger, someone who makes Castro look entirely unambitious?
When Bernie spoke out against him in the 2016 primary, that was the moment I realized there was something truly different about him.
posted by Ouverture at 7:10 AM on February 26, 2020 [12 favorites]
We don't even need to go abroad or that far back. How many presidents and presidential candidates have spoken fondly or even literally embraced Henry Kissinger, someone who makes Castro look entirely unambitious?
We even have a law (American Service-Members' Protection Act) that forces the US to invade The Hague if any of its war criminals get pulled into the ICC.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:17 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
We even have a law (American Service-Members' Protection Act) that forces the US to invade The Hague if any of its war criminals get pulled into the ICC.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:17 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
Sanders makes moderates uncomfortable partly because he represents that the old neoliberal order of the past 50 years is over. It hasn't been great for a lot of people, but it's familiar and leaving it can be scary. Sanders vs. Trump means that both choices are choices for something a lot different. This is why defending Castro is such a big deal and not Kissinger, because, right or wrong, Castro has been the enemy for a long time and Kissinger hasn't been.
posted by bright flowers at 7:22 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by bright flowers at 7:22 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
Am I nuts or did Joe Biden say 150 million people have died from gun violence since 2007? Nope, I'm not insane.
I figured Pete at least would be all over that, since he's positioning himself as magic numbers guy.
My wife and I spent a lot of the rest of the debate riffing on that.
Candidate: I'm the only candidate who can fix the massive economic downturn from the sudden death of over a third of Americans!
posted by freecellwizard at 7:25 AM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
I figured Pete at least would be all over that, since he's positioning himself as magic numbers guy.
My wife and I spent a lot of the rest of the debate riffing on that.
Candidate: I'm the only candidate who can fix the massive economic downturn from the sudden death of over a third of Americans!
posted by freecellwizard at 7:25 AM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sanders makes moderates uncomfortable partly because he represents that the old neoliberal order of the past 50 years is over. It hasn't been great for a lot of people, but it's familiar and leaving it can be scary. Sanders vs. Trump means that both choices are choices for something a lot different. This is why defending Castro is such a big deal and not Kissinger, because, right or wrong, Castro has been the enemy for a long time and Kissinger hasn't been.
You're right, but it's not just the neoliberal order; it's also the neoconservative order. And that's what makes Sanders so exciting for not just poor people and people of color in America, but for literally billions of people around the world who have been and are being harmed by the American foreign policy consensus.
posted by Ouverture at 7:33 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
You're right, but it's not just the neoliberal order; it's also the neoconservative order. And that's what makes Sanders so exciting for not just poor people and people of color in America, but for literally billions of people around the world who have been and are being harmed by the American foreign policy consensus.
posted by Ouverture at 7:33 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
Bring In The Boss
Doesn't get more Trumpian than that. Between this Bloombergian version of a MAGAhat and this nonsense, I wonder how long we have until The Boss weighs in.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:40 AM on February 26, 2020
Doesn't get more Trumpian than that. Between this Bloombergian version of a MAGAhat and this nonsense, I wonder how long we have until The Boss weighs in.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:40 AM on February 26, 2020
Mod note: Couple deleted; about "candidate x almost definitely has mental-health condition y", let's lay off that please. That kind of speculation tends to go to bad places and hit people other than you're intending.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:50 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:50 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
tonycpsu: "The boss" reminds me of this scene from Enemy at the Gates, where Khrushchev refers to Stalin as "the boss".
posted by bright flowers at 7:54 AM on February 26, 2020
posted by bright flowers at 7:54 AM on February 26, 2020
4 Takeaways from the South Carolina Democratic Debate (NPR)
posted by filthy light thief at 7:59 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
The Democrats debated for the 10th time Tuesday night and it was a bit of a mess. There was shouting. There was overtalk. There were lots of attacks.And that is what drove higher turn-out for the Dems in 2018, which is why I'm optimistic that Dr. Rachel Bitecofer's model, which was close for 2018, will also be accurate for 2020 (previously) -- "Democrats are a near lock for the presidency, are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate" (TTTCS).
So what to make of that muddle? Here are four takeaways that emerged as the dust settled.
1. Joe Biden was focused on the win in South Carolina
2. Sanders is the man to beat, and he took the heat
3. Bloomberg was better, but ... he didn't stand out as the person who should be the clear alternative to the senator from Vermont.
4. Coronavirus recalls what's at stake in elections
The candidates were critical of how the Trump administration is responding to the coronavirus outbreak, notably that Trump's proposed budgets cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[...]
With unemployment under 4%, foreign entanglements in the background and no major crises, Trump would normally be the favorite in November. But if something goes badly wrong, it may not matter who the Democratic nominee is. Reelections are, first and foremost, a referendum on the sitting president — and this president is one of the most hotly polarizing in the nation's history.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:59 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
I've posted about the mental illness deletion in MetaTalk here.
posted by bright flowers at 8:11 AM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by bright flowers at 8:11 AM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Roundup blog digest of media impressions of the South Carolina debate: CBS News botched its Democratic debate by making itself the spotlight, rather than the candidates (Norman Weiss, Primetimer/TVTattle)
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:43 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:43 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
I know people like the idea of the scrappy underdog candidate emerging from obscurity by public acclaim as opposed to the venal compromise candidate selected by party bosses in smoke-filled rooms, but what you apparently have is a highly gameable system that creates months of bad publicity and costs hundreds of millions. Maybe just clean up the party system and then have a party conference choose the nominee?
So, the thing is, the current primary system for choosing presidential candidates wasn't really in place until 1972, after the debacle of 1968. There were primaries before then, but they were fairly inconsequential. Many nominees didn't even compete in primaries. In effect, the nominee was chosen in the way you describe.
I think it's fairly clear now the current system has its own problems--I would have preferred intraparty nomination contests with the voting being run by the parties, not by state governments... but that would have meant the Democrats and Republicans losing one of their ways to keep third parties from emerging, by controlling ballot access.
Not to mention that presidential nominees are not the same as party leadership contests in parliamentary systems, because the closest the United States has to a prime minister is the Speaker of the House.
posted by Automocar at 8:44 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
So, the thing is, the current primary system for choosing presidential candidates wasn't really in place until 1972, after the debacle of 1968. There were primaries before then, but they were fairly inconsequential. Many nominees didn't even compete in primaries. In effect, the nominee was chosen in the way you describe.
I think it's fairly clear now the current system has its own problems--I would have preferred intraparty nomination contests with the voting being run by the parties, not by state governments... but that would have meant the Democrats and Republicans losing one of their ways to keep third parties from emerging, by controlling ballot access.
Not to mention that presidential nominees are not the same as party leadership contests in parliamentary systems, because the closest the United States has to a prime minister is the Speaker of the House.
posted by Automocar at 8:44 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
Chiang+Chiang in Taiwan
I mean, I think folks in Taiwan are glad to even be mentioned by a US presidential candidate, for good or bad. Because that at least means they, y'know, exist!
posted by FJT at 8:49 AM on February 26, 2020
I mean, I think folks in Taiwan are glad to even be mentioned by a US presidential candidate, for good or bad. Because that at least means they, y'know, exist!
posted by FJT at 8:49 AM on February 26, 2020
I am an ardent Warren supporter, but if she doesn't have a strong showing in South Carolina + Super Tuesday (say, enough to move into the top three by number of delegates) I hope she throws her support behind Bernie at that point.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:34 AM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:34 AM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
I am an ardent Warren supporter, but if she doesn't have a strong showing in South Carolina + Super Tuesday (say, enough to move into the top three by number of delegates) I hope she throws her support behind Bernie at that point.
It seemed to me that Warren was not wanting to inflict any big damage on Nernie last night. (As opposed to her taking a flamethrower to Bloomberg again.) I think that if she sees the writing on the wall and drops out, she's team Sanders.
posted by azpenguin at 9:37 AM on February 26, 2020 [12 favorites]
It seemed to me that Warren was not wanting to inflict any big damage on Nernie last night. (As opposed to her taking a flamethrower to Bloomberg again.) I think that if she sees the writing on the wall and drops out, she's team Sanders.
posted by azpenguin at 9:37 AM on February 26, 2020 [12 favorites]
What the hell is this "Nernie" stuff? Did I miss a memo?
posted by Automocar at 9:57 AM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Automocar at 9:57 AM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's a typo from upthread that, if unchecked, could become another MeFi in-joke... but (in the interests of keeping these threads understandable to people not continuously immersed in them) should probably be dropped.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:06 AM on February 26, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:06 AM on February 26, 2020 [19 favorites]
the nernie thing is peak metafilter... but not in a good way...
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 11:07 AM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 11:07 AM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
I am an ardent Warren supporter, but if she doesn't have a strong showing in South Carolina + Super Tuesday (say, enough to move into the top three by number of delegates) I hope she throws her support behind Bernie at that point.
I am, as well, and I share your hope. Wrt policies, they share much in common.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:16 AM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
I am, as well, and I share your hope. Wrt policies, they share much in common.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:16 AM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
I feel like there is plenty of value in Warren sticking around through the final debate (Mar 15) even in the event Super Tuesday results make it clear she is not the choice of the progressive left. For one, she has been excellent in them, two, she can be aggressive in attacking other candidates if she's not playing defense the whole debate (which the front-runner likely would), three, it is just a benefit to the progressive left to have two voices on a shrinking stage, and four I think the risk that a lot of her supporters would be willing to move from her to Sanders on Mar 6th but would change their minds and go to a moderate candidate by Mar 20th is low.
posted by jermsplan at 11:46 AM on February 26, 2020 [20 favorites]
posted by jermsplan at 11:46 AM on February 26, 2020 [20 favorites]
This is more AskMeFi, but since there's so much Warren/Sanders chatter, I'll ask here:
Assume I am a diehard Warren supporter in NC (I am), which votes Super Tuesday.
Assume Sanders is a close second for me, and that I want him to win the nomination if she doesn't.
Is there any reason I should not vote my conscience March 3 and pick Warren?
I've always followed the "conscience in primaries, pragmatism in the general" rule. But I don't want Biden or Bloomberg (or Pete/Amy really) to end up as the nominee.
So far my strategy has been to not early vote and watch the debates and other primary/caucus results, but I am running out of time. The fact that Warren clearly won the last two debates IMO makes it even harder. In the shouty debacle last night, she seemed like the only one not piling on and brought a calm leadership vibe back whenever she talked. Just call me Chidi ... I'm getting a stomachache!
posted by freecellwizard at 11:58 AM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Assume I am a diehard Warren supporter in NC (I am), which votes Super Tuesday.
Assume Sanders is a close second for me, and that I want him to win the nomination if she doesn't.
Is there any reason I should not vote my conscience March 3 and pick Warren?
I've always followed the "conscience in primaries, pragmatism in the general" rule. But I don't want Biden or Bloomberg (or Pete/Amy really) to end up as the nominee.
So far my strategy has been to not early vote and watch the debates and other primary/caucus results, but I am running out of time. The fact that Warren clearly won the last two debates IMO makes it even harder. In the shouty debacle last night, she seemed like the only one not piling on and brought a calm leadership vibe back whenever she talked. Just call me Chidi ... I'm getting a stomachache!
posted by freecellwizard at 11:58 AM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Is there any reason I should not vote my conscience March 3 and pick Warren?
But I don't want Biden or Bloomberg (or Pete/Amy really) to end up as the nominee.
Biden's slightly favored in NC right now, just ahead of Sanders. In your position, from a practical standpoint, I'd vote for Sanders.
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:00 PM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
But I don't want Biden or Bloomberg (or Pete/Amy really) to end up as the nominee.
Biden's slightly favored in NC right now, just ahead of Sanders. In your position, from a practical standpoint, I'd vote for Sanders.
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:00 PM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
Assume I am a diehard Warren supporter in NC (I am), which votes Super Tuesday.
Assume Sanders is a close second for me, and that I want him to win the nomination if she doesn't.
Is there any reason I should not vote my conscience March 3 and pick Warren?
I am of the opinion that everyone should vote their conscience in every election, even the general. Strategic voting is for the birds and subverts the entire point of representative democracy. Not that you need approval from some rando on the internet, but this rando says vote for whoever you feel should be President of the United States of America.
Also we don't know how March 3 is going to play out. There is a tiny but non-zero chance Warren comes out smelling like roses. Who knows?
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:15 PM on February 26, 2020 [7 favorites]
Assume Sanders is a close second for me, and that I want him to win the nomination if she doesn't.
Is there any reason I should not vote my conscience March 3 and pick Warren?
I am of the opinion that everyone should vote their conscience in every election, even the general. Strategic voting is for the birds and subverts the entire point of representative democracy. Not that you need approval from some rando on the internet, but this rando says vote for whoever you feel should be President of the United States of America.
Also we don't know how March 3 is going to play out. There is a tiny but non-zero chance Warren comes out smelling like roses. Who knows?
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:15 PM on February 26, 2020 [7 favorites]
With proportional allocation your vote actually matters directly for how many delegates your candidates get.
In the event your candidate can’t break 15% state and locally, then it benefits the candidates who do: likely to be Biden and Sanders. So it’s kind of a win-tie/win.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:35 PM on February 26, 2020
In the event your candidate can’t break 15% state and locally, then it benefits the candidates who do: likely to be Biden and Sanders. So it’s kind of a win-tie/win.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:35 PM on February 26, 2020
Natasha Korecki, Politico's reporter covering Biden, says:
This is how @JoeBiden often closes out his events; he tells the crowd that some things about campaigning haven’t changed since he first ran for Senate when he was 29, he goes on to recite his old pitch —including what’s said in the video below— before circling back.
It's a bogus hit from Shaun King against Biden.
I don't know Natasha Korecki but directly below that there are two tweets questioning her on this, 1 saying that they have never seen him do that and another saying they watched the whole speech and he did not do this... I watched the speech (it was more like a 3 minute remark) and he clearly said he's running for president of the senate and if you don't like him, vote for the other Biden. No reference to his earlier career or anything like that. Unless the clip is doctored by the NBC News affiliate in Charleston, he definitely said what Shaun King said he said.
posted by nequalsone at 1:09 PM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
This is how @JoeBiden often closes out his events; he tells the crowd that some things about campaigning haven’t changed since he first ran for Senate when he was 29, he goes on to recite his old pitch —including what’s said in the video below— before circling back.
It's a bogus hit from Shaun King against Biden.
I don't know Natasha Korecki but directly below that there are two tweets questioning her on this, 1 saying that they have never seen him do that and another saying they watched the whole speech and he did not do this... I watched the speech (it was more like a 3 minute remark) and he clearly said he's running for president of the senate and if you don't like him, vote for the other Biden. No reference to his earlier career or anything like that. Unless the clip is doctored by the NBC News affiliate in Charleston, he definitely said what Shaun King said he said.
posted by nequalsone at 1:09 PM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
if warren is either above 15% or close to 15%, vote warren. if warren isn't near 15%, make whichever vote is most likely to produce an outcome you'd consider favorable. whatever you do, never vote your conscience, unless the choice your conscience would make happens to coincide with the choice that's most likely to produce an outcome you'd consider favorable.
voting based on conscience is a 20th century luxury that we no longer have in this the grim year of our lord 2020.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:13 PM on February 26, 2020 [13 favorites]
voting based on conscience is a 20th century luxury that we no longer have in this the grim year of our lord 2020.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:13 PM on February 26, 2020 [13 favorites]
If I voted my conscience I'd be writing in "Mecha-JohnBrown" every election.
posted by Rust Moranis at 1:19 PM on February 26, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 1:19 PM on February 26, 2020 [14 favorites]
if warren is either above 15% or close to 15%, vote warren. if warren isn't near 15%, make whichever vote . . .
According to which polls? Which polls where? Which polls when? Before early voting started? After? I'm not sure people are even able to play that game.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:22 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
According to which polls? Which polls where? Which polls when? Before early voting started? After? I'm not sure people are even able to play that game.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:22 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
More Bloomberg "forget what you know about me" snail mail, three pieces of it.
That makes four campaign mailers in two days: a letter, the gun-death "candle" foldout mwhybark mentions upthread, a poster-thick "fire, pollution, TRUMP's policies are KILLING California (view my climate-action cred on reverse)" sheet, and a slick multi-page folder that forms a Maltese Cross to tie together the theses/promises from the other three.
Lizabet and the Nernster send emails, like the sensible (genuinely environmentally-aware) people they are.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:26 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
That makes four campaign mailers in two days: a letter, the gun-death "candle" foldout mwhybark mentions upthread, a poster-thick "fire, pollution, TRUMP's policies are KILLING California (view my climate-action cred on reverse)" sheet, and a slick multi-page folder that forms a Maltese Cross to tie together the theses/promises from the other three.
Lizabet and the Nernster send emails, like the sensible (genuinely environmentally-aware) people they are.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:26 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
I live in VA, also a Super Tuesday state. Warren needs to make a come back. That will happen if people like us turn out and vote for her on Super Tuesday.
A lot of the candidates who aren't Bernie are hovering around 15% in the polls. If Warren supporters like us turn out and vote for her on Super Tuesday, we can ensure that she'll remain a viable candidate, and we can turn the primary contest into a Sanders–Warren race, rather than a Sanders–Biden, Sanders–Bloomberg one or a Sanders–Buttigieg one.
posted by nangar at 1:26 PM on February 26, 2020 [19 favorites]
A lot of the candidates who aren't Bernie are hovering around 15% in the polls. If Warren supporters like us turn out and vote for her on Super Tuesday, we can ensure that she'll remain a viable candidate, and we can turn the primary contest into a Sanders–Warren race, rather than a Sanders–Biden, Sanders–Bloomberg one or a Sanders–Buttigieg one.
posted by nangar at 1:26 PM on February 26, 2020 [19 favorites]
I'd love to see that outcome but one complicating factor is that some state's primaries are winner-take-all. I'm in MN which is one such state where N/Bernie and the Klobster are basically tied at around 25% and Warren a distant 3rd at 14%.
It's a bit of a unique situation as Amy only has this one home state but between Sanders and Klobuchar, I'll take Sanders. Otherwise I'd vote for Warren in the hope that she'd crack 15% and take some delegates for herself and either win the nomination or pledge those delegates to Sanders if she doesn't.
posted by VTX at 1:33 PM on February 26, 2020
It's a bit of a unique situation as Amy only has this one home state but between Sanders and Klobuchar, I'll take Sanders. Otherwise I'd vote for Warren in the hope that she'd crack 15% and take some delegates for herself and either win the nomination or pledge those delegates to Sanders if she doesn't.
posted by VTX at 1:33 PM on February 26, 2020
A lot of the candidates who aren't Bernie are hovering around 15% in the polls. If Warren supporters like us turn out and vote for her on Super Tuesday, we can ensure that she'll remain a viable candidate, and we can turn the primary contest into a Sanders–Warren race, rather than a Sanders–Biden, Sanders–Bloomberg one or a Sanders–Buttigieg one.
I will say you should always do what you feel is right, but I think hoping for a Sanders-Warren contest at this point is not very realistic.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:34 PM on February 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
I will say you should always do what you feel is right, but I think hoping for a Sanders-Warren contest at this point is not very realistic.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:34 PM on February 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
> some state's primaries are winner-take-all. I'm in MN which is one such state
There are no winner-take-all states in the Democratic primaries. (There are some in Republican primaries, but MN is not one of them.)
posted by mbrubeck at 1:43 PM on February 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
There are no winner-take-all states in the Democratic primaries. (There are some in Republican primaries, but MN is not one of them.)
posted by mbrubeck at 1:43 PM on February 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
My bad! I'm certain I saw that when I went looking for how to vote early. I must have misunderstood something or the information was incorrect 'cause it definitely said that it was all-or-nothing.
So...shit...now I'm back to the same Warren or Bernie problem as freecellwizard. But the discussion has definitely helped a ton (thank you all). I'm thinking it basically comes down to how likely I think Warren is to hit that 15% mark.
posted by VTX at 1:55 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
So...shit...now I'm back to the same Warren or Bernie problem as freecellwizard. But the discussion has definitely helped a ton (thank you all). I'm thinking it basically comes down to how likely I think Warren is to hit that 15% mark.
posted by VTX at 1:55 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
I live in VA, also a Super Tuesday state. Warren needs to make a come back. That will happen if people like us turn out and vote for her on Super Tuesday.
Same.
I think she’s the best candidate, so I’m voting for her. I’m sick of people trying to prognosticate what future hypothetical voters are going to do, let alone try to out game them somehow. I’m just going to do my own civic duty and vote for the candidate that I think has the best vision and who I think would do the best job as president. And based on what she’s said and done in the past handful of debates, Warren is my choice. It is OK if she isn’t someone else’s choice, I’m not saying she’s the only choice — but after careful consideration, she’s mine.
The irony is that I think ALL of the other candidates who I have considered voting for would say that we should vote with our hearts. They are all people who have followed their hearts — and their ethics — in figuring out their politics and their role as politicians. I would bet that that’s even what most of us like about them.
(I mean yeah, there are also egoists in the race, but they’re not people who I ever considered voting for, and they’re not people making a whole lot of headway, so I’m not really worrying about them just now).
posted by rue72 at 1:57 PM on February 26, 2020 [17 favorites]
Same.
I think she’s the best candidate, so I’m voting for her. I’m sick of people trying to prognosticate what future hypothetical voters are going to do, let alone try to out game them somehow. I’m just going to do my own civic duty and vote for the candidate that I think has the best vision and who I think would do the best job as president. And based on what she’s said and done in the past handful of debates, Warren is my choice. It is OK if she isn’t someone else’s choice, I’m not saying she’s the only choice — but after careful consideration, she’s mine.
The irony is that I think ALL of the other candidates who I have considered voting for would say that we should vote with our hearts. They are all people who have followed their hearts — and their ethics — in figuring out their politics and their role as politicians. I would bet that that’s even what most of us like about them.
(I mean yeah, there are also egoists in the race, but they’re not people who I ever considered voting for, and they’re not people making a whole lot of headway, so I’m not really worrying about them just now).
posted by rue72 at 1:57 PM on February 26, 2020 [17 favorites]
I think you are going to start hearing about a Biden comeback in the run-up to Super Tuesday. With the Clyburn endorsement, Biden stands to win South Carolina by a fairly comfortable margin. He isn’t really strongly positioned anywhere else outside the Deep South, but the momentum might shore up his support in Texas and in the mid-Atlantic.
Personally, at this point I think people should be rooting against a contested convention and voting accordingly. You all can take from that what you will.
posted by eagles123 at 1:58 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Personally, at this point I think people should be rooting against a contested convention and voting accordingly. You all can take from that what you will.
posted by eagles123 at 1:58 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
whatever you do, never vote your conscience, unless the choice your conscience would make happens to coincide with the choice that's most likely to produce an outcome you'd consider favorable.
You should in fact vote my conscience. If everybody did that, I for one think we’d be better off.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:08 PM on February 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
You should in fact vote my conscience. If everybody did that, I for one think we’d be better off.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:08 PM on February 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
hopefully all you virtue ethics folx out there just so happen to have hearts that align with your rough probabilistic sense of what actions are likely to produce preferred outcomes. i suspect they do, since most of you are voting for one of the seven people at least nominally in the running for the nomination rather than whoever you'd like to see as president.
for the record: if the primary or caucus in my undisclosed location is in the future, i'll be voting for sanders unless warren is right below 15% in the most recent decent polls, in which case i'll be voting for warren. if the primary or caucus in my undisclosed location has already happened, i have already used that system to determine my vote.
for the sake of completeness: if i haven't already voted yet, and if sanders and warren switch positions such that warren is comfortably above 15% and sanders is hovering at the threshold, i'll be voting for sanders. if they have switched positions so thoroughly that sanders isn't close to 15% anymore, i'll vote for warren.
voting is an anonymous act performed in private, with no public record left of how any one individual voted, and as such voting is terrible venue for self-expression. if i need to get my heart-feels out, i get them out in writing that i post on the Internet under my real name.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 2:08 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
for the record: if the primary or caucus in my undisclosed location is in the future, i'll be voting for sanders unless warren is right below 15% in the most recent decent polls, in which case i'll be voting for warren. if the primary or caucus in my undisclosed location has already happened, i have already used that system to determine my vote.
for the sake of completeness: if i haven't already voted yet, and if sanders and warren switch positions such that warren is comfortably above 15% and sanders is hovering at the threshold, i'll be voting for sanders. if they have switched positions so thoroughly that sanders isn't close to 15% anymore, i'll vote for warren.
voting is an anonymous act performed in private, with no public record left of how any one individual voted, and as such voting is terrible venue for self-expression. if i need to get my heart-feels out, i get them out in writing that i post on the Internet under my real name.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 2:08 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
My waffling about who to vote for in the CA primary, based upon my inability to decide which ethical system to base my vote upon, is definitely sending Chidi vibes through my soul.
posted by Justinian at 2:33 PM on February 26, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:33 PM on February 26, 2020 [16 favorites]
I think you should vote for Bernie because he’s a dope ass candidate and because it will piss off the most horrible right wingers for your buck. There, sorted.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:39 PM on February 26, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:39 PM on February 26, 2020 [13 favorites]
I'm voting for Elizabeth Warren in the California primary because I feel she'd be the best president. I'll be proud to cast my completely inconsequential ballot for the third straight presidential content (primary or general election) where the person I think is the best candidate is also a woman.
In November I'll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:34 PM on February 26, 2020 [24 favorites]
In November I'll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:34 PM on February 26, 2020 [24 favorites]
“Pete can’t be our President. Where was $15 in South Bend?”
Pete went to a fight for 15 rally to show he is a with workers. However the protesters made up a chant for Pete and he hustled away as fast as he could not looking at anyone with his staff and reporters running to keep up. (Time video 3min 31sec) Edited with original source video.
posted by phoque at 4:02 PM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
Pete went to a fight for 15 rally to show he is a with workers. However the protesters made up a chant for Pete and he hustled away as fast as he could not looking at anyone with his staff and reporters running to keep up. (Time video 3min 31sec) Edited with original source video.
posted by phoque at 4:02 PM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
but yeah i’m sort of with rust moranis upthread on the topic of voting my heart: if i voted my heart, i’d write in aoc for president and greta thunberg for vice president. but the list of reasons why that would never yield a worthwhile outcome is so large that we’d have to bust out higher orders of infinity to account for all of them. so i talk about the aoc/greta ticket in public on the Internet and run my what-is-most-likely-to-yield-positive-outcome algorithm in private when i fill out my ballot.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 4:07 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 4:07 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Trump just now blamed the market drop on the Democratic candidates on stage in SC, even though the market drop happened before the debate.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:16 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 4:16 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump is not a good President, and I’m not afraid to say it.
posted by eagles123 at 5:11 PM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 5:11 PM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
Translation: hey companies if you develop this vaccine we’ll make sure you’re on a gravy train with biscuit wheels, charge whatever you want.
His comments should be sound bites in a Bernie ad.
posted by azpenguin at 5:41 PM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
His comments should be sound bites in a Bernie ad.
posted by azpenguin at 5:41 PM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
You know, I wonder why Elizabeth Warren isn’t doing better at the polls and, well, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:06 PM on February 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:06 PM on February 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
Refresher: Alex Michael Azar II (born June 17, 1967) is an American attorney, politician, pharmaceutical lobbyist, and former drug company executive who serves as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, having been Deputy Secretary from 2005 to 2007. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on November 13, 2017, and confirmed by the Senate on January 24, 2018.
From 2012 to 2017, Azar was President of the U.S. division of Eli Lilly and Company, a major pharmaceutical drug company, and was a member of the board of directors of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a pharmaceutical lobby...
From 1992 to 1993, he served as a law clerk for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court...
From 1994 to 1996, he served as an Associate Independent Counsel for Ken Starr in the United States Office of the Independent Counsel, where he worked on the first two years of the investigation into the Whitewater controversy. At the time of Azar's appointment, he was working as an associate in Starr's law firm...
Many health care advocates raised concerns about the nomination, citing Azar's track record of raising drug prices and his opposition to Obamacare; his preferences, that is, for a "free market" to meet all Americans' health care needs. Critics noted that Azar approved a doubling in the of price of insulin while CEO of Eli Lilly.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:08 PM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
From 2012 to 2017, Azar was President of the U.S. division of Eli Lilly and Company, a major pharmaceutical drug company, and was a member of the board of directors of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a pharmaceutical lobby...
From 1992 to 1993, he served as a law clerk for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court...
From 1994 to 1996, he served as an Associate Independent Counsel for Ken Starr in the United States Office of the Independent Counsel, where he worked on the first two years of the investigation into the Whitewater controversy. At the time of Azar's appointment, he was working as an associate in Starr's law firm...
Many health care advocates raised concerns about the nomination, citing Azar's track record of raising drug prices and his opposition to Obamacare; his preferences, that is, for a "free market" to meet all Americans' health care needs. Critics noted that Azar approved a doubling in the of price of insulin while CEO of Eli Lilly.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:08 PM on February 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
Regarding choosing candidates on the basis of the 15% threshold: this is more complicated than it sounds. As far as I know, there are some delegates awarded on a precinct-by-precinct basis. So, to take where I live as an example: Wisconsin is Sanders country taken as a whole. But I specifically live in Madison. No one has polled Madison in specific, but demographic variables here lead me to believe that Warren will be viable. So I can go ahead and vote for Warren reasonably confident that my vote won't be wasted, even though 538 thinks she'll only get 8% of the vote statewide.
P.S. let's all use approval voting next time and just use the raw vote counts to select a winner. While I personally view voting 100% as a strategic exercise, one core strength of approval (and score and STAR) voting is that even if you vote "honestly" rather than strategically, you still have a reasonable chance of advancing your interests and you will never harm your interests. It would be infinitely better than our current voting system in the sort of clown-car primary we have now.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:18 PM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
P.S. let's all use approval voting next time and just use the raw vote counts to select a winner. While I personally view voting 100% as a strategic exercise, one core strength of approval (and score and STAR) voting is that even if you vote "honestly" rather than strategically, you still have a reasonable chance of advancing your interests and you will never harm your interests. It would be infinitely better than our current voting system in the sort of clown-car primary we have now.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:18 PM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]
With the Clyburn endorsement, Biden stands to win South Carolina by a fairly comfortable margin.
Biden not completely falling apart in Nevada was a big deal. Clyburn's argument (1972: fuck around and find out) is likely to resonate with older voters, so it'll be interesting if they can do anything with a "comeback kid" narrative before Tuesday.
Things are going to go very quickly at this point. Less than 0.3% of delegates have been awarded already, but about a third by Tuesday, and 60% two weeks later. Then just a long slog until early June. Hopefully somebody wins big on Tuesday, because March is when things get nasty, and it just gets worse the longer it goes.
posted by netowl at 7:29 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
Biden not completely falling apart in Nevada was a big deal. Clyburn's argument (1972: fuck around and find out) is likely to resonate with older voters, so it'll be interesting if they can do anything with a "comeback kid" narrative before Tuesday.
Things are going to go very quickly at this point. Less than 0.3% of delegates have been awarded already, but about a third by Tuesday, and 60% two weeks later. Then just a long slog until early June. Hopefully somebody wins big on Tuesday, because March is when things get nasty, and it just gets worse the longer it goes.
posted by netowl at 7:29 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
let's hold a referendum to decide whether delegates for the next election are selected by approval voting, condorcet's method, or the borda count.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:46 PM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:46 PM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]
I feel like "fuck around and find out" should be the official motto of this election, if not this entire decade.
Also, in the two polls I saw trying to determine who did the best in the debate (CBS and Ipsos/538) Sanders did the best in both.
Biden came a close second in the CBS poll; Buttegeig and Bloomberg came in second and third in the other.
Not sure I trust the methodologies, but there it is.
Fuck around and find out.
posted by eagles123 at 7:52 PM on February 26, 2020
Also, in the two polls I saw trying to determine who did the best in the debate (CBS and Ipsos/538) Sanders did the best in both.
Biden came a close second in the CBS poll; Buttegeig and Bloomberg came in second and third in the other.
Not sure I trust the methodologies, but there it is.
Fuck around and find out.
posted by eagles123 at 7:52 PM on February 26, 2020
Big Al 8000: You know, I wonder why Elizabeth Warren isn’t doing better at the polls and, well, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
Yeah, about that article.
The inability for a lot of progressive voters to trust Warren, specifically, is at least as much a Warren thing as it is a gender thing.
posted by kafziel at 8:56 PM on February 26, 2020
Yeah, about that article.
As Warren kept talking, recalling her own memory of not having been asked back to her job teaching special-needs students after she became visibly pregnant, Matthews’s brow furrowed with confusion.This is a lie.
The inability for a lot of progressive voters to trust Warren, specifically, is at least as much a Warren thing as it is a gender thing.
posted by kafziel at 8:56 PM on February 26, 2020
All those articles say is that Warren’s teaching contract was renewed in April, 1971 and that she gave her resignation in summer, 1971. That is exactly what it looks like when a teacher is “shown the door” at the end of a school year, and it in no way contradicts Warren’s telling of her experience.
posted by mbrubeck at 9:13 PM on February 26, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by mbrubeck at 9:13 PM on February 26, 2020 [24 favorites]
kafziel, what’s the lie now? That Matthews’s brow furrowed in confusion? I read the links, and while they do document a fact - Elizabeth Warren stopped teaching while pregnant during a time in which people who were pregnant were encouraged to leave work - and differing public accounts from Warren regarding that experience, I see no definite lie.
It does uphold what I perceive to be a pattern of drifting personal narrative on her part. But I definitely do disagree with what I think your accusation is, that to make these statements involves a lie.
posted by mwhybark at 9:13 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
It does uphold what I perceive to be a pattern of drifting personal narrative on her part. But I definitely do disagree with what I think your accusation is, that to make these statements involves a lie.
posted by mwhybark at 9:13 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
let's hold a referendum to decide whether delegates for the next election are selected by approval voting, condorcet's method, or the borda count.
Poisson distribution, surely, mr. rainbow
posted by mwhybark at 9:16 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
Poisson distribution, surely, mr. rainbow
posted by mwhybark at 9:16 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
i mean it's apt but on the other hand i've kind of sworn off advocating for aleatoric methods for the selection of public officeholders. or well i haven't sworn it off, exactly, i'm just saving it up for the next time everyone decides to spend a day making front page posts about sortition.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 9:36 PM on February 26, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 9:36 PM on February 26, 2020 [6 favorites]
Yeah, about that article.
[...]
This is a lie.
That's a really strong statement to make about something that you presumably only know about from news reports. There are lots of ways of people being fired/not hired/subordinated/relegated that effectively boil down to the same thing: an employer discriminated against a pregnant employee. And frankly, I'd be somewhat surprised if a woman's employment in 1971 wasn't harmed by her pregnancy. But as it happens the articles you cite pretty much confirm her story. Politifact acknowledges that the stories about Warren leaving voluntarily should be given little or no weight:
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:57 PM on February 26, 2020 [32 favorites]
[...]
This is a lie.
That's a really strong statement to make about something that you presumably only know about from news reports. There are lots of ways of people being fired/not hired/subordinated/relegated that effectively boil down to the same thing: an employer discriminated against a pregnant employee. And frankly, I'd be somewhat surprised if a woman's employment in 1971 wasn't harmed by her pregnancy. But as it happens the articles you cite pretty much confirm her story. Politifact acknowledges that the stories about Warren leaving voluntarily should be given little or no weight:
In all likelihood, the news reports were based on information provided by the school board or the school district. And if Warren had been forced out of the job because she was pregnant, it’s not likely school officials would have said so publicly.CBS reports that Warren says she was pregnant at the time she was fired:
One thing that’s important to remember: At the time, it was common for women to be forced out of teaching jobs after they became pregnant.
Warren also told CBS News that she was, in fact, officially offered the job for the following year as the school board minutes indicate. "In April of that year, my contract was renewed to teach again for the next year," Warren said. She also said she had been hiding her pregnancy from the school.And there's a fellow employee quoted, who says that women in Warren's situation were in fact fired by that school board:
"I was pregnant, but nobody knew it. And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job," Warren said.
"The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn't tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn't know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer," Randall said. "But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant."So what we have here, apparently, is a woman who suffered job reprisals as a young teacher but didn't want to get into it when she was appearing on a panel on "Law, Politics, and the Coming Collapse of the Middle Class" in her role as the Leo Gottleib Professor of Law at Harvard University. In her memoirs, seven years later, and in subsequent TV interviews, she was ready to do so. That ... seems perfectly reasonable to me. And even if it weren't, I don't think we should attack people who take a while to discuss a presumably painful history.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:57 PM on February 26, 2020 [32 favorites]
Molly Redden and Rebecca Klein: Elizabeth Warren Is Right. In The 1970s, Pregnant Teachers Didn’t Keep Their Jobs.
posted by mbrubeck at 9:58 PM on February 26, 2020 [30 favorites]
Certainly, by 1971, Warren’s principal would have known that to openly fire her because she was pregnant was to court trouble. “In the early 1970s,” the country at large was embroiled in a “major cultural and legal debate over the rights of pregnant workers,” according to a history of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act published in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism.I can’t believe that in 2020 people doubt that this was commonplace. :(
The American Federation of Teachers denounced mandatory pregnancy dismissals at its annual convention in 1970. By the next year — the year Warren left her job — the federation and the National Organization for Women were coordinating local name-and-shame campaigns against school boards with retrograde policies.
posted by mbrubeck at 9:58 PM on February 26, 2020 [30 favorites]
Public Enemy is playing the big Bernie rally in LA, hell yeah.
Biden was a hero to most...
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 4:20 AM on February 27, 2020 [15 favorites]
Biden was a hero to most...
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 4:20 AM on February 27, 2020 [15 favorites]
NY Times: Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders.
"Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:33 AM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
"Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:33 AM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
NY Times: Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders.
Is this from 2016, 2019 or 2020? I get so confused in these dystopian time loops.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:37 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Is this from 2016, 2019 or 2020? I get so confused in these dystopian time loops.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:37 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
if i voted my heart, i’d write in aoc for president and greta thunberg for vice president.
I think it is safe to assume that when people are talking about "voting with their heart" here, they mean within the confines of candidates on the ballot.
posted by mikepop at 5:40 AM on February 27, 2020 [13 favorites]
I think it is safe to assume that when people are talking about "voting with their heart" here, they mean within the confines of candidates on the ballot.
posted by mikepop at 5:40 AM on February 27, 2020 [13 favorites]
This morning I mailed in my VA absentee ballot for Elizabeth Warren, and then wrote a message on the democrats.org contact form about how fucking livid that NYT article made me. I'm still in the "don't make any promises about how you'll deal with a plurality until we see how the proportions shape up" camp, but that cuts both ways -- you have to be open to the scenario where Bernie has 45% of the delegates and is clearly the only candidate able to command a consensus. If the party is actually willing to split its own membership and cede the election to Trump rather than even try to win with Sanders, they're proving that every anti-establishment message the campaign has put out there was not only accurate but kinder than they deserve.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:31 AM on February 27, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:31 AM on February 27, 2020 [18 favorites]
NY Times: Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders.
"Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates."
My favorite quote from that article:
Jesus, and this from a guy who ran for president on a platform of universal healthcare and radical climate policy.
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:00 AM on February 27, 2020 [17 favorites]
"Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates."
My favorite quote from that article:
“People are worried,” said former Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who in October endorsed former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “How you can spend four or five months hoping you don’t have to put a bumper sticker from that guy on your car.”Yeah, that's what the entire Dem working class feels like ALL THE TIME. Imagine, having to hold your nose and support someone even though they stand for everything you are against. Of course, with us it is keeping people alive and unindentured, and for Dodd it is making rich people richer, but the point stands.
Jesus, and this from a guy who ran for president on a platform of universal healthcare and radical climate policy.
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:00 AM on February 27, 2020 [17 favorites]
> I think it is safe to assume that when people are talking about "voting with their heart" here, they mean within the confines of candidates on the ballot.
i mean, that's the point, isn't it? we're not talking about whether or not we should treat the ballot as a venue for expressing our heart's desire, and we never were. none of us are really talking about that, not even the people who say they're following their hearts with their votes.
instead, all of us are talking about tactics — which voting tactics are acceptable, which are desirable, which are out-of-bounds. for better or for worse, deep down we're all consequentialists here — we're all people trying to accomplish something with our votes, rather than merely expressing our desires. the dispute is as such about what counts as a vote that accomplishes something and what counts as a vote that's pointless. writing in aoc/greta would be, we can all agree, pointless. voting for tulsi gabbard is, thankfully, almost certainly pointless, even if you've got a twisted heart that desires her to be president. voting for amy klobuchar is probably pointless, but there's a one in a million chance it isn't. voting for warren is probably not pointless — but right now determining that requires looking at uncertain info and making a best guess based on statistical probabilities.
okay: even if warren's not near 15% in polls, the decision about whether to vote for her also depends on whether you think it's pointless or not to (for example) try to push warren support in your state or district up from like 9% to like 11%, which is a decision that no one can make for you. it might be non-pointless! for example, even if she doesn't reach the threshold, you might reasonably conceptualize it as putting down a marker for the future, telling the world "hey, there's definitely a fair number of warren people in the democratic party, and they might be important later." this is kind of what the sanders supporters were doing in the spring of 2016 — clinton was at that point almost certainly the nominee, but every sanders vote still served as a sign that sanders people existed and would be around in future elections.
i remain, through it all, on team warren/sanders sanders/warren, without regard for the order (even though sanders/warren seems like the more plausible order now). there's still a good chance that sanders gets to the convention short of 50% of the delegates and that warren's share of the delegates could be enough to get their coalition ticket the nomination before the superdelegates can get involved. in that case, every single warren delegate matters — one or two extra warren delegates might make the difference between the convention ending with a relatively healthy relatively unified sanders/warren ticket or the convention ending with michael bloomberg blowing up the whole fucking party and then becoming king of the ashes.
(i have never once followed my heart in my vote for a presidential candidate, and likely i never will. i came perilously close to following my heart in the 2000 general election — i was actually putting on my shoes to go out to the polling station when i heard that the news stations had switched florida from "gore win" to "too close to call" and thought "oh crap i can't fuck around with my vote this time gore's not bad at all i'm gonna vote for him." although i don't judge people who made the decision to follow their hearts in that election, especially not the people who followed their heart and then regretted it — i am very glad i don't personally have that particular regret hanging over me.)
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:05 AM on February 27, 2020 [14 favorites]
i mean, that's the point, isn't it? we're not talking about whether or not we should treat the ballot as a venue for expressing our heart's desire, and we never were. none of us are really talking about that, not even the people who say they're following their hearts with their votes.
instead, all of us are talking about tactics — which voting tactics are acceptable, which are desirable, which are out-of-bounds. for better or for worse, deep down we're all consequentialists here — we're all people trying to accomplish something with our votes, rather than merely expressing our desires. the dispute is as such about what counts as a vote that accomplishes something and what counts as a vote that's pointless. writing in aoc/greta would be, we can all agree, pointless. voting for tulsi gabbard is, thankfully, almost certainly pointless, even if you've got a twisted heart that desires her to be president. voting for amy klobuchar is probably pointless, but there's a one in a million chance it isn't. voting for warren is probably not pointless — but right now determining that requires looking at uncertain info and making a best guess based on statistical probabilities.
okay: even if warren's not near 15% in polls, the decision about whether to vote for her also depends on whether you think it's pointless or not to (for example) try to push warren support in your state or district up from like 9% to like 11%, which is a decision that no one can make for you. it might be non-pointless! for example, even if she doesn't reach the threshold, you might reasonably conceptualize it as putting down a marker for the future, telling the world "hey, there's definitely a fair number of warren people in the democratic party, and they might be important later." this is kind of what the sanders supporters were doing in the spring of 2016 — clinton was at that point almost certainly the nominee, but every sanders vote still served as a sign that sanders people existed and would be around in future elections.
i remain, through it all, on team warren/sanders sanders/warren, without regard for the order (even though sanders/warren seems like the more plausible order now). there's still a good chance that sanders gets to the convention short of 50% of the delegates and that warren's share of the delegates could be enough to get their coalition ticket the nomination before the superdelegates can get involved. in that case, every single warren delegate matters — one or two extra warren delegates might make the difference between the convention ending with a relatively healthy relatively unified sanders/warren ticket or the convention ending with michael bloomberg blowing up the whole fucking party and then becoming king of the ashes.
(i have never once followed my heart in my vote for a presidential candidate, and likely i never will. i came perilously close to following my heart in the 2000 general election — i was actually putting on my shoes to go out to the polling station when i heard that the news stations had switched florida from "gore win" to "too close to call" and thought "oh crap i can't fuck around with my vote this time gore's not bad at all i'm gonna vote for him." although i don't judge people who made the decision to follow their hearts in that election, especially not the people who followed their heart and then regretted it — i am very glad i don't personally have that particular regret hanging over me.)
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:05 AM on February 27, 2020 [14 favorites]
NY Times: Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders
THERe'S no SucH tHinG aS a paRtY EsTAblIShMENT
posted by entropicamericana at 7:07 AM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
THERe'S no SucH tHinG aS a paRtY EsTAblIShMENT
posted by entropicamericana at 7:07 AM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
> THERe'S no SucH tHinG aS a paRtY EsTAblIShMENT
Okay, SpongeBob, I'll bite. Who actually says this? The leadership of a major political party in a two-party system is, by definition, the establishment. The existence of superdelegates proves without a shadow of a doubt that there is an establishment. Bernie Sanders, as someone who wants to be President, is prepared to take on that establishment, not to get rid of it -- which is impossible given the way our political system is constructed -- but to become the establishment. It's only his most animated Extremely Online fans who seem to believe that he's going to bring about an era without a political establishment in the Democratic party.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:19 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Okay, SpongeBob, I'll bite. Who actually says this? The leadership of a major political party in a two-party system is, by definition, the establishment. The existence of superdelegates proves without a shadow of a doubt that there is an establishment. Bernie Sanders, as someone who wants to be President, is prepared to take on that establishment, not to get rid of it -- which is impossible given the way our political system is constructed -- but to become the establishment. It's only his most animated Extremely Online fans who seem to believe that he's going to bring about an era without a political establishment in the Democratic party.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:19 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
I’m gonna file the information in The NY Times article under “least surprising thing ever”. Hopefully it’s just people talking and nothing serious. However, reporting indicates all the campaigns are planning on a contested convention, and some of the lower polling candidates have to be counting on it.
In other news, Muhlenberg College just released a poll showing Sanders to be the only candidate that beats Trump in PA. Biden and Bloomberg pretty much have to win either PA or Florida to have a shot because they won’t be strong in the Midwest. The poll continues a trend of Sanders performing the best against Trump in more recent polling. Muhlenberg College is located in the Lehigh Valley, a swingy area of PA that will be important to winning the state.
posted by eagles123 at 7:31 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
In other news, Muhlenberg College just released a poll showing Sanders to be the only candidate that beats Trump in PA. Biden and Bloomberg pretty much have to win either PA or Florida to have a shot because they won’t be strong in the Midwest. The poll continues a trend of Sanders performing the best against Trump in more recent polling. Muhlenberg College is located in the Lehigh Valley, a swingy area of PA that will be important to winning the state.
posted by eagles123 at 7:31 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Its no surprise that Sanders is doing well in PA. Many rural PA whites hate two things: their boss and minorities. Trump won because he tapped into anti-minority sentiment. Sanders will win because he taps into the resentment towards peoples shitty ass employers. There's a lot of distrust against elites in some parts of the state.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:36 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:36 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
I am of the opinion that everyone should vote their conscience in every election, even the general.
I'm not of that opinion. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. People like me helped elect George W. Bush, accelerate mass surveillance, get hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq, fail to respond effectively to Hurricane Katrina, launch the "war on terror," and crash the global financial system. Voting for Nader was a mistake.
Jill Stein voters performed a similar function in 2016.
Purity tests are a mistake in the general.
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:55 AM on February 27, 2020 [27 favorites]
I'm not of that opinion. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. People like me helped elect George W. Bush, accelerate mass surveillance, get hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq, fail to respond effectively to Hurricane Katrina, launch the "war on terror," and crash the global financial system. Voting for Nader was a mistake.
Jill Stein voters performed a similar function in 2016.
Purity tests are a mistake in the general.
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:55 AM on February 27, 2020 [27 favorites]
"But his socialism" is well on its way to becoming 2020's "but her emails," so it looks like the liberal media has chalked up another victory there. It's pretty impressive to see this campaign rolling out basically everywhere and it inspires the same sort of "oh, I thought we had something good going on here..." sorts of feelings that the endless Serious Email Server Discussions did. This is one of those moments where you realize you're taking it seriously but they're playing games because it doesn't really matter. Think of the clicks during that descent into fascism! So many clicks.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:59 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:59 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
One thing I'll add to the tactical voting discussion -- there is not a long list of likely VP picks for Sanders. Honestly, the only three plausible choices I've heard are Nina Turner, Tammy Duckworth, and Elizabeth Warren. Warren is a totally plausible VP pick for Bernie, and there have even been reports that the Sanders campaign made formal inquiries into whether Warren could serve as VP and Treasury Secretary at the same time.
Though Warren is a good candidate, going by the results so far and the polling for future contests, she is extremely unlikely to gain enough delegates to win the nomination. It's also unlikely that she would prevail in the event of a contested convention -- though she would make sense as a compromise candidate, the establishment wing / right wing of the party really don't seem to like her either. I sense that they are not interested in giving an inch to the left this year. If they were going to boost her as their compromise choice, they already would have by now instead of falling in line for Bloomberg.
So, in my opinion, the most likely route for Warren to make it to the presidency at this time would be for her to be chosen as Bernie's VP and then assume the presidency should anything happen to him. I'd still rank this as a low probability, but higher than her winning the presidency outright. And if Sanders didn't pick her as VP, at least you'd still have a president who's very closely aligned with her values and goals.
So with that in mind, I would argue that helping Sanders win with enough delegates to avoid a contested convention would be the best strategic option for a Warren supporter.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:20 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Though Warren is a good candidate, going by the results so far and the polling for future contests, she is extremely unlikely to gain enough delegates to win the nomination. It's also unlikely that she would prevail in the event of a contested convention -- though she would make sense as a compromise candidate, the establishment wing / right wing of the party really don't seem to like her either. I sense that they are not interested in giving an inch to the left this year. If they were going to boost her as their compromise choice, they already would have by now instead of falling in line for Bloomberg.
So, in my opinion, the most likely route for Warren to make it to the presidency at this time would be for her to be chosen as Bernie's VP and then assume the presidency should anything happen to him. I'd still rank this as a low probability, but higher than her winning the presidency outright. And if Sanders didn't pick her as VP, at least you'd still have a president who's very closely aligned with her values and goals.
So with that in mind, I would argue that helping Sanders win with enough delegates to avoid a contested convention would be the best strategic option for a Warren supporter.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:20 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't Warren leaving the Senate be an automatic Republican taking her place for the next few years?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:28 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:28 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Massachusetts has changed the rules repeatedly in the last decade or two; at present there would be a special election.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:31 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:31 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
To the degree that this is an issue, it's an issue equally for Sanders
Not in Vermont, really. We'd get a Democrat (or equivalent) in so quickly it would make your head spin.
posted by jessamyn at 8:43 AM on February 27, 2020
Not in Vermont, really. We'd get a Democrat (or equivalent) in so quickly it would make your head spin.
posted by jessamyn at 8:43 AM on February 27, 2020
Sanders is currently running around 28% in national polls, so 72% not currently supporting him. So why would it surprise anyone that you could could find 98 superdelegates out of 771, about 12%, who say they don't support Sanders?
The NYT is garbage. They love to play up the high school lunchroom drama.
posted by JackFlash at 8:44 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
The NYT is garbage. They love to play up the high school lunchroom drama.
posted by JackFlash at 8:44 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
They didn't just say they don't support him in an ideological sense, but they will fight against him in a prodecural sense even if he has a plurality.
So the nightmare scenario of yanking the nomination from the chosen candidate and handing it to most likely Biden (and they even bandied the idea of a new nominee entirely, chosen wholecloth at the convention) is specifically being promised by at least some superdelegates.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:49 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
So the nightmare scenario of yanking the nomination from the chosen candidate and handing it to most likely Biden (and they even bandied the idea of a new nominee entirely, chosen wholecloth at the convention) is specifically being promised by at least some superdelegates.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:49 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
the nightmare scenario of yanking the nomination from the chosen candidate
...if said "chosen" candidate has not, in fact, been chosen by a majority of the delegates who get a choice in the first round.
posted by Etrigan at 8:58 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
...if said "chosen" candidate has not, in fact, been chosen by a majority of the delegates who get a choice in the first round.
posted by Etrigan at 8:58 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
They didn't just say they don't support him in an ideological sense, but they will fight against him in a procedural sense even if he has a plurality.
Which is exactly what Sanders supporters tried to do to Clinton in 2016. At this stage a lot of people are do-or-die for their one preferred candidate, as you might expect. What happens when it all sorts out and comes time to vote at the convention is quite different.
It's not a conspiracy.
posted by JackFlash at 9:01 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Which is exactly what Sanders supporters tried to do to Clinton in 2016. At this stage a lot of people are do-or-die for their one preferred candidate, as you might expect. What happens when it all sorts out and comes time to vote at the convention is quite different.
It's not a conspiracy.
posted by JackFlash at 9:01 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Sanders is currently running around 28% in national polls, so 72% not currently supporting him.
Not to contradict your overall point that this story is not super surprising, but I do want to mention the "72% not currently supporting him" is an artifact of the clown-car primary. This poll shows Sanders defeating every other Democratic candidate head-to-head.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:02 AM on February 27, 2020 [15 favorites]
Not to contradict your overall point that this story is not super surprising, but I do want to mention the "72% not currently supporting him" is an artifact of the clown-car primary. This poll shows Sanders defeating every other Democratic candidate head-to-head.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:02 AM on February 27, 2020 [15 favorites]
Which is exactly what Sanders supporters tried to do to Clinton in 2016.
Am I missing the reason why the distinction between Sanders supporters and institutional gatekeepers (e.g. superdelegates) isn't important? It seems the institutional gatekeepers should have a much higher bar for where/how they use their power. But I could be missing the point.
posted by avalonian at 9:05 AM on February 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
Am I missing the reason why the distinction between Sanders supporters and institutional gatekeepers (e.g. superdelegates) isn't important? It seems the institutional gatekeepers should have a much higher bar for where/how they use their power. But I could be missing the point.
posted by avalonian at 9:05 AM on February 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
It is still so weird to me that if six choices are on the table, one choice has to get a majority to be chosen.
Like the numbers could be 49%, 16%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 1% and the party aristocracy would say "surely this means the people of our party desire someone at 16% or lower, there is simply no other way to read those numbers."
Like someone one out of every two voters wanted could be shoved aside even for someone who received zero votes from anyone.
That is bonkers.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:07 AM on February 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
Like the numbers could be 49%, 16%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 1% and the party aristocracy would say "surely this means the people of our party desire someone at 16% or lower, there is simply no other way to read those numbers."
Like someone one out of every two voters wanted could be shoved aside even for someone who received zero votes from anyone.
That is bonkers.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:07 AM on February 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
But I could be missing the point.
The point is that Sanders actively campaigned to get the superdelegates, those institutional gatekeepers as you call them, to flip the nomination to him even though Clinton had soundly defeated Sanders in the primaries.
They didn't ignore the plurality and flip it. Which might be an indication of what happens this time.
posted by JackFlash at 9:08 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
The point is that Sanders actively campaigned to get the superdelegates, those institutional gatekeepers as you call them, to flip the nomination to him even though Clinton had soundly defeated Sanders in the primaries.
They didn't ignore the plurality and flip it. Which might be an indication of what happens this time.
posted by JackFlash at 9:08 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
I know, and I also saw a guy get punched in the face and that dingdang hypocrite punched back despite claiming he is against brawling.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:10 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:10 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Weird, I recall a bunch of superdelegates choosing to support Clinton over Sanders regardless of the votes.
And now we have superdelegates saying they plan to support anyone but Sanders regardless of the votes.
Despite the false equivalence JackFlash is trying to draw here, this stuff really only goes one way.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:16 AM on February 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
And now we have superdelegates saying they plan to support anyone but Sanders regardless of the votes.
Despite the false equivalence JackFlash is trying to draw here, this stuff really only goes one way.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:16 AM on February 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
Sanders is currently running around 28% in national polls, so 72% not currently supporting him.
Yeah, since this isn't approval voting, the 72% not supporting him is not a useful number and I think it's misrepresenting the reality. You could say "72% support other candidates over Sanders at the moment," but many of those 72% would and will support Sanders as the field narrows. It's like saying less people support Sanders in 2020 than in 2016 in the primaries. Obviously, the more people in a race, the lower amount for each member. Someone in 2016 might have supported Sanders vs. Clinton but currently support Warren, but if Warren were to drop, they would go back to supporting Sanders. It's the same type of erroneous stat-reading that made news channels try to compare "the progressives" to the "moderates" in vote count so they could say more people were voting for the moderates.
If we want to get around the idea that a vote for someone else shows that you are totally opposed to a candidate, have approval voting until you get down to three candidates, and then have ranked choice after. I think you would find that Bernie Sanders has a pretty high approval rating, even from voters that would not vote for him as a first choice.
If I were to guess who would be eliminated first if we started with approval voting: Gabbard, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Steyer, Klobuchar, and then you would have a IRV between Biden, Sanders, and Warren. All three would have generally positive vibes across Democratic voters.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:16 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yeah, since this isn't approval voting, the 72% not supporting him is not a useful number and I think it's misrepresenting the reality. You could say "72% support other candidates over Sanders at the moment," but many of those 72% would and will support Sanders as the field narrows. It's like saying less people support Sanders in 2020 than in 2016 in the primaries. Obviously, the more people in a race, the lower amount for each member. Someone in 2016 might have supported Sanders vs. Clinton but currently support Warren, but if Warren were to drop, they would go back to supporting Sanders. It's the same type of erroneous stat-reading that made news channels try to compare "the progressives" to the "moderates" in vote count so they could say more people were voting for the moderates.
If we want to get around the idea that a vote for someone else shows that you are totally opposed to a candidate, have approval voting until you get down to three candidates, and then have ranked choice after. I think you would find that Bernie Sanders has a pretty high approval rating, even from voters that would not vote for him as a first choice.
If I were to guess who would be eliminated first if we started with approval voting: Gabbard, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Steyer, Klobuchar, and then you would have a IRV between Biden, Sanders, and Warren. All three would have generally positive vibes across Democratic voters.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:16 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Like the numbers could be 49%, 16%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 1% and the party aristocracy would say "surely this means the people of our party desire someone at 16% or lower, there is simply no other way to read those numbers."
That's one hypothetical. How about this one: the numbers are 34%, 33%, 33%, 1%.
How sure are you that the person with 34% would have majority support? It could be Donald Trump and everyone else wants anyone but Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 9:18 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
That's one hypothetical. How about this one: the numbers are 34%, 33%, 33%, 1%.
How sure are you that the person with 34% would have majority support? It could be Donald Trump and everyone else wants anyone but Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 9:18 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
In that case, I would say that maybe starting that debate without a 771-pound thumb on the scale would be a nice start.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
You could say "72% support other candidates over Sanders at the moment," but many of those 72% would and will support Sanders as the field narrows.
That's exactly the point. At this time they do not support Sanders. And they might support him as the field narrows. So why would you be concerned that 12% of superdelegates (allegedly, it's the NYT) are not supporting Sanders at the moment.
posted by JackFlash at 9:22 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
That's exactly the point. At this time they do not support Sanders. And they might support him as the field narrows. So why would you be concerned that 12% of superdelegates (allegedly, it's the NYT) are not supporting Sanders at the moment.
posted by JackFlash at 9:22 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Because superdelegates in general have radically different priorities and material interests than most voters.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:24 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:24 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
I've loved the Athenian idea of sortition (anyone willing puts their name in a lot, and a name is drawn to fill government positions) since I first learned of it in public school. No electoral politics whatsoever. Executive functions were broken down into small tasks, of which each was entrusted to an annual board of 10 members chosen by lot. Sigh.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:30 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 9:30 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
In that case, I would say that maybe starting that debate without a 771-pound thumb on the scale would be a nice start.
You're in luck, because superdelegates don't get to vote in the first round anymore, so the debate does start without that thumb on the scale.
posted by Etrigan at 9:33 AM on February 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
You're in luck, because superdelegates don't get to vote in the first round anymore, so the debate does start without that thumb on the scale.
posted by Etrigan at 9:33 AM on February 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
The scenario put forward was with no majority in the first ballot.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:34 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:34 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
The most recent SC polling makes me think we have a bunch more rollercoasters to go before anything settles. (Both Biden and Bernie should have tried to go with “it depends” to the delegate plurality question at the last debate.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:46 AM on February 27, 2020
posted by sallybrown at 9:46 AM on February 27, 2020
(I wouldn’t be surprised if Steyer comes in substantially worse than predicted in SC though. Learning he bought private prisons was a viscerally “yikes” moment in the SC debate.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:48 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 9:48 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
I've loved the Athenian idea of sortition (anyone willing puts their name in a lot, and a name is drawn to fill government positions) since I first learned of it in public school. No electoral politics whatsoever. Executive functions were broken down into small tasks, of which each was entrusted to an annual board of 10 members chosen by lot. Sigh.
Sortition is a horrible system of governance. First off, you don't get a choice of whether or not your name goes into the pot. Second, a large part of why Athenian sortition "worked" is because the Attic polity was an oligarchic subset of the Attic population as a whole. Third, the reality is that most government officials do take their job seriously, and serve because they want to perform those duties - in comparison, a random selection of individuals who have no real investment in governance is going to be much worse at the job.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:50 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
Sortition is a horrible system of governance. First off, you don't get a choice of whether or not your name goes into the pot. Second, a large part of why Athenian sortition "worked" is because the Attic polity was an oligarchic subset of the Attic population as a whole. Third, the reality is that most government officials do take their job seriously, and serve because they want to perform those duties - in comparison, a random selection of individuals who have no real investment in governance is going to be much worse at the job.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:50 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
Similar in appeal to sortition but more practical, I prefer the Communalist / Democratic Confederalist model where long-term state representatives don't exist -- folks democratically elect people to act as temporary administrators on specific projects, and those administrators can be recalled at any time by a simple majority vote. This way, you get respected experts to run things, but you never grant them enough power for them to get abusive or exploitative.
Of course, this model is meant to run in a city-sized democracy, but as long as we're in fantasyland, I wouldn't mind breaking up the state.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:54 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Of course, this model is meant to run in a city-sized democracy, but as long as we're in fantasyland, I wouldn't mind breaking up the state.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:54 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Similar in appeal to sortition but more practical, I prefer the Communalist / Democratic Confederalist model where long-term state representatives don't exist -- folks democratically elect people to act as temporary administrators on specific projects, and those administrators can be recalled at any time by a simple majority vote. This way, you get respected experts to run things, but you never grant them enough power for them to get abusive or exploitative.
In other words, you're basically creating term limits by another name, which means that you wind up empowering lobbyists by removing the legislative locus of knowledge:
In other words, you're basically creating term limits by another name, which means that you wind up empowering lobbyists by removing the legislative locus of knowledge:
A 2006 report from the National Conference of State Legislatures examined states with term-limited lawmakers. It determined that term limits tend to increase the influence of lobbyists and lead to a “decline in civility” that “reduced legislators’ willingness and ability to compromise and engage in consensus building.”posted by NoxAeternum at 10:01 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Term-limited lawmakers, the NCSL explained, “have less time to get to know and trust one another” and “are less collegial and less likely to bond with their peers, particularly those from across the aisle.”
Such lawmakers often do not have enough time to learn how the legislature works or to master difficult policy issues. And they can’t turn to senior colleagues to give them this information because there are no senior colleagues. That “forces term-limited legislators to rely on lobbyists for information,” because lobbyists are able to spend years mastering legislative process and developing institutional memory about recurring policy debates.
An interesting nondeterministic method, if we're derailing into election theory, is "random ballot", which is considerably fairer than the pure uniform randomness of sortition. Everyone votes for their first choice candidate, same as in plurality, but instead of totaling the votes, a random ballot is selected and its candidate wins. It's one of the only voting methods completely free of paradoxes or strategic-voting weirdnesses. Of course, it's not guaranteed to produce a choice at all in line with the desires of the electorate as a whole.
posted by jackbishop at 10:10 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by jackbishop at 10:10 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Honestly, that article about the contested convention rules. If the best idea the people rooting for this currently have is Chris Coons and being sure they can convince Michelle Obama to slot in as VP, well, I think we can all see how well that's going to work. If they do run into problems, maybe they can scare up Herb Kohl and Amy Carter for the ticket that will truly unify the party and defeat Trump.
posted by Copronymus at 10:16 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 10:16 AM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Is there any reason I should not vote my conscience March 3 and pick Warren?
I've been polltending for a local candidate here in Orange County, NC (Chapel Hill/Carrboro) off and on since since early voting started on the 13th. It's been interesting watching the way all this is playing out on the ground at poll sites around here. There are plenty of people that are voting strategically. Many people that usually vote the first day the polls open are waiting for the SC Primary results before they vote for Pres to see which ways the wind blows. Our early voting ends at 3pm on Saturday, so those waiting will be voting on Super Tuesday proper.
A couple of days ago, one of the State campaign volunteers asked if we'd be okay saying who we were voting for in the Presidential Primary. Out of seven Democratic volunteers on a Tuesday morning, five were voting for different people (two Warrens, one Bernie, one Biden, one Amy, one Pete). I voted before my first shift at the polls on Valentine's Day, and I voted with my heart (Warren). I don't regret it.
posted by thivaia at 10:29 AM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
Also, public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood poll worker: Don't forget to vote in your local elections guys! In NC, the primary ballot is LONG, a lot of the Presidential candidates listed on the front have already dropped out, and if you're at a location with paper ballots, your local races are going to be printed on the back, so Make sure you fill out the back of the ballot!
posted by thivaia at 10:32 AM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by thivaia at 10:32 AM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
Another voting reminder: your party ballot (assuming your state does that) will have the judicial candidates on it. The general election ballot will NOT list party affiliation next to judicial candidate names. Make sure you either grab a flyer from a volunteer before you go vote in the general, print off a sample ballot, or hang on to the one you get at the general so you know which judges to vote for.
posted by cooker girl at 10:44 AM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by cooker girl at 10:44 AM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Well, if people are using SC as a guide, then Biden is going to get a big boost. Before the primary started I would have said he’d easily beat Trump, but after watching him campaign I no longer believe that. He just doesn’t have the skills to run a national campaign. If he wasn’t Obama’s VP he wouldn’t have a base in this primary at all. He would easily be the weakest major party nominee of my lifetime.
posted by eagles123 at 10:53 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 10:53 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
You can watch Biden playing verbal softball for 15-45 minutes each hour all day on MSNBC today apparently.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:32 AM on February 27, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 11:32 AM on February 27, 2020
Sortition is a horrible system of governance. First off, you don't get a choice of whether or not your name goes into the pot. Second, a large part of why Athenian sortition "worked" is because the Attic polity was an oligarchic subset of the Attic population as a whole.
I've tried this defense whenever jury duty comes my way. Never works.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:39 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
I've tried this defense whenever jury duty comes my way. Never works.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:39 AM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
It's not an aristocracy. These aren't hereditary positions.
In theory, sure, but somehow at least one Kennedy has been a superdelegate at every single convention that mattered since the current system was codified. Probably just random chance.
posted by Copronymus at 11:40 AM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
In theory, sure, but somehow at least one Kennedy has been a superdelegate at every single convention that mattered since the current system was codified. Probably just random chance.
posted by Copronymus at 11:40 AM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Go tell the people of Massachusetts to quit electing them to Congress, then.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:56 AM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:56 AM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
Hopefully Markey can hold on against the Kennedy primarying him.
posted by eagles123 at 12:01 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by eagles123 at 12:01 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
The aristocracy angle is a derail. Representative democracies with 99% of electoral campaigns funded by special interests are, by definition, aristocratic. Being hereditary need not play into the calculus. It's a strawman.
We had two Bushes and almost (should've had) two Clintons. If you think just because the populous is voting for these aristocrats - with their millions in campaign donations from billionaire interests - then they're not aristocrats. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on what words mean.
posted by avalonian at 12:06 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
We had two Bushes and almost (should've had) two Clintons. If you think just because the populous is voting for these aristocrats - with their millions in campaign donations from billionaire interests - then they're not aristocrats. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on what words mean.
posted by avalonian at 12:06 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
For NC I suggest you go to the nc.gov site, print a sample ballot, make some notes on it based on any candidate research you do, then carry it into your polling place in your pocket to use as a cheat sheet. There are a lot of candidates and races!
posted by freecellwizard at 12:34 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by freecellwizard at 12:34 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I've been posting this each six months.
Using a database that goes back to 1901, I made a list of the percent increase (or decrease) in the first three years of the presidencies covered in this time period. Seventeen presidents, but not Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, and Warren Harding, made the three year list.
This is based on the anniversary, January 20th data. At this moment in the stock market (today) he would be in 10th place. My point to this is that in spite of what looks like big numbers, Trump is a middle-of-the-roader regarding the Dow. With today's numbers he would be in second to last place of the six presidents from Reagan on, ahead of Bush II.
1. F. Roosevelt +191.0%
2. Coolidge +85.1%
3. Eisenhower +61.3%
4. Obama +60.0%
5. Clinton +59.9%
6. Wilson +55.1%
7. Trump +48.0%
8. Bush I +45.6%
9. Reagan +32.4%
10. Truman +13.0%
11. Johnson +11.7%
12. Taft 1.0%
13. Bush II -0.1%
14. Nixon -2.25%
15. Carter -9.06%
16. T. Roosevelt -15.1%
17. Hoover -72.6%
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
Using a database that goes back to 1901, I made a list of the percent increase (or decrease) in the first three years of the presidencies covered in this time period. Seventeen presidents, but not Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, and Warren Harding, made the three year list.
This is based on the anniversary, January 20th data. At this moment in the stock market (today) he would be in 10th place. My point to this is that in spite of what looks like big numbers, Trump is a middle-of-the-roader regarding the Dow. With today's numbers he would be in second to last place of the six presidents from Reagan on, ahead of Bush II.
1. F. Roosevelt +191.0%
2. Coolidge +85.1%
3. Eisenhower +61.3%
4. Obama +60.0%
5. Clinton +59.9%
6. Wilson +55.1%
7. Trump +48.0%
8. Bush I +45.6%
9. Reagan +32.4%
10. Truman +13.0%
11. Johnson +11.7%
12. Taft 1.0%
13. Bush II -0.1%
14. Nixon -2.25%
15. Carter -9.06%
16. T. Roosevelt -15.1%
17. Hoover -72.6%
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
I am beginning to believe that the representational benefits of sortition outweigh the hypothetical diminishment in competence from putting common people in charge compared to the current "meritocratic" system. The current congress, the most diverse in US history, is still three-quarters men! Selecting congress by sortition would in a single stroke produce demographically proportional representation not only for women, but across every possible demographic category.
posted by Pyry at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
> I've loved the Athenian idea of sortition
don’t tempt me. please don’t tempt me. you have no idea how much i could say about sortition given the chance. i am right now writing a damn hell ass for reals novel about sortition and i swear to all the gods that i will type the entire thing into this comment box if you keep tempting me.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:40 PM on February 27, 2020 [25 favorites]
don’t tempt me. please don’t tempt me. you have no idea how much i could say about sortition given the chance. i am right now writing a damn hell ass for reals novel about sortition and i swear to all the gods that i will type the entire thing into this comment box if you keep tempting me.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:40 PM on February 27, 2020 [25 favorites]
‘He Hasn’t Been Here’: Why Joe Biden Lags in Super Tuesday States (NYTimes article)
By Thomas Kaplan and Katie Glueck
LOS ANGELES — On the day before in-person early voting was to begin across California’s most populous county, there was no sign of life at Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign office in East Los Angeles last Friday. A metal gate out front was padlocked shut, with a missed-delivery notice from the Postal Service wedged into it.
In a strip mall a mile away, a campaign office for Senator Bernie Sanders was humming with activity. Field organizers were busy calling supporters, and every so often the ding of a bell signaled that another volunteer was on board.
...
Mr. Biden’s East Los Angeles office, located in a county with a population exceeding 10 million, was only barely more active during a return visit over the weekend. The padlocked gate was eventually unlocked, but when an event for volunteers got underway on Saturday, only a handful of people had shown up.
Inside the campaign office, seven large round tables were surrounded by chairs, and it was not hard to get a seat. There were fewer people making phone calls than there were tables.
posted by phoque at 12:45 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
By Thomas Kaplan and Katie Glueck
LOS ANGELES — On the day before in-person early voting was to begin across California’s most populous county, there was no sign of life at Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign office in East Los Angeles last Friday. A metal gate out front was padlocked shut, with a missed-delivery notice from the Postal Service wedged into it.
In a strip mall a mile away, a campaign office for Senator Bernie Sanders was humming with activity. Field organizers were busy calling supporters, and every so often the ding of a bell signaled that another volunteer was on board.
...
Mr. Biden’s East Los Angeles office, located in a county with a population exceeding 10 million, was only barely more active during a return visit over the weekend. The padlocked gate was eventually unlocked, but when an event for volunteers got underway on Saturday, only a handful of people had shown up.
Inside the campaign office, seven large round tables were surrounded by chairs, and it was not hard to get a seat. There were fewer people making phone calls than there were tables.
posted by phoque at 12:45 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
R N Th P. I am intrigued.
posted by Harry Caul at 12:47 PM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 12:47 PM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. He voten farm subsidies yea and shave.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:53 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:53 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Sortition is a super great and important topic we should have more FPPs on. But perhaps not a great topic for this thread.
posted by Not A Thing at 1:27 PM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Not A Thing at 1:27 PM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
Bernie Bruh! #BernieBruh. Black Folks For Bernie Sanders (YouTube video 2min20sec)
Benjamin Dixon has been having as amazing month (he found the Bloomberg stop and frisk comments / videos on YouTube, he got to call out Jason Johnson (who was put on leave from MSNBC (Daily Beast article)) for saying Sanders supporters "were from the island of misfit black girls" (which has been adopted as a badge of honor, much as Bernie bros gets riffed on) and now this awesome little support piece.
Help Us Make More #BernieBruh Videos (YouTube video 1min 7sec) Here Ben explains how quickly the idea and project came together (he sent out a question about support for Bernie and in an hour had 300 replies and got 80 videos and 90 minutes of content to edit down to two and now wants to try and focus some of the stories in a series of short docu-mini-tries.
---
Bernie was interviewed by Rev. Dr. William J Barber II (Periscope video 1hr 53min, but the first half hour is reflection, music, service and sermon before the questions begin) and it was fun to see Bernie being criticized fairly and from the left for things like not sufficiently using the word poor. Name them ... not just working class but poor. Questions were also asked about the costs of not acting. What does it cost when people die from lack of healthcare. Sanders uses the figure of 30 000 per year, admitted there was a new study that showed the number was even higher. The audience member asking the question informed him the study was from Yale and the number was 68 000 per year or one death every 8 minutes. The grasp of issues and real life impacts puts all media and debates to shame. Barber informed Sanders about voting restrictions that Sanders knew about but not the extent. Barber also asked that the Sanders campaign to produce a report showing how their policies would close the racial and wealth gap. It actually showed more clearly where Sanders has blind spots and thin policy than all hit pieces and regular media questions put together. (The video was good but there was nothing particularly new said and it is a long video ... but it was still good. I guess it is more a fan recommendation ... if you like Barber and Sanders it is awesome otherwise perhaps a bit sober).
Apparently two other candidates have agreed to meet or have met with Barber and the movement but he didn't say who and I haven't seen other interviews yet.
posted by phoque at 3:21 PM on February 27, 2020 [22 favorites]
Benjamin Dixon has been having as amazing month (he found the Bloomberg stop and frisk comments / videos on YouTube, he got to call out Jason Johnson (who was put on leave from MSNBC (Daily Beast article)) for saying Sanders supporters "were from the island of misfit black girls" (which has been adopted as a badge of honor, much as Bernie bros gets riffed on) and now this awesome little support piece.
Help Us Make More #BernieBruh Videos (YouTube video 1min 7sec) Here Ben explains how quickly the idea and project came together (he sent out a question about support for Bernie and in an hour had 300 replies and got 80 videos and 90 minutes of content to edit down to two and now wants to try and focus some of the stories in a series of short docu-mini-tries.
---
Bernie was interviewed by Rev. Dr. William J Barber II (Periscope video 1hr 53min, but the first half hour is reflection, music, service and sermon before the questions begin) and it was fun to see Bernie being criticized fairly and from the left for things like not sufficiently using the word poor. Name them ... not just working class but poor. Questions were also asked about the costs of not acting. What does it cost when people die from lack of healthcare. Sanders uses the figure of 30 000 per year, admitted there was a new study that showed the number was even higher. The audience member asking the question informed him the study was from Yale and the number was 68 000 per year or one death every 8 minutes. The grasp of issues and real life impacts puts all media and debates to shame. Barber informed Sanders about voting restrictions that Sanders knew about but not the extent. Barber also asked that the Sanders campaign to produce a report showing how their policies would close the racial and wealth gap. It actually showed more clearly where Sanders has blind spots and thin policy than all hit pieces and regular media questions put together. (The video was good but there was nothing particularly new said and it is a long video ... but it was still good. I guess it is more a fan recommendation ... if you like Barber and Sanders it is awesome otherwise perhaps a bit sober).
Apparently two other candidates have agreed to meet or have met with Barber and the movement but he didn't say who and I haven't seen other interviews yet.
posted by phoque at 3:21 PM on February 27, 2020 [22 favorites]
This is based on the anniversary, January 20th data. At this moment in the stock market (today) he would be in 10th place. My point to this is that in spite of what looks like big numbers, Trump is a middle-of-the-roader regarding the Dow. With today's numbers he would be in second to last place of the six presidents from Reagan on, ahead of Bush II.
The stock market has a liberal bias.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:41 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
The stock market has a liberal bias.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:41 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Obvious Folly of a White Knight Convention Candidate
posted by tonycpsu at 10:12 PM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
- Let’s say for the sake of argument that Sherrod Brown would, all things being equal, be a stronger general election candidate than Bernie Sanders. (We have no idea if that’s actually true, but it’s plausible.) It’s moot, because all things would not be equal! The idea that Brown, or any other candidate, installed by party elites to replace the strong plurality winner would be a stronger general election candidate is absolutely deranged. Whatever marginal gains that came from Brown’s midwestern appeal and his not calling his left-liberalism “socialism” would be drowned by many and perhaps most members of the party’s single largest faction seeing him as an illegitimate usurper. (And if you think Brown’s record as a strong pro-labor progressive would insulate him from the wrath of Sanders supporters, I invite you to google “Elizabeth Warren snake emoji.”) The same would be true of Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris or Zombie Bobby Kennedy or whoever.
- Making Brown the white knight would actually be a compound stupidity, because it would also mean sacrificing a Senate seat for the foreseeable future if Brown won. This remains the dumbest idea ever on its face, and would be even worse in the context of party elites handing him the nomination as a poisoned chalice. It’s bad enough when hack op-ed columnists ignore the importance of the Senate; it’s even worse when party elites seem to think that a Democratic president not being able to get any judges confirmed or good legislation passed is no big deal.
- And denying Bernie the nomination despite a strong plurality would have ramifications that extend far beyond 2020. After the white knight almost inevitably faceplants in November, the Democratic coalition as we know if would be basically over.
Democrats float Sherrod Brown as 'white knight' 2020 nominee, Michelle Obama as vice president (The Week, February 27, 2020):
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:01 PM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
For an article published Thursday, The New York Times interviewed 93 Democratic superdelegates, finding that Democratic establishment leaders are "not just worried about Mr. Sanders' candidacy, but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance."Michelle Obama. Michelle OBAMA. What could that excellent lady have ever done to you, William Owen, that you're trying to make her flee the country?!
Amid these fears, Democrats have reportedly "placed a steady stream of calls" to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) suggesting he could "emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention." Brown passed on a 2020 run, deciding "the best place" for him would be in the Senate.
Democrats are "urging" former President Barack Obama to get involved and "broker a truce," the Times also writes, but beyond that, Democratic National Committee member William Owen suggested tapping former first lady Michelle Obama as vice president, saying "she's the only person I can think of who can unify the party and help us win" an election that's "about saving the world."
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:01 PM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
Pundits gotta pundit...
Terrible, terrible, idea.
posted by Windopaene at 11:21 PM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Terrible, terrible, idea.
posted by Windopaene at 11:21 PM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Democratic National Committee member William Owen suggested tapping former first lady Michelle Obama as vice president, saying "she's the only person I can think of who can unify the party and help us win" an election that's "about saving the world."
Former First Ladies who have been demonized for years by conservative media are currently 0 for 1 in presidential contests against Donald Trump.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 11:41 PM on February 27, 2020 [21 favorites]
Former First Ladies who have been demonized for years by conservative media are currently 0 for 1 in presidential contests against Donald Trump.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 11:41 PM on February 27, 2020 [21 favorites]
I mean, nevermind the fact that Michelle Obama has expressed exactly zero interest in ever being part of public life, has never run for or sought any office, and by all accounts is glad to be done with politics.
There needs to be a mandatory "how my plan to deny Sanders the nomination if he enters the convention with a plurality but not a majority will not totally destroy the Democratic Party by making the left wing leave forever" part to all these columns. Because every single person writing them seems to think that there is no risk at all of permanently destroying the Democratic Party by driving off the left. The whole leftist/liberal alliance has never been friendly, happy, or anything but a union of necessity mixed with mutual contempt.
But these opinion writers seem to imagine that the left is eternally part of the Democrats and no concessions ever need be given to the left to keep their votes. So they blithely write articles on how best to ratfuck Sanders out of the nomination with no concern at all for how that plan might hurt the Party.
posted by sotonohito at 4:23 AM on February 28, 2020 [11 favorites]
There needs to be a mandatory "how my plan to deny Sanders the nomination if he enters the convention with a plurality but not a majority will not totally destroy the Democratic Party by making the left wing leave forever" part to all these columns. Because every single person writing them seems to think that there is no risk at all of permanently destroying the Democratic Party by driving off the left. The whole leftist/liberal alliance has never been friendly, happy, or anything but a union of necessity mixed with mutual contempt.
But these opinion writers seem to imagine that the left is eternally part of the Democrats and no concessions ever need be given to the left to keep their votes. So they blithely write articles on how best to ratfuck Sanders out of the nomination with no concern at all for how that plan might hurt the Party.
posted by sotonohito at 4:23 AM on February 28, 2020 [11 favorites]
I mean, bro. There are like FIVE MODERATES ALREADY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, depending on if you count Bloomberg, which you probably shouldn't, or Warren. Maybe spend your effort boosting Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg, WHO ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO BECOME PRESIDENT. Just pick one!
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:06 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:06 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
How about we stop amplifying these pieces speculating about how to steal the nomination from Bernie? Exactly 100 delegates have been assigned out of ~4000, so these pieces have zero credibility and only serve to amplify our worst tendencies.
So far, Sanders finished in a dead heat in one race(Iowa), with a modest plurality in another (New Hampshire), and a commanding plurality in the last (Nevada). So who knows how this will play out nationwide? I sure as hell don’t.
Just once I’d like to have a reasoned discussion of how Sanders can build a majority coalition if he falls short of an absolute majority. How does he do that if he ends up in a dead heat or modest plurality? That strikes me as a productive conversation instead speculative doomsaying.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:08 AM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
So far, Sanders finished in a dead heat in one race(Iowa), with a modest plurality in another (New Hampshire), and a commanding plurality in the last (Nevada). So who knows how this will play out nationwide? I sure as hell don’t.
Just once I’d like to have a reasoned discussion of how Sanders can build a majority coalition if he falls short of an absolute majority. How does he do that if he ends up in a dead heat or modest plurality? That strikes me as a productive conversation instead speculative doomsaying.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:08 AM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
If Sanders (or anyone else) doesn’t get a majority of delegates heading into the convention from voting in the primaries, voting goes into second and third stages where superdelegates and pledged delegates will be free to vote to try to produce a winner. Without knowing the thinking of individual superdelegates or the instructions candidates might give to their pledged delegates, it’s very difficult to make any informed statements beyond guesswork. Any such discussions will inevitably resemble fomenting of conspiracy theories absent information.
posted by eagles123 at 5:34 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 5:34 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Amid these fears, Democrats have reportedly "placed a steady stream of calls" to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) suggesting he could "emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention." Brown passed on a 2020 run, deciding "the best place" for him would be in the Senate.
Democrats are "urging" former President Barack Obama to get involved and "broker a truce."
This isn't journalism. This isn't reporting. It's just high school lunchroom rumor mongering.
"Democrats have reportedly?" What Democrats? How many? Who is "reportedly?
"Democrats are "urging" former President Obama." Note that "urging" is the only word in quotes. What the hell is that. Did all of those unnamed Democrats use the the word "urging."
There are some 50 million registered Democrats. So who are these "Democrats" that are saying these things.
This is just absolute garbage from the New York Times. Is isn't journalism. It isn't even reporting. It's just rumors.
posted by JackFlash at 8:04 AM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
Democrats are "urging" former President Barack Obama to get involved and "broker a truce."
This isn't journalism. This isn't reporting. It's just high school lunchroom rumor mongering.
"Democrats have reportedly?" What Democrats? How many? Who is "reportedly?
"Democrats are "urging" former President Obama." Note that "urging" is the only word in quotes. What the hell is that. Did all of those unnamed Democrats use the the word "urging."
There are some 50 million registered Democrats. So who are these "Democrats" that are saying these things.
This is just absolute garbage from the New York Times. Is isn't journalism. It isn't even reporting. It's just rumors.
posted by JackFlash at 8:04 AM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
If Sanders (or anyone else) doesn’t get a majority of delegates heading into the convention from voting in the primaries, voting goes into second and third stages where superdelegates and pledged delegates will be free to vote to try to produce a winner.
538's primary model is currently giving that eventuality a 50% chance of happening.
posted by octothorpe at 8:10 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
538's primary model is currently giving that eventuality a 50% chance of happening.
posted by octothorpe at 8:10 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
This isn't journalism. This isn't reporting. It's just high school lunchroom rumor mongering.
Yeah, that was my reaction too. No serious political operator is trying to find a way to nominate someone who isn't even in the primary, with a VP who is not interested in pursuing public office. There may well, at some point, be some sorts of coalition/superdelegate maneuvering towards a non-plurality candidate, but I am absolutely certain that whoever they actually nominate as president will be someone who was in the primary. (VP could be anybody, of course, but there's an established tradition of VPs who were outside of the primary process)
(Apropos on such non-plurality maneuvering, unlike many here I don't see it as inherently nefarious. Realistically, the field's liable to winnow down to three candidates, and if the plurality candidate occupies a political position highly distinct from the other two, "the will of the people" is a very hard thing to gauge. Naturally, a lot of folks are worried about, say, a centrist Biden/Bloomberg bloc ganging up on Sanders, but I can see how it could, entirely possibly, be the progressive front of Sanders and Warren who find themselves needing to gang up on a centrist frontrunner (Biden if he rallies?). I'm not sure our call on what is "fair" should be dictated by whether it's likely to help those we're rooting for.)
posted by jackbishop at 8:35 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that was my reaction too. No serious political operator is trying to find a way to nominate someone who isn't even in the primary, with a VP who is not interested in pursuing public office. There may well, at some point, be some sorts of coalition/superdelegate maneuvering towards a non-plurality candidate, but I am absolutely certain that whoever they actually nominate as president will be someone who was in the primary. (VP could be anybody, of course, but there's an established tradition of VPs who were outside of the primary process)
(Apropos on such non-plurality maneuvering, unlike many here I don't see it as inherently nefarious. Realistically, the field's liable to winnow down to three candidates, and if the plurality candidate occupies a political position highly distinct from the other two, "the will of the people" is a very hard thing to gauge. Naturally, a lot of folks are worried about, say, a centrist Biden/Bloomberg bloc ganging up on Sanders, but I can see how it could, entirely possibly, be the progressive front of Sanders and Warren who find themselves needing to gang up on a centrist frontrunner (Biden if he rallies?). I'm not sure our call on what is "fair" should be dictated by whether it's likely to help those we're rooting for.)
posted by jackbishop at 8:35 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
"Democrats have reportedly?" What Democrats? How many? Who is "reportedly?
In this case the named person was Steve Cohen, and the interviews were with 93 DNC superdelegates. They aren't rumors, they range from ideas to declarations of intent from people in positions to act on them.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:44 AM on February 28, 2020
In this case the named person was Steve Cohen, and the interviews were with 93 DNC superdelegates. They aren't rumors, they range from ideas to declarations of intent from people in positions to act on them.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:44 AM on February 28, 2020
Steve Cohen. One guy out of 50 million Democrats. One guy out of 771 superdelegates. How do you get from one guy to "a steady stream of calls" from Democrats?
posted by JackFlash at 8:49 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by JackFlash at 8:49 AM on February 28, 2020
I guess you're right, no one in any position of power or influence is trying to stop Bernie Sanders.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:51 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:51 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Who said no one? Of course there are people who oppose Sanders.
And guess what, Bernie Sanders is a person in position of power and great influence. In fact he's a superdelegate. And he is trying to influence people to vote against Elizabeth Warren.
People have opinions. Opinions are not a conspiracy.
posted by JackFlash at 8:54 AM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
And guess what, Bernie Sanders is a person in position of power and great influence. In fact he's a superdelegate. And he is trying to influence people to vote against Elizabeth Warren.
People have opinions. Opinions are not a conspiracy.
posted by JackFlash at 8:54 AM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
Fortunately there has never been a time ever where elites have opposed the rise to power of a socialist. Never ever.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:57 AM on February 28, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:57 AM on February 28, 2020 [8 favorites]
People have opinions. Opinions are not a conspiracy.
I may be misinformed on the concept in general, but I don't think taking people at their word makes one a conspiracy theorist.
Agree to disagree though. I feel like Bernie might not get the fairest shake throughout the election process, and others feel... well, exactly the same but I guess they view it in a positive/benign light?
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:59 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
I may be misinformed on the concept in general, but I don't think taking people at their word makes one a conspiracy theorist.
Agree to disagree though. I feel like Bernie might not get the fairest shake throughout the election process, and others feel... well, exactly the same but I guess they view it in a positive/benign light?
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:59 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Steve Cohen is my congressman. I didn’t see him in the link, but if I missed something feel free to point it out to me (could be in MeMail).
I may need to send a missive to my dude. Come on, man.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:00 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
I may need to send a missive to my dude. Come on, man.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:00 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
My parents are in favor of all of Bernie's policies, but find him untrustworthy because of all the Cold War stuff getting air-time on MSNBC.
Getting that 2016 feeling again.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:01 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
Getting that 2016 feeling again.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:01 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
Look, let's just agree that Caesar's colleagues had opinions and move on
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:01 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:01 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
Steve Cohen is my congressman. I didn’t see him in the link, but if I missed something feel free to point it out to me.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:02 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
“If you could get to a convention and pick Sherrod Brown, that would be wonderful, but that’s more like a novel,” Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee said. “Donald Trump’s presidency is like a horror story, so if you can have a horror story you might as well have a novel.”From Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:02 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
One of the Democratic officials and superdelegates quoted in that NYT piece gave thousands of dollars to a McConnell PAC in 2019 as part of attending a Republican Party event that he said was tied to his work as a lobbyist (for a medical device company). The piece says he supports Biden but hasn’t donated to any Democratic congressional or Presidential candidates this cycle. He’s also the one who floated Michelle Obama’s name as a compromise candidate—which now makes more sense given his apparent idiocy (anyone who’s read anything about Michelle Obama knows she has zero interest in a political career).
posted by sallybrown at 9:03 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 9:03 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
Also multiple MSNBC hosts have likened Sanders to a Nazi so.... we have reason to believe that liberal elites do not want him to win.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:12 AM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:12 AM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
Fortunately there has never been a time ever where elites have opposed the rise to power of a socialist.
Steve Cohen is an elite? He's a Jewish descendant of immigrants from Poland and Lithuania. He's by far the most progressive representative in the Tennessee delegation. He's a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with AOC and Omar. If this guy from Tennessee, which I would bet not one in a hundred on this site have ever heard of before today is "one of the elites", well, then I guess elite isn't quite the exclusive club I thought it was.
This is one of the most annoying things about Sanders supporters. You are either on the Bernie train or else you are the enemy elites engaging in a conspiracy. I try not to hold this against the candidate himself, but it can be difficult at times.
posted by JackFlash at 9:13 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
Steve Cohen is an elite? He's a Jewish descendant of immigrants from Poland and Lithuania. He's by far the most progressive representative in the Tennessee delegation. He's a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with AOC and Omar. If this guy from Tennessee, which I would bet not one in a hundred on this site have ever heard of before today is "one of the elites", well, then I guess elite isn't quite the exclusive club I thought it was.
This is one of the most annoying things about Sanders supporters. You are either on the Bernie train or else you are the enemy elites engaging in a conspiracy. I try not to hold this against the candidate himself, but it can be difficult at times.
posted by JackFlash at 9:13 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
Yeah seriously, suspicious how everyone is just conveniently ignoring the millions of dollars of M4A outside influence running vicious attack ads against the health insurance industry in this primary cycle, I mean I've never seen them but I bet they're out there. Not to mention all of that single-payer lobbying money flowing around, affecting all those congressional and senate superdelegate voters, why is no one talking about the Medicare For All dark money lobby and it's wide reaching influence on politics? It's out there man, Bernie's power and influence stretches far and wide and his challenges are no different than any other candidate. Also because he's a senator he is a superdelegate himself so ummmm hypocrite much??? Check and mate
posted by windbox at 9:14 AM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by windbox at 9:14 AM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
But that's just ONE millions of dollars. There are trillions of dollars out there. Can you name at least a hundred other campaigns against access to healthcare?
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:19 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:19 AM on February 28, 2020
Mod note: Exhausted mod here grappling with the fact that it’s somehow still February, just laying it out here that I’m fuckin tired of people running in these tedious circles and am asking you to either revert to something like straightforward non-obnoxious discussion or find a different place to run in these particular circles. This is not a politics fandom site, please rein in the bad instincts.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:23 AM on February 28, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:23 AM on February 28, 2020 [22 favorites]
> “If you could get to a convention and pick Sherrod Brown, that would be wonderful, but that’s more like a novel”
This does not sound like a quote from somebody who has a real plan and has convinced other people to go along with it. It sounds someone who's not a fan of Sanders but disappointed with Biden and the other moderates' performance engaging wishful thinking. The bit "that would be wonderful, but that’s more like a novel” from the quote makes it pretty clear they this know this scenario isn't going to happen.
posted by nangar at 9:29 AM on February 28, 2020
This does not sound like a quote from somebody who has a real plan and has convinced other people to go along with it. It sounds someone who's not a fan of Sanders but disappointed with Biden and the other moderates' performance engaging wishful thinking. The bit "that would be wonderful, but that’s more like a novel” from the quote makes it pretty clear they this know this scenario isn't going to happen.
posted by nangar at 9:29 AM on February 28, 2020
I feel like the second part of that quote was the important bit.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:31 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:31 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
[Exhausted mod here grappling with the fact that it’s somehow still February, just laying it out here that I’m fuckin tired of people running in these tedious circles and am asking you to either revert to something like straightforward non-obnoxious discussion or find a different place to run in these particular circles. This is not a politics fandom site, please rein in the bad instincts.]
Any way that you could make a thread expire in five days instead of 30?
posted by clawsoon at 9:47 AM on February 28, 2020
Any way that you could make a thread expire in five days instead of 30?
posted by clawsoon at 9:47 AM on February 28, 2020
The Root reviews each candidate's black agenda. Unsurprisingly, Warren ranks first, leading them to note:
There you have it. Elizabeth Warren’s “black agenda” is the blackest of them all. Unfortunately, she also seems to be invisible to everyone except Mike Bloomberg. But that’s only because she keeps punching him in the face during the debates.posted by NoxAeternum at 10:48 AM on February 28, 2020 [17 favorites]
I'm somewhat confused by that rundown, NoxAeternum, because it came out today and yet contains discrepancies. For example, it claims that Sanders doesn't support reparations, but going back to April of last year, he supports signing a bill to research how reparations would be done. On education, it says that "his platform has very little, if any information on reducing disparities in K-12 education" but Sanders has a rather robust plan for that, too, so why a 4/10?
I mean, it seems mostly like a way to ultimately drive towards supporting Warren's candidacy (he gives a dig about Warren being invisible to everyone but Bloomberg), but it has the look of a larger assessment of candidate adherence to criteria. I feel it would have been better as an Warren plan advocacy piece instead of a purported overview of each candidate's plan for the African American community.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:18 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
I mean, it seems mostly like a way to ultimately drive towards supporting Warren's candidacy (he gives a dig about Warren being invisible to everyone but Bloomberg), but it has the look of a larger assessment of candidate adherence to criteria. I feel it would have been better as an Warren plan advocacy piece instead of a purported overview of each candidate's plan for the African American community.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:18 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Pete Buttigieg has made his most divisive statement yet.
I suppose he is fishing for votes in the Midwest, but I can't help but feel he is sacrificing votes elsewhere.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:28 AM on February 28, 2020
I suppose he is fishing for votes in the Midwest, but I can't help but feel he is sacrificing votes elsewhere.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:28 AM on February 28, 2020
Is he abandoning his critical mayo-based core constituency?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:35 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:35 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ranch? I need a LWV question to be asked of every candidate on the Ranch Dressing issue. This is crucial.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:42 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:42 AM on February 28, 2020
While I don't see that article on The Root as a Warren advocacy piece at all, I guess I might feel that way if I wasn't following Warren so closely. Her work on intersectionality (and going out of the way to explain how each of her plans addresses the race as well as class dimensions) seems to be the best among the candidates at the moment.
The author also says about Warren on Education that:
Warren is a teacher, so it makes sense that her education plans are comprehensive. She separates K-12 education from college reform. However, her college plans focus primarily on student debt and not HBCU funding or college programs.
Emphasis mine. This is strange because Warren's pitch for a wealth tax specifically mentions putting $50 billion into HBCUs as another policy targeting the black-white gap in wealth and education.
So I would disagree with those saying it's a piece advocating for Warren specifically, but I understand why they might ascribe motives to every journalist with a platform at this stage in the primaries.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 11:47 AM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
The author also says about Warren on Education that:
Warren is a teacher, so it makes sense that her education plans are comprehensive. She separates K-12 education from college reform. However, her college plans focus primarily on student debt and not HBCU funding or college programs.
Emphasis mine. This is strange because Warren's pitch for a wealth tax specifically mentions putting $50 billion into HBCUs as another policy targeting the black-white gap in wealth and education.
So I would disagree with those saying it's a piece advocating for Warren specifically, but I understand why they might ascribe motives to every journalist with a platform at this stage in the primaries.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 11:47 AM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
So I would disagree with those saying it's a piece advocating for Warren specifically, but I understand why they might ascribe motives to every journalist with a platform at this stage in the primaries.
It's fine to have motives and perspectives and biases as a journalist (kinda impossible not to), but always put those biases within context. If you write a ranking like this with scores that are supposedly based on records and statements, you're at least appearing to be creating some sort of criteria-based judgment. It's the conflict between form and nature that throws me off.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:59 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
It's fine to have motives and perspectives and biases as a journalist (kinda impossible not to), but always put those biases within context. If you write a ranking like this with scores that are supposedly based on records and statements, you're at least appearing to be creating some sort of criteria-based judgment. It's the conflict between form and nature that throws me off.
Warren is the only candidate whose history isn’t marred by a problematic racial past. That whole Native American blunder might be irrelevant to most black people because we all have a cousin whose “good hair” comes from her “Indian roots.”Listen, we all make mistakes, and god knows everyone in the race has some racial baggage, but dismissing the Native American thing as "irrelevant" isn't the best foot forward on it. Admit it, acknowledge its a problem, look how she's been trying to make it right, and then move on. Don't pretend like it doesn't exist.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:59 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
The context was specifically with regard to Black Americans. Warren has miles to go to make amends with the Native community, but Harriot is rightly (or wrongly) identifying that her issues there aren't likely losing her much standing in the eyes of the Black community.
posted by explosion at 12:10 PM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by explosion at 12:10 PM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
Politico did an article about that back in 2019.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:13 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:13 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
I don't think the article is Warren advocacy but it's doing the weirdddd trend (that also happens here!) where people are just oddly dead set on proving that Sanders is the white man's candidate who is Meh on racial justice.
Like, look, I won't ever dispute that Warren has some killer plans for racial justice and speaks to the issues beautifully! But just so everyone is clear, Sanders is in first or second place with black voters in any given poll. Black voters under 45, he's absolutely killing it. Non-white support in general? Just lapping Warren and Buttigieg in multiples. Maybe more people should be talking to these supporters and asking why they prefer Sanders instead of making objective pronouncements about how actually Sanders "Intentionality Score" for his black agenda is poor, whatever this is supposed to mean. His numbers just prove otherwise. Huge numbers of black voters like Sanders and believe the guy, every poll has demonstrated this and people are still SO dead-set on proving either tacitly or explicitly that, actually, it's these young black voters who are wrong.
Warren is going to be lucky to get 4th place in SC tomorrow, we're going to see how now in both NV and SC she failed to garner any non-white enthusiasm so far in this primary, and still - still! - people will be like "well maybe she can clinch the nomination as a compromise candidate at the convention, Sanders with his actual diverse coalition be damned." This stuff is wild to me.
posted by windbox at 12:30 PM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
Like, look, I won't ever dispute that Warren has some killer plans for racial justice and speaks to the issues beautifully! But just so everyone is clear, Sanders is in first or second place with black voters in any given poll. Black voters under 45, he's absolutely killing it. Non-white support in general? Just lapping Warren and Buttigieg in multiples. Maybe more people should be talking to these supporters and asking why they prefer Sanders instead of making objective pronouncements about how actually Sanders "Intentionality Score" for his black agenda is poor, whatever this is supposed to mean. His numbers just prove otherwise. Huge numbers of black voters like Sanders and believe the guy, every poll has demonstrated this and people are still SO dead-set on proving either tacitly or explicitly that, actually, it's these young black voters who are wrong.
Warren is going to be lucky to get 4th place in SC tomorrow, we're going to see how now in both NV and SC she failed to garner any non-white enthusiasm so far in this primary, and still - still! - people will be like "well maybe she can clinch the nomination as a compromise candidate at the convention, Sanders with his actual diverse coalition be damned." This stuff is wild to me.
posted by windbox at 12:30 PM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
I'm curious to know how white people know that Warren has lots to make up for with the "Native community".
I'm sorry, what?
Maybe they listened to Native communities? (Not that this hasn't been rehashed here enough of course....)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your stand, I fully admit that, but I'm totes cool with white people standing up and amplifying things that Native communities say are harmful or problematic because, well, the latter tends to get left behind all too often.
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:35 PM on February 28, 2020 [10 favorites]
I'm sorry, what?
Maybe they listened to Native communities? (Not that this hasn't been rehashed here enough of course....)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your stand, I fully admit that, but I'm totes cool with white people standing up and amplifying things that Native communities say are harmful or problematic because, well, the latter tends to get left behind all too often.
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:35 PM on February 28, 2020 [10 favorites]
I don't think the article is Warren advocacy but it's doing the weirdddd trend (that also happens here!) where people are just oddly dead set on proving that Sanders is the white man's candidate who is Meh on racial justice.
...
Huge numbers of black voters like Sanders and believe the guy, every poll has demonstrated this and people are still SO dead-set on proving either tacitly or explicitly that, actually, it's these young black voters who are wrong.
I find it interesting that you refer to "black voters" who approve of Sanders at least four times, but avoid referring to the race of the person who wrote the article, or the race of the other people on the panel he said he assembled to put together the criteria.
So just for the record, Michael Harriot is black, and the article says, "We asked policy experts, legal scholars and political pundits, all of whom were black, to help us devised a policy matrix." (emphasis added)
posted by Etrigan at 12:51 PM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
...
Huge numbers of black voters like Sanders and believe the guy, every poll has demonstrated this and people are still SO dead-set on proving either tacitly or explicitly that, actually, it's these young black voters who are wrong.
I find it interesting that you refer to "black voters" who approve of Sanders at least four times, but avoid referring to the race of the person who wrote the article, or the race of the other people on the panel he said he assembled to put together the criteria.
So just for the record, Michael Harriot is black, and the article says, "We asked policy experts, legal scholars and political pundits, all of whom were black, to help us devised a policy matrix." (emphasis added)
posted by Etrigan at 12:51 PM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
But white liberals/leftists dragging it up is just concern trolling
Rebecca Nagel is not a white person and she has been incredibly vocal about Warren and her relationship to the Cherokee nation. This is an incredibly offensive thing for you to say.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:55 PM on February 28, 2020 [8 favorites]
Rebecca Nagel is not a white person and she has been incredibly vocal about Warren and her relationship to the Cherokee nation. This is an incredibly offensive thing for you to say.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:55 PM on February 28, 2020 [8 favorites]
But white liberals/leftists dragging it up is just concern trolling.
As for my comment earlier: I'm a Warren supporter. She's my candidate and I thought it was awesome that she responded with an apology as quickly as she did, and apparently she met 2/3 of the demands, which is better than many folks would muster.
But I'm a white guy, it's not for me to tell minority communities how they should feel, so I say she has "miles to go" because I've read their responses. They don't speak as one, and we shouldn't expect them to, because they're individual people.
I'm not a concern troll, I'm an informed voter who loves that his candidate is actually willing to cop to her weaknesses.
posted by explosion at 2:01 PM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
As for my comment earlier: I'm a Warren supporter. She's my candidate and I thought it was awesome that she responded with an apology as quickly as she did, and apparently she met 2/3 of the demands, which is better than many folks would muster.
But I'm a white guy, it's not for me to tell minority communities how they should feel, so I say she has "miles to go" because I've read their responses. They don't speak as one, and we shouldn't expect them to, because they're individual people.
I'm not a concern troll, I'm an informed voter who loves that his candidate is actually willing to cop to her weaknesses.
posted by explosion at 2:01 PM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
Would love to see this policy matrix from that Root article or learn what these scholars and pundits said, and how it would lead to profound insights like "Sanders Intentionality score is a 3 because his agenda is clearly just performative; Steyer's Intentionality score is a 5 because he voted for Obama and hasn't been caught saying the n-word yet". Like this is just absolute drivel.
posted by windbox at 2:25 PM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by windbox at 2:25 PM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
Hey guys! Would it change anyone's mind if we could get Thomas Pynchon to endorse Nernie?
posted by Snowishberlin at 2:32 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Snowishberlin at 2:32 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
If Pynchon publicly endorses Bernie, which I doubt he will because it'd be wildly un-Pynchonian but nevertheless awesome, I would gleefully eat a bowl of disgusting English candy in one sitting.
posted by heteronym at 3:07 PM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by heteronym at 3:07 PM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
wildly un-Pynchonian but nevertheless awesome
Totes! Just the craziness of it actually happening would shake the foundations of the world. And then theDem establishment boomers CNN and MSNBC could be like, "Who's Thomas Pinkerton or whoever anyway?"
But we would know.
As much as we could.
posted by Snowishberlin at 3:42 PM on February 28, 2020
Totes! Just the craziness of it actually happening would shake the foundations of the world. And then the
But we would know.
As much as we could.
posted by Snowishberlin at 3:42 PM on February 28, 2020
my ears are burning.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 3:48 PM on February 28, 2020 [20 favorites]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 3:48 PM on February 28, 2020 [20 favorites]
The Teen Vogue article windbox linked up thread is really good.
Another really good article (long and detailed and shows where policy is coming from).
Is It Race or Class? Darrick Hamilton Showed Bernie the Answer.
by Kara Voght (Mother Jones article)
While Hamilton has endorsed Sanders, he had done a lot of work with Warren as well. And the article touches on Warren's policy as much as Sanders. The article is hard to excerpt because there are too many but this is a nice one;
Along the way, the Sanders team never begrudged Hamilton for consulting with other campaigns. “I asked him if it was okay for me to do that,” Hamilton said. “[Sanders] said, ‘If it’s about making good policy, talk to whoever you want.’”
...
She (Warren) recited a history of the gap between white and Black wealth and cited a Boston Globe series that illustrated how Boston’s white households held a median wealth of $247,500, but Black households averaged a mere $8 to their names. Hamilton, grinning, jumped in to tell Warren that it had been he and Darity who had conducted that research.
This was a really cool little moment. It shows the interest in the subject and the study author thought it was important so it is all pure nerdery and love. It can be found here Inequality in America: A National Town Hall (YouTube Video 1hr 38min but linked to Warren / Hamilton exchange) Actually the whole discussion was good. But much more of a pure wonk recommended delight.
posted by phoque at 4:10 PM on February 28, 2020 [10 favorites]
Another really good article (long and detailed and shows where policy is coming from).
Is It Race or Class? Darrick Hamilton Showed Bernie the Answer.
by Kara Voght (Mother Jones article)
While Hamilton has endorsed Sanders, he had done a lot of work with Warren as well. And the article touches on Warren's policy as much as Sanders. The article is hard to excerpt because there are too many but this is a nice one;
Along the way, the Sanders team never begrudged Hamilton for consulting with other campaigns. “I asked him if it was okay for me to do that,” Hamilton said. “[Sanders] said, ‘If it’s about making good policy, talk to whoever you want.’”
...
She (Warren) recited a history of the gap between white and Black wealth and cited a Boston Globe series that illustrated how Boston’s white households held a median wealth of $247,500, but Black households averaged a mere $8 to their names. Hamilton, grinning, jumped in to tell Warren that it had been he and Darity who had conducted that research.
This was a really cool little moment. It shows the interest in the subject and the study author thought it was important so it is all pure nerdery and love. It can be found here Inequality in America: A National Town Hall (YouTube Video 1hr 38min but linked to Warren / Hamilton exchange) Actually the whole discussion was good. But much more of a pure wonk recommended delight.
posted by phoque at 4:10 PM on February 28, 2020 [10 favorites]
my ears are burning.
I see you've already given your endorsement of strategic voting (Bernie or Warren, anyone but Nernie) upthread.
posted by clawsoon at 4:23 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
I see you've already given your endorsement of strategic voting (Bernie or Warren, anyone but Nernie) upthread.
posted by clawsoon at 4:23 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
My primary vote is done (Austin Tx, last day of early voting).
My preference and vote was for Warren. I did spend some time thinking about strategy. If I were in another state I might have voted Sanders.
My logic is that it only matters if someone (Sanders most likely) doesn't get a majority on the first vote.
Then my strategic thought was this: Do I trust Warren to not ratfuck Sanders? I do. She may use her delegates to get some concession. But do I think she would tell her delegates to go for a Bloomfield or Biden? I think not.
If this were a state where Biden (or god's forbid) Bloomfield was polling higher, I would probably have voted for Sanders.
There was a pretty long wait at the local Randall's. I think that's encouraging.
posted by jclarkin at 5:09 PM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
My preference and vote was for Warren. I did spend some time thinking about strategy. If I were in another state I might have voted Sanders.
My logic is that it only matters if someone (Sanders most likely) doesn't get a majority on the first vote.
Then my strategic thought was this: Do I trust Warren to not ratfuck Sanders? I do. She may use her delegates to get some concession. But do I think she would tell her delegates to go for a Bloomfield or Biden? I think not.
If this were a state where Biden (or god's forbid) Bloomfield was polling higher, I would probably have voted for Sanders.
There was a pretty long wait at the local Randall's. I think that's encouraging.
posted by jclarkin at 5:09 PM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
Latest poll in Texas shows Biden beating Trump by 2 points and Sanders losing to Trump by 2 points.
How bad do you wanna win Texas? Strategic voting is hard!
posted by JackFlash at 5:14 PM on February 28, 2020
How bad do you wanna win Texas? Strategic voting is hard!
posted by JackFlash at 5:14 PM on February 28, 2020
How bad do you wanna win Texas? Strategic voting is hard!
Democrats should not be considering any move or pissing away any money towards trying to win Texas. The states to win back are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa as stretch goals. Holding the line in NH, Virginia, and Nevada is also acceptable. Anyone who thinks going after Texas is a recipe for success is committing electoral malpractice.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:22 PM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
Democrats should not be considering any move or pissing away any money towards trying to win Texas. The states to win back are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa as stretch goals. Holding the line in NH, Virginia, and Nevada is also acceptable. Anyone who thinks going after Texas is a recipe for success is committing electoral malpractice.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:22 PM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
That's well within the margin of error. I'm skeptical about Texas being in play for 2020.
posted by Selena777 at 5:23 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 5:23 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Democrats need to get through Arizona and Georgia before anyone thinks about Texas. It's going to be at least 2-3 more election cycles before demographics start to purple the place. We had a huge blue wave in 2018, the perfect D candidate against one of the worst R candidates, and still fell short by 200K votes and two points. Yeah, it's encouraging and an amazing result, but Texas ain't anywhere close to purple.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:27 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:27 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Nonsense! Texas is absolutely in play. Obviously, you don't throw away a chance to somewhere else by spending all of your money in Texas, but these decisions are not zero-sum, so you don't have to. Competing in a state that you might not win can still help raise money, energize volunteers, help down-ballot state and local races, and just remind Democrats in these states that the party cares about you. Are there paths to victory that include TX but don't include AZ and GA? Probably not, but nobody saw Trump's map materializing until it was too late, either.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:33 PM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 5:33 PM on February 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
Latest poll in Texas shows Biden beating Trump by 2 points and Sanders losing to Trump by 2 points.
Which is basically the same result when you include the error bars. Come on, that's weak sauce.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:46 PM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
Which is basically the same result when you include the error bars. Come on, that's weak sauce.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:46 PM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
The states to win back are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin
One could make an argument that we should ignore all the primaries and just select the nominee based on who the polls say does best against Trump in those three states.
posted by JackFlash at 5:47 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
One could make an argument that we should ignore all the primaries and just select the nominee based on who the polls say does best against Trump in those three states.
posted by JackFlash at 5:47 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Or you do what got Obama elected and contest everything instead of trying to play dumb electoral college games that leave you vulnerable to an October surprise shifting votes in a couple of states you weren't paying attention to.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:49 PM on February 28, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 5:49 PM on February 28, 2020 [16 favorites]
Oh, sure you contest them all, but if you don't win those three states, you probably don't win. So the question is, who has the best chance of doing that. It is quite possible that a bunch of national primaries doesn't give you the answer. Like, who cares what Californians think (sorry). That's the electoral college for you.
posted by JackFlash at 6:07 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by JackFlash at 6:07 PM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
How bad do you wanna win Texas?
Not bad enough to lose the Republic.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:24 PM on February 28, 2020
Not bad enough to lose the Republic.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:24 PM on February 28, 2020
So the question is, who has the best chance of doing that.
Currently, that's Sanders.
Though everyone's pretty close. I really wish Klobuchar had just been... better, in general. Her Midwestern appeal clearly works, I know a lot of people out here in WI that really like her (though I personally feel like she leans on the Midwestern part too hard and too obviously, but that's just me). I think she could've swept the Midwest if she was less committed to casting herself as a centrist and saying "well, progressive policies are good, but... later."
posted by brook horse at 6:25 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Currently, that's Sanders.
Though everyone's pretty close. I really wish Klobuchar had just been... better, in general. Her Midwestern appeal clearly works, I know a lot of people out here in WI that really like her (though I personally feel like she leans on the Midwestern part too hard and too obviously, but that's just me). I think she could've swept the Midwest if she was less committed to casting herself as a centrist and saying "well, progressive policies are good, but... later."
posted by brook horse at 6:25 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Texas ain't anywhere close to purple.
Are you a Texan? I am.
Houston, Austin, San Antonio are very blue. Harris County (where Houston is located) literally has no Republican judges after 2018.
From the very first line of the Wikipedia page on politics in Texas:
"For approximately 99 years, from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics. "
Texas is a pretty good match for U.S. as a whole. The urban centers vote hard left, but Repubs have gerrymandered enough that the rural areas that vote hard right (a la House of Reps vs. Senate) CURRENTLY have an overwhelming say on politics.
If I were running for president (and my platform would be in the Warren/Sanders range), I would not prioritize Texas by any means. But, to say that Texas is not purple is flat out wrong. Hillary even thought she could win Texas.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:31 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Are you a Texan? I am.
Houston, Austin, San Antonio are very blue. Harris County (where Houston is located) literally has no Republican judges after 2018.
From the very first line of the Wikipedia page on politics in Texas:
"For approximately 99 years, from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics. "
Texas is a pretty good match for U.S. as a whole. The urban centers vote hard left, but Repubs have gerrymandered enough that the rural areas that vote hard right (a la House of Reps vs. Senate) CURRENTLY have an overwhelming say on politics.
If I were running for president (and my platform would be in the Warren/Sanders range), I would not prioritize Texas by any means. But, to say that Texas is not purple is flat out wrong. Hillary even thought she could win Texas.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:31 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
But, to say that Texas is not purple is flat out wrong.
2016 had the Ds losing in the popular vote for the House by 20 points. 2018 was a massive blue wave in turnout and they still lost by 3 points. It's an encouraging aberration but it's nowhere near purple. Talk to me about purple if the House popular vote in Texas comes that close again in 2020.
"For approximately 99 years, from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics. "
Yeah and for those 99 years the Democratic Party had a conservative wing that ruled Texas state politics, no? With the political reformation of the Sixth Party System and the disintegration of the New Deal coalition, all that happened was that the conservatives took their political power to the GOP and ran their one party rule from there instead of the Democratic Party. Even though the Democratic Party held power in the statehouse until the '90s (my guess is partisan inertia), the Texan electorate at large haven't voted for a Democrat president since Carter.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:31 PM on February 28, 2020
2016 had the Ds losing in the popular vote for the House by 20 points. 2018 was a massive blue wave in turnout and they still lost by 3 points. It's an encouraging aberration but it's nowhere near purple. Talk to me about purple if the House popular vote in Texas comes that close again in 2020.
"For approximately 99 years, from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics. "
Yeah and for those 99 years the Democratic Party had a conservative wing that ruled Texas state politics, no? With the political reformation of the Sixth Party System and the disintegration of the New Deal coalition, all that happened was that the conservatives took their political power to the GOP and ran their one party rule from there instead of the Democratic Party. Even though the Democratic Party held power in the statehouse until the '90s (my guess is partisan inertia), the Texan electorate at large haven't voted for a Democrat president since Carter.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:31 PM on February 28, 2020
TX could flip, but it’s not close enough to base a major strategic decision on. The Beto Senate campaign was good practice for lots of sporadic-voter Texas Democrats who weren’t used to having a chance. Not just voters but volunteers as well.
posted by sallybrown at 7:47 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:47 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Every state has congresspersons up for election. Many states have senators up for election. Congress is just as important as the presidency. Ignoring states because they're "not in play" for the presidency in the general election can lead to a Pyrrhic victory.
posted by explosion at 8:34 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by explosion at 8:34 PM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
sallybrownTX could flip, but it’s not close enough to base a major strategic decision on.
100% agreed.
Your Childhood Pet RockTalk to me about purple if the House popular vote in Texas comes that close again in 2020.
No. Talk to me when you are a Texan or decide to stop cherry picking the arguments I gave to fit your needs. Three links were all you needed to click on. You gave zero for me to do the same. Show me how Texas is not purple.
losing by 3% seems pretty damn purple.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 9:07 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
100% agreed.
Your Childhood Pet RockTalk to me about purple if the House popular vote in Texas comes that close again in 2020.
No. Talk to me when you are a Texan or decide to stop cherry picking the arguments I gave to fit your needs. Three links were all you needed to click on. You gave zero for me to do the same. Show me how Texas is not purple.
losing by 3% seems pretty damn purple.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 9:07 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Losing by any non-zero percentage in a zero-sum contest is a loss.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:20 PM on February 28, 2020
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:20 PM on February 28, 2020
Which is to say that devoting massive resources to obtain such a loss, however meager, would seem exceedingly foolish. Especially when the winners in that state have committed sedition time and time again. A victory would come at severe cost, where resources would be better spent in actual swing states.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:25 PM on February 28, 2020
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:25 PM on February 28, 2020
Ignoring states because they're "not in play" for the presidency in the general election can lead to a Pyrrhic victory.
This. The only reason we still have President Trump now is the red Senate. Even if Trump wins the Presidency again, flip the Senate and it doesn't matter, he's still as impeachable as he always was and double jeopardy doesn't apply to Congress.
[I forgot, as I wrote the above, that successful impeachment requires 2/3rds. Still, a blue Congress can do tons.]
posted by JHarris at 11:54 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
This. The only reason we still have President Trump now is the red Senate. Even if Trump wins the Presidency again, flip the Senate and it doesn't matter, he's still as impeachable as he always was and double jeopardy doesn't apply to Congress.
[I forgot, as I wrote the above, that successful impeachment requires 2/3rds. Still, a blue Congress can do tons.]
posted by JHarris at 11:54 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
I thought it was pretty well established that Dean's 50-state strategy was a huge success, and that abandoning it in favor of a more targeted strategy turned out to be a failure. That's probably another one of those arguments that turns into trench warfare when the advocates of different opinions get aroused, but the results looked very clear to me.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:29 AM on February 29, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:29 AM on February 29, 2020 [13 favorites]
If we win Georgia and North Carolina, full of young people of color, then we don't need Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. If we win Texas, full of young people of color, then suddenly we don't need a bunch of other racist white states. Let's try the 50 state strategy again. Demographics have changed a lot since 2004.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:29 AM on February 29, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 3:29 AM on February 29, 2020 [19 favorites]
Strategy based on the assumption that winning Texas is required for a Democrat to get to the White House in 2020 is absurd.
If Trump loses Texas, he loses so many other states that Texas isn't the deciding vote.
Strategy is hard, indeed.
posted by jclarkin at 6:34 AM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
If Trump loses Texas, he loses so many other states that Texas isn't the deciding vote.
Strategy is hard, indeed.
posted by jclarkin at 6:34 AM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
Record absentee turnout in South Carolina primary
posted by rabbitrabbit at 6:47 AM on February 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by rabbitrabbit at 6:47 AM on February 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
This discussion of Texas reminds me of the, in retrospect, horrifying decision by Clinton to prioritize Arizona in the days leading up to the election. Take a look at this Guardian article from November 2, 2016. According to Wikipedia, she lost Arizona by about 3.5%.
posted by bright flowers at 7:25 AM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by bright flowers at 7:25 AM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
Strategy based on the assumption that winning Texas is required for a Democrat to get to the White House in 2020 is absurd.
If that is aimed at me, I clearly said we should be running a 50 state strategy. I don’t want to declare any state unwinnable, but a diverse state like Texas is more winnable than many of our 90% white states.
posted by hydropsyche at 7:28 AM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
If that is aimed at me, I clearly said we should be running a 50 state strategy. I don’t want to declare any state unwinnable, but a diverse state like Texas is more winnable than many of our 90% white states.
posted by hydropsyche at 7:28 AM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
Wow, that SC absentee turnout article rabbitrabbit linked has some news about the state's awful lack of early voting:
South Carolina does not allow traditional early voting, like its neighbors North Carolina and Georgia. He said that's probably why so many here choose to vote absentee. The difference between voting early and voting absentee is that absentee voting requires you to indicate that you meet one of those qualifications.
"I think if you look at the numbers, and conclude that South Carolinians want to vote early and they're using the absentee process to do that," he said.
Whitmire said the South Carolina Election Commission wishes the state allowed early voting. Some bills have been introduced in the state legislature in the past to allow early voting, but none have been successful. Until early voting is allowed in the state, he expects absentee numbers to continue to climb...
Whitmire expects as many as 600,000 people to vote absentee come November, a task that would likely overwhelm poll workers. That's why he and Martin said they support Senate Bill 867. Right now, election officials can't begin counting absentee ballots until the morning of election day. This bill would allow them to start a full day earlier...
"In November, without this legislation, it could mean the delay of getting the final election results for days," Whitmire said.
posted by mediareport at 7:53 AM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
South Carolina does not allow traditional early voting, like its neighbors North Carolina and Georgia. He said that's probably why so many here choose to vote absentee. The difference between voting early and voting absentee is that absentee voting requires you to indicate that you meet one of those qualifications.
"I think if you look at the numbers, and conclude that South Carolinians want to vote early and they're using the absentee process to do that," he said.
Whitmire said the South Carolina Election Commission wishes the state allowed early voting. Some bills have been introduced in the state legislature in the past to allow early voting, but none have been successful. Until early voting is allowed in the state, he expects absentee numbers to continue to climb...
Whitmire expects as many as 600,000 people to vote absentee come November, a task that would likely overwhelm poll workers. That's why he and Martin said they support Senate Bill 867. Right now, election officials can't begin counting absentee ballots until the morning of election day. This bill would allow them to start a full day earlier...
"In November, without this legislation, it could mean the delay of getting the final election results for days," Whitmire said.
posted by mediareport at 7:53 AM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
Does anyone have recommended local journalists or papers to follow for on the ground coverage of the SC primary today?
posted by sallybrown at 9:01 AM on February 29, 2020
posted by sallybrown at 9:01 AM on February 29, 2020
Post and Courier live updates also via Twitter
The State live updates also via Twitter
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:22 AM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
The State live updates also via Twitter
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:22 AM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
So I went digging and I wanted to find out how this William Owen asshole was allowed to be a DNC member and hence a superdelegate.
Each state gets a number of DNC members, their chair, vice chair, and 200 or so others apportioned to the states along with distinguished elder leaders of the party.
Tennessee gets 9. Their chair, vice chair, Al Gore, plus six more. Those six are decided by the state executive committee in the previous presidential election's year. Their term takes effect the day after the adjournment of that year's convention and goes until the adjournment of that cycle's convention. In the case of Tennessee I believe the members for the DNC through 2024 were already selected in January when the state executive committee voted in all its officers.
So we have a health industry lobbyists that won no election, only had to convince 30-something people to become an influential member of the Democratic Party on the national stage. Doesn't that seem just slightly wrong?
So. Where does this leave us? In the midterm years, the state executive committee is chosen during the August primary. There are 66 members, 33 male, 33 female, chosen in each of the State Senate districts.
There were 15 contested districts. There was one district that was UNCONTESTED. An executive committee membership of the TN state democratic party up for grabs! There average number of votes to win a seat on the executive committee is 1500. Out of 150K. 1% of the electorate decides the people who decide the superdelegates.
This is what I mean when I say you can't just show up every four years and act as the insurgent candidate. These institutions move slowly and are often driven by people who just bothered to show up. Mary Mancini was reelected to be chairwoman of the state Democratic party despite her Democratic Party acting as some sort of seawall against the blue wave. It's politics based on connections but the network is so easily infiltrated.
We progressives and the leftists in apathetic Democratic states need to show up. We need to contest these primaries, show up to them, win them, and start grabbing executive power at state levels. From there we can put our thumbs on scales. We can enact new rules in order to simplify primaries and add fairness. We can screen who goes for DNC membership and weed out lobbyists and opportunists. We can use our collective power to drive more progressive executives at the national level. We could even change the rules about how the DNC membership is decided and deinsulate it from the state party politic layer.
AOC got her primary with 16,898 people. To get into these positions of power we only need a tenth of that. All we have to do is stand up and take it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:50 PM on February 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
Each state gets a number of DNC members, their chair, vice chair, and 200 or so others apportioned to the states along with distinguished elder leaders of the party.
Tennessee gets 9. Their chair, vice chair, Al Gore, plus six more. Those six are decided by the state executive committee in the previous presidential election's year. Their term takes effect the day after the adjournment of that year's convention and goes until the adjournment of that cycle's convention. In the case of Tennessee I believe the members for the DNC through 2024 were already selected in January when the state executive committee voted in all its officers.
So we have a health industry lobbyists that won no election, only had to convince 30-something people to become an influential member of the Democratic Party on the national stage. Doesn't that seem just slightly wrong?
So. Where does this leave us? In the midterm years, the state executive committee is chosen during the August primary. There are 66 members, 33 male, 33 female, chosen in each of the State Senate districts.
There were 15 contested districts. There was one district that was UNCONTESTED. An executive committee membership of the TN state democratic party up for grabs! There average number of votes to win a seat on the executive committee is 1500. Out of 150K. 1% of the electorate decides the people who decide the superdelegates.
This is what I mean when I say you can't just show up every four years and act as the insurgent candidate. These institutions move slowly and are often driven by people who just bothered to show up. Mary Mancini was reelected to be chairwoman of the state Democratic party despite her Democratic Party acting as some sort of seawall against the blue wave. It's politics based on connections but the network is so easily infiltrated.
We progressives and the leftists in apathetic Democratic states need to show up. We need to contest these primaries, show up to them, win them, and start grabbing executive power at state levels. From there we can put our thumbs on scales. We can enact new rules in order to simplify primaries and add fairness. We can screen who goes for DNC membership and weed out lobbyists and opportunists. We can use our collective power to drive more progressive executives at the national level. We could even change the rules about how the DNC membership is decided and deinsulate it from the state party politic layer.
AOC got her primary with 16,898 people. To get into these positions of power we only need a tenth of that. All we have to do is stand up and take it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:50 PM on February 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
Journalists covering SC:
Meg Kinnard
Gavin Jackson
Maayan Schechter
Jamie Lovegrove
posted by rabbitrabbit at 1:53 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
Meg Kinnard
Gavin Jackson
Maayan Schechter
Jamie Lovegrove
posted by rabbitrabbit at 1:53 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
So. Where does this leave us? In the midterm years, the state executive committee is chosen during the August primary. There are 66 members, 33 male, 33 female, chosen in each of the State Senate districts
Hi. I have voted on these people before. It shows up on the ballot as "State Executive Committeeman/ Committeewoman District [xx]". There are no yard signs, it's not mentioned in the local papers, and you basically have no idea what this is or who any of these people are. Unless you happened to look at a sample ballot ahead of time, you wouldn't even know this is a thing. I still didn't really know what it was until I guess just now. If it's uncontested, I guess that makes the decision easier; otherwise it's just completely random.
(The ballot linked is a general ballot; you'd see a subset of those gray races depending on what precinct you're in.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:20 PM on February 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
Hi. I have voted on these people before. It shows up on the ballot as "State Executive Committeeman/ Committeewoman District [xx]". There are no yard signs, it's not mentioned in the local papers, and you basically have no idea what this is or who any of these people are. Unless you happened to look at a sample ballot ahead of time, you wouldn't even know this is a thing. I still didn't really know what it was until I guess just now. If it's uncontested, I guess that makes the decision easier; otherwise it's just completely random.
(The ballot linked is a general ballot; you'd see a subset of those gray races depending on what precinct you're in.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:20 PM on February 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
Joe Biden is coming out to speak after his SC win to the tune of “Move On Up” by Curtis Mayfield. I rate this a huge upgrade from “Fight Song” and in keeping with the good campaign music we’ve seen thus far this cycle.
posted by sallybrown at 5:54 PM on February 29, 2020
posted by sallybrown at 5:54 PM on February 29, 2020
Biden is really trashing Sanders in this speech.
posted by wondermouse at 5:57 PM on February 29, 2020
posted by wondermouse at 5:57 PM on February 29, 2020
Man, I think this is going to make it all the harder if (or when) Biden gets crushed on Tuesday.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:08 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:08 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
I know counterfactuals aren't useful, but watching Tom Steyer's votes rolling in all night, I wonder who would've gotten those votes if he had not been a constant presence in SC media for the past few months. He has been absolutely inescapable on the radio, and I could build a little papier-mache hut out of all the mailers his campaign has sent to me.
posted by mittens at 6:18 PM on February 29, 2020
posted by mittens at 6:18 PM on February 29, 2020
CNN is reporting that Steyer will drop out of the race.
posted by sallybrown at 6:21 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:21 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
Good riddance:
Embattled Chris Matthews Left Out of MSNBC’s S.C. Primary Coverage
The MSNBC host was nowhere to be found on air a day after he was accused of sexual harassment.
posted by mediareport at 6:38 PM on February 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
Embattled Chris Matthews Left Out of MSNBC’s S.C. Primary Coverage
The MSNBC host was nowhere to be found on air a day after he was accused of sexual harassment.
posted by mediareport at 6:38 PM on February 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
Joe Biden Is Now the Only Democrat Who Can Stop Bernie Sanders
The status of Biden’s campaign has not only been upgraded to “alive” — at this point he is the primary, and probably the sole, alternative to Bernie Sanders. At the risk of overreacting in the opposite direction, Biden appears to have taken control of the Democrat party’s center-left voters so decisively, none of his mainstream rivals will be able to sustain a rationale for their candidacy. Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg — all of whom have made Biden-esque pitches to the electorate — will face enormous pressure to leave the race after Super Tuesday, and possibly even before.posted by kirkaracha at 6:43 PM on February 29, 2020
...
Meanwhile, the candidate whose rationale has been almost totally destroyed is Bloomberg. The former New York mayor initially stayed out of the race because of Biden’s initial strength. He jumped in late because Biden’s support was disintegrating. In a world in which Biden disappeared, Bloomberg might have a path. But Biden’s comeback eliminates the contingency upon which a Bloomberg nomination was all-but-explicitly premised.
woof, those results are brutal. i'm hoping having bloomberg on the ballot will eat into biden's vote share on super tuesday...
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:48 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:48 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
yeah, no, biden is going to the cleaners on tuesday
posted by entropicamericana at 6:54 PM on February 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 6:54 PM on February 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
Ah Jonathan Chait ......
Not unexpected. We’ll see if Biden gets any kind of boost across the South on Super Tuesday and beyond. The idea of there being “moderate” and “progressive” lanes is generally bs, but Biden may get his campaign somewhat revitalized. The problem is his fundraising is almost gone and he doesn’t have a ground operation to speak of.
And the idea that he could beat Trump in the general is ludicrous. He can barely campaign on his own.
posted by eagles123 at 7:06 PM on February 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
Not unexpected. We’ll see if Biden gets any kind of boost across the South on Super Tuesday and beyond. The idea of there being “moderate” and “progressive” lanes is generally bs, but Biden may get his campaign somewhat revitalized. The problem is his fundraising is almost gone and he doesn’t have a ground operation to speak of.
And the idea that he could beat Trump in the general is ludicrous. He can barely campaign on his own.
posted by eagles123 at 7:06 PM on February 29, 2020 [7 favorites]
i mean i think the bad scenario is less that joe biden suddenly becomes competent and more that he momentums out enough delegates to convince the other conservative candidates to drop out which like i am legit a total nervous nellie about right now.
like many of us, i have a panic level. and that panic level is currently... it's like... it's less low than i would like it to be, you know?
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:26 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
like many of us, i have a panic level. and that panic level is currently... it's like... it's less low than i would like it to be, you know?
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:26 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
I’ll go against the grain and say I think this will have a big impact on the race and bring us closer to a contested convention scenario. Bloomberg rolled into this campaign as such an obvious villain that I think he made Biden look much better by comparison. Biden sounded together and enthusiastic tonight. Most of the time it’s not even the malapropisms that stick out to me about his speeches but how little he seems to WANT to win...same thing with debate performance. Tonight he actually sounded like he cared.
(Tonight also cemented to me that Iowa and NH should be pushed back later in the race. Imagine if we had started right into Nevada and SC.)
posted by sallybrown at 7:28 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
(Tonight also cemented to me that Iowa and NH should be pushed back later in the race. Imagine if we had started right into Nevada and SC.)
posted by sallybrown at 7:28 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
Bloomberg rolled into this campaign as such an obvious villain that I think he made Biden look much better by comparison.
A perfectly cromulent way to spend a hundred million dollars, really.
Eat the rich.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:31 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
A perfectly cromulent way to spend a hundred million dollars, really.
Eat the rich.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:31 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
Stop exaggerating.
It was more like 500 million.
O_O
posted by Justinian at 7:42 PM on February 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
It was more like 500 million.
O_O
posted by Justinian at 7:42 PM on February 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
After this result, it seems that Bloomberg's hundred million would have been better spent supporting Biden, if stopping Sanders is his real objective.
posted by JackFlash at 7:42 PM on February 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 7:42 PM on February 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
Dan Merica of CNN (tweet):
“How bad was tonight for Pete Buttigieg?
He went to Allendale County in December.
"I know that as somebody who’s new on the scene, I’ve got to earn that trust and we’ve got to have those conversations," he told Dems there.
Nine people in the county [1% of the votes] voted for him tonight.”
Reid Epstein of NYT (tweet):
“Pete Buttigieg spent more on South Carolina TV ads than anyone except Steyer, and nobody spent more days in the state than Buttigieg....He got 2 percent of SC's black vote.”
posted by sallybrown at 7:52 PM on February 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
“How bad was tonight for Pete Buttigieg?
He went to Allendale County in December.
"I know that as somebody who’s new on the scene, I’ve got to earn that trust and we’ve got to have those conversations," he told Dems there.
Nine people in the county [1% of the votes] voted for him tonight.”
Reid Epstein of NYT (tweet):
“Pete Buttigieg spent more on South Carolina TV ads than anyone except Steyer, and nobody spent more days in the state than Buttigieg....He got 2 percent of SC's black vote.”
posted by sallybrown at 7:52 PM on February 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
Sometimes you just want to set 500 million dollars on fire
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:55 PM on February 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:55 PM on February 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
He could've spent a fraction of that on entirely fixing Flint's water troubles, and gave the rest to fund coronavirus research & funding free vaccine distribution, and that would've had a much more positive result for his campaign, let alone the people helped.
Eat the rich. All they know how to do with money is hoard it -- they don't even know how to spend it right
posted by rifflesby at 8:13 PM on February 29, 2020 [22 favorites]
Eat the rich. All they know how to do with money is hoard it -- they don't even know how to spend it right
posted by rifflesby at 8:13 PM on February 29, 2020 [22 favorites]
I think a contested convention was always likely. The question for me is whether the money Bloomberg spent money on a advertising and organizing turns into actual votes. The problem for Biden is that he put all his resources into S.C. to save his campaign. He doesn’t have anything in Cali, for example, which gives out the most votes on Super Tuesday.
posted by eagles123 at 8:28 PM on February 29, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 8:28 PM on February 29, 2020
Biden really doesn't have much anywhere except SC. The only real question in SC was who would come in second, and what Biden's margin of victory would be. Much as I loathe the guy, I've got to admit he had a pretty respectable margin of victory in SC.
But I don't see him getting traction elsewhere. His support among black voters is crumbling, California is going to be the big story and that's all but guaranteed to be a state where Biden does very poorly. I wouldn't be really surprised if he failed to win a single Super Tuesday state. I think it's more likely that he'll get at least one, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. North Carolina is his most likely pickup, and his lead there isn't huge. He's got Oklahoma as his second most likely pickup, and that's is basically tossup between him and Bloomberg.
He's not even polling in second place in most Super Tuesday states. Bloomberg and Buttigieg have eaten his support.
posted by sotonohito at 8:38 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
But I don't see him getting traction elsewhere. His support among black voters is crumbling, California is going to be the big story and that's all but guaranteed to be a state where Biden does very poorly. I wouldn't be really surprised if he failed to win a single Super Tuesday state. I think it's more likely that he'll get at least one, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. North Carolina is his most likely pickup, and his lead there isn't huge. He's got Oklahoma as his second most likely pickup, and that's is basically tossup between him and Bloomberg.
He's not even polling in second place in most Super Tuesday states. Bloomberg and Buttigieg have eaten his support.
posted by sotonohito at 8:38 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
... his support among black voters was staggering today? Not just the margin but the turnout.
Sanders keeps saying he will drive turnout. He has not yet managed to do so anywhere. By contrast, people came out in huge numbers for Biden today?
posted by Justinian at 9:18 PM on February 29, 2020
Sanders keeps saying he will drive turnout. He has not yet managed to do so anywhere. By contrast, people came out in huge numbers for Biden today?
posted by Justinian at 9:18 PM on February 29, 2020
Biden will defiantly win Alabama, and he'll probably win Tennessee. His South Carolina win might help him win narrow victories in NC, VA, TX, AK, and OK. Understand I'm being very generous to him here because he is behind in the polling average in some of these states. A lot depends on whether his support among Black voters solidifies based on his South Carolina performance. He'll still get blown out in Cali, CO, Maine, Mass, VT, and probably UT. For example, at this point he is in fourth or fifth place in Cali, which has the most delegates by far. His victory margins in states he wins won't be enough to overcome that.
After that it is anyone's guess. It all depends on which candidates drop out. Sanders wins all head to head match ups and leads national polling, but the combination of candidates that remain matters.
posted by eagles123 at 9:26 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
After that it is anyone's guess. It all depends on which candidates drop out. Sanders wins all head to head match ups and leads national polling, but the combination of candidates that remain matters.
posted by eagles123 at 9:26 PM on February 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sanders keeps saying he will drive turnout.
I wonder too. This idea that Sanders is going to turn out the youth vote? I'll believe it when I see it. People have been saying that for various "youth" candidates for decades. It never comes to pass. Even with Obama in 2008 the age 18-29 turnout was less than 50%.
posted by JackFlash at 9:27 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
I wonder too. This idea that Sanders is going to turn out the youth vote? I'll believe it when I see it. People have been saying that for various "youth" candidates for decades. It never comes to pass. Even with Obama in 2008 the age 18-29 turnout was less than 50%.
posted by JackFlash at 9:27 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
The turnout of the youth vote always lags. It's important for Democrats because young people tend to vote Democratic disproportionately. That is how Obama won. It's also one of the reasons Democrats ate shit in midterms under Obama - young people didn't turn out in the numbers they did in general elections. That changed a little in 2018, which helped democrats.
posted by eagles123 at 9:33 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 9:33 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
Right, nobody expects he can drive youth turnout to match old people turnout. But he hasn't even managed to increase it from "terrible" to "slightly less terrible"? You can always find a reason for it not happening on a state by state basis (ie in NH the story is that the law changed to hurt college turnout. It's even true.) but at some point he has to actually produce the promised turnout surge and not just have an excuse for why it didn't yet happen.
posted by Justinian at 9:50 PM on February 29, 2020
posted by Justinian at 9:50 PM on February 29, 2020
I do think his best chance of doing it will be in the sun belt states. If we see a significant increase in youth turnout in Texas on Tuesday then he has a good case. If we don't I think it's fair to conclude that it's hot air.
posted by Justinian at 9:53 PM on February 29, 2020
posted by Justinian at 9:53 PM on February 29, 2020
Where do you go for turnout stats? I've seen articles and commentators making claims about this but I've had a hard time actually tracking down the right numbers (for each state, with demographic breakdown, for this year and previous years).
posted by atoxyl at 10:12 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 10:12 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
I have to say this looks like at least a tolerable result for Sanders and a terrible one for the anyone-but-Sanders voter. No one but Sanders and Biden were above statewide viability, so Sanders is definitely getting delegates out of South Carolina, and no one other than Biden will. If the Sanders campaign had to pick a contender to win a state emphatically, I have to assume it would be Biden, who hadn't come remotely close to winning anything previously and still won't eclipse Sanders even with a big haul from South Carolina. Buttigieg got absolutely wiped out and proved that he has no support among voters who aren't middle-class white boomers. The longer everyone else stays in, the more a candidate who can stay above 15% in as many states and districts as possible benefits, so the fact that no one is going to drop out over this might help Sanders in the medium term. A lot is riding on Tuesday, but when your two strongest states are Texas and California, it's unlikely that it will go truly badly. It's a lifeline to Biden, but he'll need to prove he can win anywhere outside of the deep south to have any chance.
posted by Copronymus at 10:36 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Copronymus at 10:36 PM on February 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
I was actually surprised to see how well Steyer did in South Carolina so I was a little surprised to see him drop out. Given what he's put into this so far, I don't really understand what kind of result they were expecting to. He's been at this for years and has made so many big ad buys. I guess this is what angling for a cabinet spot looks like.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:53 PM on February 29, 2020
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:53 PM on February 29, 2020
Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg all staying in the race seems to have a tremendous advantage for Sanders as he continues to consolidate the support of any voters who aren't interested in the moderate politics of RCP6 or, god forbid, 8.5 (or are young/materially vulnerable enough to actually live through the consequences of centrism in the face of climate change).
posted by Ouverture at 11:06 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Ouverture at 11:06 PM on February 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
I have to say this looks like at least a tolerable result for Sanders and a terrible one for the anyone-but-Sanders voter.
It's not a terrible outcome for Sanders but it might be a strong outcome for "contested convention." I still think Biden is going to get his clock cleaned in several important stages on Tuesday, but he might pick up more than he would have before he showed the ability to win anything.
posted by atoxyl at 11:08 PM on February 29, 2020
It's not a terrible outcome for Sanders but it might be a strong outcome for "contested convention." I still think Biden is going to get his clock cleaned in several important stages on Tuesday, but he might pick up more than he would have before he showed the ability to win anything.
posted by atoxyl at 11:08 PM on February 29, 2020
I was actually surprised to see how well Steyer did in South Carolina so I was a little surprised to see him drop out. Given what he's put into this so far, I don't really understand what kind of result they were expecting to. He's been at this for years and has made so many big ad buys. I guess this is what angling for a cabinet spot looks like.
I don't know what the hell he was doing and I'm also very interested in the question of who those votes would have gone to had he not been there.
posted by atoxyl at 11:10 PM on February 29, 2020
I don't know what the hell he was doing and I'm also very interested in the question of who those votes would have gone to had he not been there.
posted by atoxyl at 11:10 PM on February 29, 2020
Hate linking 538 but gotta admit this layout of the meaning of the results is pretty decent.
I think the most likely explanation is a combo of 2 and 3. Biden still isn’t popular outside of his core regions, but Stop Sanders sentiment is real. I’m praying for Texas and CA to come through big time and for Warren fans to vote tactically to support their agenda rather than for a great candidate who cannot win. Either way, it’s going to be a hellacious spring.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:12 AM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
I think the most likely explanation is a combo of 2 and 3. Biden still isn’t popular outside of his core regions, but Stop Sanders sentiment is real. I’m praying for Texas and CA to come through big time and for Warren fans to vote tactically to support their agenda rather than for a great candidate who cannot win. Either way, it’s going to be a hellacious spring.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:12 AM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I'm a Warren fan, but I voted Sanders tactically. She just can't get the nom and I want a leftist so I'm stuck with Sanders even though he's statistically likely to die of old age during his first term in office.
posted by sotonohito at 6:30 AM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 6:30 AM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
> statistically likely to die of old age during his first term in office
I prefer Warren as well, but this is false.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:43 AM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
I prefer Warren as well, but this is false.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:43 AM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
I’ve come to conclusion that this entire primary comes down to this interaction:
Centrists: “How many kids starved under communism?”
Leftists and Progressives: “No kid should have to starve if they can’t pay for school lunch!”
Centrists: “If you can’t pay for lunch you shouldn’t get lunch!”
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:44 AM on March 1, 2020 [18 favorites]
Centrists: “How many kids starved under communism?”
Leftists and Progressives: “No kid should have to starve if they can’t pay for school lunch!”
Centrists: “If you can’t pay for lunch you shouldn’t get lunch!”
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:44 AM on March 1, 2020 [18 favorites]
I think Warren would make a great President. She's already a great Senator, and on Tuesday, I'm probably going to vote Sanders, because it looks like she's going to stay a Senator.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:59 AM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:59 AM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
Huh, I stand corrected. Thanks tonycpsu. He's still too old, but I was clearly wrong.
posted by sotonohito at 7:20 AM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 7:20 AM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
> statistically likely to die of old age during his first term in office
>I prefer Warren as well, but this is false.
Those statistics are for the elderly population at large. The statistics are quite different for a population of heart attack survivors. Five year survival rates are somewhere between 50% and 70%. It would depend on the severity of the attack, which heart vessels were involved, and how well cholesterol and blood pressure are controlled.
But, Eisenhower suffered a severe heart attack in his first term in 1955 and finished two terms and died 14 years later in 1969. Treatments have improved significantly since then.
It's a concern for Sanders but not something that should prevent him from being the nominee.
posted by JackFlash at 8:17 AM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
>I prefer Warren as well, but this is false.
Those statistics are for the elderly population at large. The statistics are quite different for a population of heart attack survivors. Five year survival rates are somewhere between 50% and 70%. It would depend on the severity of the attack, which heart vessels were involved, and how well cholesterol and blood pressure are controlled.
But, Eisenhower suffered a severe heart attack in his first term in 1955 and finished two terms and died 14 years later in 1969. Treatments have improved significantly since then.
It's a concern for Sanders but not something that should prevent him from being the nominee.
posted by JackFlash at 8:17 AM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
Mod note: please wrap up the scrutinizing of the health/age of candidates, it's very in the weeds and can turn into a perhaps-unintentional ableist rhetoric that isn't great for community discussion.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:01 AM on March 1, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:01 AM on March 1, 2020 [10 favorites]
IMO the South Carolina result could be really bad for Sanders. Nobody expected him to win outright but a week ago he was polling waaaaaaaay better than this, and then we got a bunch of coverage of him saying mildly nice things about Fidel Castro and he gets blown out. I'm trying not to jump to conclusions before there's a proper postmortem on how people chose, because it could also be Clyburn's intervention or turnout proportions that made the difference, but that could end up validating the concerns of people afraid that Sanders' self-ID as a socialist will drive away more voters than the usual GOP attacks on anybody to the left of Barry Goldwater.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:15 AM on March 1, 2020
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:15 AM on March 1, 2020
because it could also be Clyburn's intervention
Via Vox:
Via Vox:
According to exit polls conducted by Edison Research, 61 percent of Democratic voters said Clyburn’s endorsement was an important factor in their decision. And 27 percent of voters said the endorsement was “the most important factor” in their candidate choice.posted by Ouverture at 10:23 AM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
I wonder how much Clyburn’s endorsement will sway votes in other states. Particularly Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
posted by eagles123 at 11:46 AM on March 1, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 11:46 AM on March 1, 2020
All the undecideds were waiting to hear from Tim Kaine
posted by moorooka at 12:58 PM on March 1, 2020
posted by moorooka at 12:58 PM on March 1, 2020
With the (possible) exception of Bill Clinton, there is no living Democratic politician that has the standing and reputation in Arkansas that Jim Clyburn has in South Carolina.
(And the runners-up for the biggest-Democrat-in-Arkansas title, David and Mark Pryor, have already endorsed Biden.)
I'd expect Biden to win the state (Hillary beat Bernie 66-30 in 2016), and Bloomberg to do pretty well (this is a cheap place to do big media buys, and he's all over local radio and TV).
posted by box at 1:29 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
(And the runners-up for the biggest-Democrat-in-Arkansas title, David and Mark Pryor, have already endorsed Biden.)
I'd expect Biden to win the state (Hillary beat Bernie 66-30 in 2016), and Bloomberg to do pretty well (this is a cheap place to do big media buys, and he's all over local radio and TV).
posted by box at 1:29 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
IMO the South Carolina result could be really bad for Sanders. Nobody expected him to win outright but a week ago he was polling waaaaaaaay better than this, and then we got a bunch of coverage of him saying mildly nice things about Fidel Castro and he gets blown out.
Feels more likely to me that it has to do with Biden having a pretty good debate, and Jim Clyburn stepping in to solidify the work Biden had already been doing in the state (by most accounts far more than in any other) for a long time? Question then is to what extent will his victory here actually pay off in terms of revitalizing his campaign?
Clyburn even says he had to have a "get your shit together, Joe" moment - if Joe wants to do that he's going to have to do it in a hurry.
posted by atoxyl at 2:00 PM on March 1, 2020
Feels more likely to me that it has to do with Biden having a pretty good debate, and Jim Clyburn stepping in to solidify the work Biden had already been doing in the state (by most accounts far more than in any other) for a long time? Question then is to what extent will his victory here actually pay off in terms of revitalizing his campaign?
Clyburn even says he had to have a "get your shit together, Joe" moment - if Joe wants to do that he's going to have to do it in a hurry.
posted by atoxyl at 2:00 PM on March 1, 2020
Biden jumping in the ring for the fix later on. < Vox
posted by Harry Caul at 3:06 PM on March 1, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 3:06 PM on March 1, 2020
Looks like Pete’s out of the race.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:14 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:14 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
After rising from relative obscurity to become a viable White House candidate, Pete Buttigieg ends his campaign (USA Today, March 1, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:21 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:21 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
NYT and USA Today are both reporting it.
When I read that the Warren campaign thinks that multiple candidates will withdraw in the next 7-10 days, I was skeptical--but, here we are.
posted by box at 3:22 PM on March 1, 2020
When I read that the Warren campaign thinks that multiple candidates will withdraw in the next 7-10 days, I was skeptical--but, here we are.
posted by box at 3:22 PM on March 1, 2020
Watch for a massive consolidation on Biden. They really don't want Sanders to get the nomination.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:26 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:26 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Uh-huh. Biden says he’ll contest the Democratic nomination if no one gets a majority of delegates (Vox, March 1, 2020)
Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Biden said that he would fight for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July if Sanders leads in the delegate count but does not have at least 1,991 pledged delegates, a number that constitutes a majority.
“The rules have been set,” Biden said. “You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:29 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Biden said that he would fight for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July if Sanders leads in the delegate count but does not have at least 1,991 pledged delegates, a number that constitutes a majority.
“The rules have been set,” Biden said. “You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:29 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Looks like the rat fled the sinking ship.
If they're consolidating behind Biden, at least they've chosen a CLEARLY unsuitable candidate. He's a great opponent to have.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 3:36 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
If they're consolidating behind Biden, at least they've chosen a CLEARLY unsuitable candidate. He's a great opponent to have.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 3:36 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
I’m pretty confused — is there ANY other explanation for the timing of Pete dropping out other than “I want to stop Bernie”?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:39 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:39 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
Rats off to ya, Pete.
I’m pretty confused — is there ANY other explanation for the timing of Pete dropping out other than “I want to stop Bernie”?
No there is not. Warren's been giving speeches that this is explicitly why she's staying in. Consolidation for a contested convention is the Plan.
posted by kafziel at 3:41 PM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
I’m pretty confused — is there ANY other explanation for the timing of Pete dropping out other than “I want to stop Bernie”?
No there is not. Warren's been giving speeches that this is explicitly why she's staying in. Consolidation for a contested convention is the Plan.
posted by kafziel at 3:41 PM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
I mean, dude got like 1% of the black vote. (Pete). There is no reason for him to stay in the race except to waste everyone's time and money.
We want useless placeholders to drop out imo. The only people who have a chance at any sort of delegate haul (besides Bernie/Biden) are Warren and Bloomberg so there's no reason for anybody else to stay in the race.
Bloomberg is the one killing Biden's numbers. Bloomberg: Objectively Pro Bernie.
posted by Justinian at 3:47 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
We want useless placeholders to drop out imo. The only people who have a chance at any sort of delegate haul (besides Bernie/Biden) are Warren and Bloomberg so there's no reason for anybody else to stay in the race.
Bloomberg is the one killing Biden's numbers. Bloomberg: Objectively Pro Bernie.
posted by Justinian at 3:47 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
I can't believe Pete dropped out before Warren. She has no chance of winning, she really is staying in it to split the progressive vote. She has almost never directly criticized Biden throughout this race. Wouldn't surprise me if she's angling for a VP or cabinet position.
If you don't want a Biden nomination, do not vote for Warren. I'm sorry, she was a good candidate, but her only function in this race at this point is to try and slow down Bernie.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 3:48 PM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
If you don't want a Biden nomination, do not vote for Warren. I'm sorry, she was a good candidate, but her only function in this race at this point is to try and slow down Bernie.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 3:48 PM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
btw: Buttigieg dropping out does not help Biden.
posted by Justinian at 3:50 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:50 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
I mean, dude got like 1% of the black vote. (Pete). There is no reason for him to stay in the race except to waste everyone's time and money.
Warren got less than that. Pete, at least, had two digits of delegates.
You're right about the "waste everyone's time and money" part, at least.
posted by kafziel at 3:52 PM on March 1, 2020
Warren got less than that. Pete, at least, had two digits of delegates.
You're right about the "waste everyone's time and money" part, at least.
posted by kafziel at 3:52 PM on March 1, 2020
btw: Buttigieg dropping out does not help Biden.
With 15% viability thresholds in a ton of states still to come - including California - it absolute does help Biden. That can be the difference between getting any delegates, and getting none.
posted by kafziel at 3:53 PM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
With 15% viability thresholds in a ton of states still to come - including California - it absolute does help Biden. That can be the difference between getting any delegates, and getting none.
posted by kafziel at 3:53 PM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
I don't think Warren has a viable path to win a single state except maybe her own, and even that doesn't look likely in the future. How would it make sense for the nominee to be someone who never won a single state in which they competed? In fact, what's the closest Warren has gotten so far? Third?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:54 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:54 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Warren-supporting Super PAC being asked by the Warren campaign to reveal their donors and refusing is a bit... weird.
posted by clawsoon at 4:00 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 4:00 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
I feel like (maybe not these days) there's a lot of overlap between Bernie and Warren, the sort that would lead to her being a really good second choice that everybody can agree on. The sort of thing that Ranked Choice (or some spin-off) would reveal.
I keep thinking of our Winner-Take-All method as just being a series of forced compromises making everybody feel disenchanted and that we might not get out of this without a methodology change.
posted by Brainy at 4:00 PM on March 1, 2020 [9 favorites]
I keep thinking of our Winner-Take-All method as just being a series of forced compromises making everybody feel disenchanted and that we might not get out of this without a methodology change.
posted by Brainy at 4:00 PM on March 1, 2020 [9 favorites]
With 15% viability thresholds in a ton of states still to come - including California - it absolute does help Biden.
Oh, the hypothesis being that while Buttigieg supporters move relatively equally to different candidates, it might push Biden above 15% in some places he otherwise would not reach 15% while not doing the same for Bernie?
That's an interesting theory but it seems pretty non-falsifiable. You'd have to show that there are enough places where Biden is polling at like 14% while very few where Bernie does so. I know California could be one such place since Biden is polling anywhere from 14-17% but still. Bernie, for example, quite possibly needs help being viable across the South.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Oh, the hypothesis being that while Buttigieg supporters move relatively equally to different candidates, it might push Biden above 15% in some places he otherwise would not reach 15% while not doing the same for Bernie?
That's an interesting theory but it seems pretty non-falsifiable. You'd have to show that there are enough places where Biden is polling at like 14% while very few where Bernie does so. I know California could be one such place since Biden is polling anywhere from 14-17% but still. Bernie, for example, quite possibly needs help being viable across the South.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Pete spent more money and time in SC than any candidate except for Steyer. He failed to make an impression.
Both Steyer and Pete have correctly assessed that there's a ceiling on their popularity, because they're not going to be able to put that much money (and time) into every other state.
posted by explosion at 4:07 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
Both Steyer and Pete have correctly assessed that there's a ceiling on their popularity, because they're not going to be able to put that much money (and time) into every other state.
posted by explosion at 4:07 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
If you don't want a Biden nomination, do not vote for Warren. I'm sorry, she was a good candidate, but her only function in this race at this point is to try and slow down Bernie.
The way she challenged Bloomberg on the non-disclosure agreements was helpful for Bernie (it's not something he could do directly; A political advocacy group founded by Bernie Sanders entered into a nondisclosure agreement with an African American political consultant that bars her from discussing a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination at the organization and the Vermont senator’s 2016 presidential campaign. APNews, Feb. 28, 2020). Something else is bound to come up where Warren in attack mode is good for the Democratic nominee.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
The way she challenged Bloomberg on the non-disclosure agreements was helpful for Bernie (it's not something he could do directly; A political advocacy group founded by Bernie Sanders entered into a nondisclosure agreement with an African American political consultant that bars her from discussing a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination at the organization and the Vermont senator’s 2016 presidential campaign. APNews, Feb. 28, 2020). Something else is bound to come up where Warren in attack mode is good for the Democratic nominee.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
Buttigieg ending tonight instead of Tuesday night (he’s already on the ballots) seems ineffectively premature to me.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:21 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Harry Caul at 4:21 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
But now when his results are v v sad he has the fig leaf that he had dropped out so all his supporters voted for somebody else, rather than having not very many supporters to begin with.
posted by Justinian at 4:32 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:32 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
In the interests of fairness, Quinnipiac also has their second-choice numbers for Buttigieg and this one is more favorable to the non-Bernie candidates. If this one is more accurate that the last set it would indeed probably be more helpful to the other candidates than Bernie.
posted by Justinian at 4:34 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:34 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Warren doesn't need to stay in the race in order to be in attack mode for Bernie, and she could arguably do more damage to Bloomberg and other centrist candidates as his #1 surrogate. I don't think she owes anyone a concession right now, but I do think if Super Tuesday is as bad for her as the polling says it's going to be, she'll be done by Wednesday.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:35 PM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 4:35 PM on March 1, 2020 [6 favorites]
Re: going to a convention to select a candidate other than the plurality winner.
While it's technically in the rules, this verges on "there's no rule that says a dog can't play baseball," "any Catholic could be elected pope," or "Obama could be elected the next Speaker of the House." There's some rules that if used to their maximum, totally destroy the legitimacy that the rules are made to serve.
For instance, in 2018, Krysten Sinema won an election against Martha McSally to be Arizona's next senator. Republican Governor Doug Ducey then appointed her to the other, vacant senate seat. I would argue that although this action was allowed, it was pretty much totally lacking in democratic legitimacy. The people of Arizona just had an election to determine if McSally should be their senator and they voted against her. In fact, if Ducey had appointed nearly anyone else, there would have been much more legitimacy to that because Ducey would be making a decision on behalf of the people, and without anything to gainsay that decision, it would have stood until the next election (this November). Legitimate powers can lend themselves to illegitimacy if they're not wisely executed with justification.
Coming back to the nomination, there could be theoretically scenarios where Biden could have at least partial legitimacy for the national convention to hand the nomination to him even if he has less delegates than Bernie (say, if he won several states, was in second for pretty much all the ones he didn't win, and he was very popular with all the major segments of the Democratic party coalition (young, old, labor, African Americans, Latinos, women, LGBT). I don't think this would be the case, but it's possible.
However, if someone straight out loses every contest of which they're a party, it makes no sense for the DNC to nominate them over others with way more legitimacy. In that case the people spoke . . . and they didn't want that candidate. Unless something very unlikely happens in the next month, Warren, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar are hoping for a fundamentally undemocratic illegitimate outcome if the populace rejects them and they still want to be nominated despite that. At his point in time, it's really Bernie vs. Biden.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
While it's technically in the rules, this verges on "there's no rule that says a dog can't play baseball," "any Catholic could be elected pope," or "Obama could be elected the next Speaker of the House." There's some rules that if used to their maximum, totally destroy the legitimacy that the rules are made to serve.
For instance, in 2018, Krysten Sinema won an election against Martha McSally to be Arizona's next senator. Republican Governor Doug Ducey then appointed her to the other, vacant senate seat. I would argue that although this action was allowed, it was pretty much totally lacking in democratic legitimacy. The people of Arizona just had an election to determine if McSally should be their senator and they voted against her. In fact, if Ducey had appointed nearly anyone else, there would have been much more legitimacy to that because Ducey would be making a decision on behalf of the people, and without anything to gainsay that decision, it would have stood until the next election (this November). Legitimate powers can lend themselves to illegitimacy if they're not wisely executed with justification.
Coming back to the nomination, there could be theoretically scenarios where Biden could have at least partial legitimacy for the national convention to hand the nomination to him even if he has less delegates than Bernie (say, if he won several states, was in second for pretty much all the ones he didn't win, and he was very popular with all the major segments of the Democratic party coalition (young, old, labor, African Americans, Latinos, women, LGBT). I don't think this would be the case, but it's possible.
However, if someone straight out loses every contest of which they're a party, it makes no sense for the DNC to nominate them over others with way more legitimacy. In that case the people spoke . . . and they didn't want that candidate. Unless something very unlikely happens in the next month, Warren, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar are hoping for a fundamentally undemocratic illegitimate outcome if the populace rejects them and they still want to be nominated despite that. At his point in time, it's really Bernie vs. Biden.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
Warren doesn't need to stay in the race in order to be in attack mode for Bernie, and she could arguably do more damage to Bloomberg and other centrist candidates as his #1 surrogate. I don't think she owes anyone a concession right now, but I do think if Super Tuesday is as bad for her as the polling says it's going to be, she'll be done by Wednesday.
For Bernie? When she's currently saying she's here to "blunt the momentum for Bernie Sanders" and chasing scraps of delegates for a contested convention?
posted by kafziel at 4:39 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
For Bernie? When she's currently saying she's here to "blunt the momentum for Bernie Sanders" and chasing scraps of delegates for a contested convention?
posted by kafziel at 4:39 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
> For Bernie? When she's currently saying she's here to "blunt the momentum for Bernie Sanders" and chasing scraps of delegates for a contested convention?
Of course she wants to blunt his momentum -- he's the frontrunner and she's his opponent! She wants his votes! If she weren't in the race, she... wouldn't need his votes.
She's had many more prominent opportunities to go after him hard if she wanted to and hasn't. An anonymous campaign staffer saying "it's about slowing down the guy in first place" does not a conpsiracy make.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:44 PM on March 1, 2020 [10 favorites]
Of course she wants to blunt his momentum -- he's the frontrunner and she's his opponent! She wants his votes! If she weren't in the race, she... wouldn't need his votes.
She's had many more prominent opportunities to go after him hard if she wanted to and hasn't. An anonymous campaign staffer saying "it's about slowing down the guy in first place" does not a conpsiracy make.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:44 PM on March 1, 2020 [10 favorites]
It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma. If everybody but Sanders and Biden cooperated and got out we would probably not have a contested convention. However, there are strong incentives to defect and stay in and accumulate delegates in case there is a contested convention, and the more other candidates drop out while you stay in the stronger that incentive becomes and the more likely it is a self-fulfilling prophecy producing such a convention.
posted by Justinian at 4:45 PM on March 1, 2020
posted by Justinian at 4:45 PM on March 1, 2020
However, if someone straight out loses every contest of which they're a party, it makes no sense for the DNC to nominate them over others with way more legitimacy.
I totally agree. I really, really hope this is a feint from Warren to build some leverage for her to get something from backing Sanders. (I hate that that seems to be the best-case scenario.) To make a dumb comparison, it’s like when your family is fighting over where to go to dinner and you managed to narrow it down to two options, and then someone says “well, since we can’t decide between Joe’s Grill and Hunan Kitchen, let’s just stay home and have PB&Js instead.” No!
posted by sallybrown at 4:47 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
I totally agree. I really, really hope this is a feint from Warren to build some leverage for her to get something from backing Sanders. (I hate that that seems to be the best-case scenario.) To make a dumb comparison, it’s like when your family is fighting over where to go to dinner and you managed to narrow it down to two options, and then someone says “well, since we can’t decide between Joe’s Grill and Hunan Kitchen, let’s just stay home and have PB&Js instead.” No!
posted by sallybrown at 4:47 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma.
...though prisoner's dilemma situations tend to collapse when the parties have the opportunity to communicate, don't they? That's one thing I got out of Elinor Ostrom's work, anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 4:48 PM on March 1, 2020
...though prisoner's dilemma situations tend to collapse when the parties have the opportunity to communicate, don't they? That's one thing I got out of Elinor Ostrom's work, anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 4:48 PM on March 1, 2020
Buttigieg has dropped out of a race early before. Maybe he sees value for his long-term brand in not publicly losing any more than he needs to? If so, that suggests to me he really did think he had a shot in SC (yikes).
posted by sallybrown at 4:52 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 4:52 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
I suspect Pete is dropping out because he/his people doesn't want to be the spoiler that delivers a Sanders sweep post-Tuesday. Would be cool if the progressive wing could start consolidating around their platform in a similar manner.
posted by windbox at 4:52 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by windbox at 4:52 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
I think he dropped out because he realized he had no chance of winning, or getting significant delegates on Tuesday...
posted by Windopaene at 4:57 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Windopaene at 4:57 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
I've avoided MeFi for a while because I liked Buttigieg and felt uncomfortable saying so. I get that he's overly vague and performative at times; I don't even know that I wanted him to get the nomination. But I followed his campaign with interest, and the level of vitriol here towards him (not from everyone, I know) really knocked me backwards — that, and the apparent attacks on his version of gayness from an admittedly small number of actors on the left. It has been profoundly discouraging. I don't know why this is my moment to express this discouragement. Maybe he could leave the race without being called a rat for … an evening? Maybe not.
posted by argybarg at 5:27 PM on March 1, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 5:27 PM on March 1, 2020 [15 favorites]
btw kafziel: A lot of the Twitter Election People do seem think Buttigieg dropping out will be a net help to Biden but a lot of them actually think it comes indirectly by helping Warren reach the 15% threshold in places she otherwise might not rather than by directly helping Biden do so, since he is above 15% in many more places than Warren.
So that's pretty interesting.
posted by Justinian at 5:28 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
So that's pretty interesting.
posted by Justinian at 5:28 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ten years ago even Obama was still saying he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Tonight the first openly gay presidential candidate to win a party primary is leaving the race with his husband next to him after a campaign in which he seemed somewhat too conservative and square, with too much moneyed support. In those ten years the country elected a reactionary bigot who’s trying to turn back the clock as fast as he can and yet look at the change he can’t stop!
posted by sallybrown at 5:46 PM on March 1, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:46 PM on March 1, 2020 [15 favorites]
Good news for Pete: You can run for President like 9-10 more times before you’re as old as Biden and Bernie are now!
And you won a state on your first try, vs. Biden waiting for 32 years!
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2020 [10 favorites]
And you won a state on your first try, vs. Biden waiting for 32 years!
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2020 [10 favorites]
If Warren really is staying in the race to kneecap Sanders and help a centrist take the nomination I feel that I must have gravely misjudged her somewhere along the line. I really hope that talk is just empty rumormongering.
posted by sotonohito at 6:19 PM on March 1, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 6:19 PM on March 1, 2020 [13 favorites]
In those ten years the country elected a reactionary bigot who’s trying to turn back the clock as fast as he can and yet look at the change he can’t stop!
Also, you have two Jews running for the nomination, and nobody is making a big deal about it. There are a lot of things wrong with the world, and with the USA, but there are also many reasons for hope.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:27 PM on March 1, 2020 [9 favorites]
Also, you have two Jews running for the nomination, and nobody is making a big deal about it. There are a lot of things wrong with the world, and with the USA, but there are also many reasons for hope.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:27 PM on March 1, 2020 [9 favorites]
Sanders won the Nevada caucuses with 40.5% of the popular vote and 41,075 people to Biden's 18.9%/19,179. Sanders got 24 delegates, Biden got 9.
Biden won the South Carolina primary with 48.4% of the popular vote and 256,111 people to Sanders' 19.9%/105,226. Biden got 38 delegates, Sanders got 15.
Currently, Sanders has 58 total delegates to Biden's 50. Biden has won 29.4% of the popular vote (323,357 people), compared to Sanders' 24.4%/268,149.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:32 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
Biden won the South Carolina primary with 48.4% of the popular vote and 256,111 people to Sanders' 19.9%/105,226. Biden got 38 delegates, Sanders got 15.
Currently, Sanders has 58 total delegates to Biden's 50. Biden has won 29.4% of the popular vote (323,357 people), compared to Sanders' 24.4%/268,149.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:32 PM on March 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
Also, you have two Jews running for the nomination, and nobody is making a big deal about it.
To me it’s a (great) big deal. Among many other things I would enjoy having a Jewish president literally replace Trump. Take that tiki marchers!
posted by sallybrown at 6:35 PM on March 1, 2020 [11 favorites]
To me it’s a (great) big deal. Among many other things I would enjoy having a Jewish president literally replace Trump. Take that tiki marchers!
posted by sallybrown at 6:35 PM on March 1, 2020 [11 favorites]
Of course she wants to blunt his momentum -- he's the frontrunner and she's his opponent! She wants his votes! If she weren't in the race, she... wouldn't need his votes.
I mean sure, it's all part of the game. It's just... her results so far are worse than Pete's. She looks a little better in some Super Tuesday states, which might be a reason to stay in that long, but not that good. It just seems at this point she's gotta be angling either to be a running mate - and not necessarily for Sanders - or to be a compromise choice at the convention somehow, which I think would be ill-advised coming from fourth place. The sudden decision to start accepting backers with deep pockets, as a candidate without an obvious path to victory, concerns me. It is possible however that some of this may be attributed less to an animus against Sanders specifically and more to her team (ironically) not having a clear plan for this thing.
She's had many more prominent opportunities to go after him hard if she wanted to and hasn't
She has wavered between going after him and not going after him for a while - part of what I'm thinking of when I say I'm often not sure what the plan is. Lately I think she's been going after him pretty consistently, but in a relatively low-key way. He has generally seemed reluctant to take direct rhetorical shots at her - though he doesn't need to since his supporters will, and it seems that he may be hoping that a victory in Massachusetts will be the thing to push her out.
posted by atoxyl at 7:02 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
I mean sure, it's all part of the game. It's just... her results so far are worse than Pete's. She looks a little better in some Super Tuesday states, which might be a reason to stay in that long, but not that good. It just seems at this point she's gotta be angling either to be a running mate - and not necessarily for Sanders - or to be a compromise choice at the convention somehow, which I think would be ill-advised coming from fourth place. The sudden decision to start accepting backers with deep pockets, as a candidate without an obvious path to victory, concerns me. It is possible however that some of this may be attributed less to an animus against Sanders specifically and more to her team (ironically) not having a clear plan for this thing.
She's had many more prominent opportunities to go after him hard if she wanted to and hasn't
She has wavered between going after him and not going after him for a while - part of what I'm thinking of when I say I'm often not sure what the plan is. Lately I think she's been going after him pretty consistently, but in a relatively low-key way. He has generally seemed reluctant to take direct rhetorical shots at her - though he doesn't need to since his supporters will, and it seems that he may be hoping that a victory in Massachusetts will be the thing to push her out.
posted by atoxyl at 7:02 PM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
In the long run the less candidates, the greater the chance of someone getting a majority. In the short run, this probably benefits Biden and Warren if for no other reason than it increases the chances they’ll be viable in places they won’t be. It also may help Warren and Klobuchar win their home states.
For what it’s worth, Sanders beats Biden in every head to head poll I’ve seen, including a poll from I think fairvote that uses some sort of ranked choice voting. It was close though.
posted by eagles123 at 7:05 PM on March 1, 2020
For what it’s worth, Sanders beats Biden in every head to head poll I’ve seen, including a poll from I think fairvote that uses some sort of ranked choice voting. It was close though.
posted by eagles123 at 7:05 PM on March 1, 2020
I don't know about Pete, but Warren has raised a lot of money and has hired a lot of people and has big loyal volunteer organizations in the Super Tuesday states who have been working their asses off for months. She isn't going to pull the rug out from under them before they even get a chance to vote.
Things will all be a lot clearer by the end of the week.
posted by JackFlash at 7:18 PM on March 1, 2020 [16 favorites]
Things will all be a lot clearer by the end of the week.
posted by JackFlash at 7:18 PM on March 1, 2020 [16 favorites]
Yeah I'm not really seeing any need for n-dimensional chess here. People are still in the race because that's how you compete. Bernie stayed in the race until June/July in 2016. A lot of stuff can happen between now and June.
posted by nakedmolerats at 7:20 PM on March 1, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 7:20 PM on March 1, 2020 [13 favorites]
We All Want to Change the World
South Carolina underscores the limitations of this approach. There was finally a high-turnout primary, but it was the result not of Bernie but of Jim Clyburn’s ability to mobilize the Democratic base in his state. For Biden, the problem going forward is that this isn’t something that can be necessarily replicated going forward in a lot of other states. For Bernie, it’s a concern that despite running for president constantly for 5 years, and knowing that he was killed in 2016 by an inability to attract African-American support in the South, he was unable to get Clyburn’s support or even persuade him to remain neutral, even though Biden’s shaky performances have given him unusually weak elite support for a candidate running as the safe establishment choice.posted by tonycpsu at 9:50 PM on March 1, 2020 [8 favorites]
Assuming Sanders wins the nomination, this is still important going forward. He can win the White House, but both for getting there and for accomplishing things if he does win “bend the knee shitlibs” is not an approach that’s going to work. Beating Trump is going to require normie Democrats voting for him in large numbers, not an imaginary squadron of nonvoters who secretly crave socialism. Both in terms of legislative outputs and effective use of the executive branch, he’s going to need buy-in from a lot of mainstream Democrats. None of this is impossible — he’s in a good position to win because most ordinary Democrats like him! But hopefully yesterday’s results will point him in the right direction, which is away from his Extremely Online crew. He doesn’t need to change his ideas; he just needs to welcome allies.
But I followed his campaign with interest, and the level of vitriol here towards him (not from everyone, I know) really knocked me backwards
I know I've had to really side-eye some people here over it. Even speaking as a Warren supporter, the open vitriol against a gay man was fairly transparent.
Despite that, we've have a field of candidates of broad backgrounds, so far, and that deserves some mention.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:05 PM on March 1, 2020
I know I've had to really side-eye some people here over it. Even speaking as a Warren supporter, the open vitriol against a gay man was fairly transparent.
Despite that, we've have a field of candidates of broad backgrounds, so far, and that deserves some mention.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:05 PM on March 1, 2020
Having a gay man make it this far is quite an accomplishment, but all of the vitriol I've seen has been about his centrism and lack of substance, not his sexual orientation. He's a bright dude and he's not without charisma, but he also comes off as kind of soulless and power-hungry in a "will completely abandon principles for a 3% bump in the polls" way that's reminiscent of the worst parts of Bill Clinton. "Medicare for all who want it" is a total scam, and he deserved to be shredded for that, and the McKinsey stuff, and his awful record on racial matters. We can both celebrate his historic achievements and express vitriol toward him for being a shitty Democrat. Both are true.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:13 PM on March 1, 2020 [28 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:13 PM on March 1, 2020 [28 favorites]
There was finally a high-turnout primary
I asked this earlier but does anybody know where to find the actual turnout stats compiled in one place? My initial reading said Nevada was pretty strong - in absolute numbers the highest ever, adjusted for population better than 2016 but short of 2008 which seems to be treated as the gold standard? But it would be nice to be able to look at turnout and demographics for each of the early primaries along with historical comparisons in one place.
Anyway a thought I had about SC and Biden's strategy vs. Sanders':
At least anecdotally, Bernie's success in the caucuses did come from smart organizing - in IA being the only campaign to really leverage the satellite caucuses, and in NV being the only campaign to convincingly bring its message to Latinos. Those are, however, both examples of finding an opening, something that one expects an outsider-y campaign with a lot of sharp young organizers to be good at. In SC they were up against a segment of the party with a very strong entrenched relationship with the key voting block, and while they were able to attract a number of younger folks ultimately they were no match for that infrastructure. Definitely illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of Sanders' approach.
posted by atoxyl at 10:59 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
I asked this earlier but does anybody know where to find the actual turnout stats compiled in one place? My initial reading said Nevada was pretty strong - in absolute numbers the highest ever, adjusted for population better than 2016 but short of 2008 which seems to be treated as the gold standard? But it would be nice to be able to look at turnout and demographics for each of the early primaries along with historical comparisons in one place.
Anyway a thought I had about SC and Biden's strategy vs. Sanders':
At least anecdotally, Bernie's success in the caucuses did come from smart organizing - in IA being the only campaign to really leverage the satellite caucuses, and in NV being the only campaign to convincingly bring its message to Latinos. Those are, however, both examples of finding an opening, something that one expects an outsider-y campaign with a lot of sharp young organizers to be good at. In SC they were up against a segment of the party with a very strong entrenched relationship with the key voting block, and while they were able to attract a number of younger folks ultimately they were no match for that infrastructure. Definitely illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of Sanders' approach.
posted by atoxyl at 10:59 PM on March 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
Having a gay man make it this far is quite an accomplishment, but all of the vitriol I've seen has been about his centrism and lack of substance, not his sexual orientation.
Matty Glesias made an occasional fair point, earlier, noting that in spite of his stated platform being to the left of the likes of Biden, the Online Left hated him more than Biden for (what Matt identified as) largely stylistic reasons. But stylistically he was too often just smarmy - even the Pod Save guys got in on making fun of his Obama impression - and there's some real hubris to trying to go straight from Mayor of South Bend to president. Worse than Beto (the proto-Pete). And beyond style, maybe he wasn't a literal CIA plant as a candidate, but I don't think people were wrong to find the McKinsey/military intelligence part of his background offputting. A guy with no foriegn policy experience except that background doesn't sound promising from where I stand on foreign policy.
Also as you said his healthcare proposal seemed fundamentally not serious enough.
posted by atoxyl at 11:29 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
Matty Glesias made an occasional fair point, earlier, noting that in spite of his stated platform being to the left of the likes of Biden, the Online Left hated him more than Biden for (what Matt identified as) largely stylistic reasons. But stylistically he was too often just smarmy - even the Pod Save guys got in on making fun of his Obama impression - and there's some real hubris to trying to go straight from Mayor of South Bend to president. Worse than Beto (the proto-Pete). And beyond style, maybe he wasn't a literal CIA plant as a candidate, but I don't think people were wrong to find the McKinsey/military intelligence part of his background offputting. A guy with no foriegn policy experience except that background doesn't sound promising from where I stand on foreign policy.
Also as you said his healthcare proposal seemed fundamentally not serious enough.
posted by atoxyl at 11:29 PM on March 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
Worse than Beto (the proto-Pete).
Well, on par for hubris. Worse for having a political personality that brings the hubris into focus.
posted by atoxyl at 11:42 PM on March 1, 2020
Well, on par for hubris. Worse for having a political personality that brings the hubris into focus.
posted by atoxyl at 11:42 PM on March 1, 2020
The election year headline nobody expected:
Public Enemy Fire Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally Spat
posted by St. Oops at 1:02 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
Public Enemy Fire Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally Spat
posted by St. Oops at 1:02 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
Also lots of women hated Pete for obvious reasons: in a just world he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the debate stage as someone who only ever received 8000 votes and got destroyed in a statewide election. Warren basically fell into politics at a late age but someone like Klobuchar who worked her ass off for this her whole life had to be there with someone who many felt didn’t deserve it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:55 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:55 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
From CNN: Obama still plans to wait until after someone clinches the nomination to endorse. “Obama still thinks his most valuable role is to try and unify the party. ‘He feels that he's singularly positioned to help unify the party at the end of this,’ the Obama confidant said. ‘And if he were try to put his thumb on the scale now, it would take away his ability to do so when it's most needed -- the general election.’”
(Something that really pissed me off this weekend was the gross headline of pundit Rick Wilson’s piece “It’s Time for Obama to Man Up and Back Biden.” Thanks Rick, I don’t think the former President needs or cares about your thoughts on “manning up.”)
posted by sallybrown at 4:41 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
(Something that really pissed me off this weekend was the gross headline of pundit Rick Wilson’s piece “It’s Time for Obama to Man Up and Back Biden.” Thanks Rick, I don’t think the former President needs or cares about your thoughts on “manning up.”)
posted by sallybrown at 4:41 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. Please try to discuss without the hyperbolic hate rants. These threads are tough enough without that stuff, and we are barely hanging in there to have commenting at all on US politics at this point.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:47 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 4:47 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
It looks like it’s biden vs. sanders now.
So I’d like to say again, as clearly as possible:
It’s hard to ‘really’ assess bernie’s chances against trump. We are biased, and the fight could go either way.
But it’s as clear as day what will happen if biden is the nominee: trump will beat him like a fucking drum. There’s no way in hell he can make it against the beast.
Another McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, etc...
posted by growabrain at 4:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
So I’d like to say again, as clearly as possible:
It’s hard to ‘really’ assess bernie’s chances against trump. We are biased, and the fight could go either way.
But it’s as clear as day what will happen if biden is the nominee: trump will beat him like a fucking drum. There’s no way in hell he can make it against the beast.
Another McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, etc...
posted by growabrain at 4:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
obama's place in history depends on whether or not he endorses biden. if he does, biden wins the nomination because obama and loses the general because of all the reasons biden loses the general.
and then once we crawl out of the subsequent period of trumpist dictatorship and terror, historians will give obama his share of the blame.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:10 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
and then once we crawl out of the subsequent period of trumpist dictatorship and terror, historians will give obama his share of the blame.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:10 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Empty stadiums and no more selfie lines? Coronavirus becomes 2020 X-factor. (David Siders, Politico)
If the virus does spread, the mechanical implications for campaigns could be profound.posted by ZeusHumms at 6:18 AM on March 2, 2020
Hey, can someone whose time machine has revealed what will happen in the general election please MeMail me the winner of the World Series this year?
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 AM on March 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 AM on March 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
Hey, can someone whose time machine has revealed what will happen in the general election please MeMail me the winner of the World Series this year?
All signs point to the Astros.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:31 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
All signs point to the Astros.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:31 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
Plus many on the left (myself included) won't vote for Biden.
It’s gonna be a looooooooooooong year....
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
It’s gonna be a looooooooooooong year....
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
I seem to be the only deluded optimist who thinks both Bernie and Biden have great chances of beating Trump. Different paths but both paths very much exist.
posted by sallybrown at 6:53 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:53 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
Anyone can win against Trump if people actually vote for them.
posted by octothorpe at 6:59 AM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:59 AM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
538 has a Pick Thine Own Story-Exploit for Super Tuesday results, where as you pick winners in the states it shows you results of those simulation runs. You don’t have to do every state.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:12 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:12 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Now that its Biden vs. Bernie, all the pundits who claimed that Bernie can't be the nominee because he is unelectable have to throw their support behind him. Biden is much more unelectable, weak against Trump, and is clearly going senile. Plus many on the left (myself included) won't vote for Biden.
It's so interesting to me that there are sooo many people on my timeline who are saying the exact opposite. So many that even though I agree with you, I have to question my own biases because honestly a lot of these opinions are coming from people that I know to be very smart. I just don't know. Maybe we are all stuck in our bubbles. Maybe they are both equally as electable/unelectable.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 7:33 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
It's so interesting to me that there are sooo many people on my timeline who are saying the exact opposite. So many that even though I agree with you, I have to question my own biases because honestly a lot of these opinions are coming from people that I know to be very smart. I just don't know. Maybe we are all stuck in our bubbles. Maybe they are both equally as electable/unelectable.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 7:33 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'm on the left, and I will definitely vote for Biden if he wins. I'll be disappointed if he's our nominee, but we've got to defeat Trump. I hope moderates who dislike the idea of Sanders being our nominee will do the same if he wins, and I think most of them will.
We disagree about important issues, sometimes issues that are deeply and personally important to us, but I think almost all of us understand that defeating the wannabe fascist that's in office now is critical to preserving democracy so we can continue to argue about and try to make progress on other issues we care about.
posted by nangar at 7:37 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
We disagree about important issues, sometimes issues that are deeply and personally important to us, but I think almost all of us understand that defeating the wannabe fascist that's in office now is critical to preserving democracy so we can continue to argue about and try to make progress on other issues we care about.
posted by nangar at 7:37 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
For me, whether or not I would vote for Biden in the general would really depend on his VP pick, because he already doesn't seem capable of doing the job now, let alone 4 years from now.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 7:44 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 7:44 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Racist, sexist, homophobic pederast with a melting brain ... or Trump.
I'd stay home. I'm not willing to endorse the Democratic Party's suicide run with my vote.
posted by kafziel at 7:56 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'd stay home. I'm not willing to endorse the Democratic Party's suicide run with my vote.
posted by kafziel at 7:56 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Any progressive who wouldn't support Biden over Trump is... I don't know man, that's just a worldview so diametrically opposed to my own that I don't know.
posted by Justinian at 7:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [30 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [30 favorites]
Let's make sure Biden isn't the nominee then.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:59 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:59 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Again, this is not sports talk radio or a meeting of the Let's Argue Until You All Finally Agree With Me About A Nominee club. If you're hanging around in this thread or others mostly to make sure people know who you are or aren't voting for or who you think they should or should not vote for, pull up stakes and find a different venue for that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:05 AM on March 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:05 AM on March 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
I would like to chime in here to remind everyone in a Super Tuesday state to check their polling place for tomorrow. Mine changed since the last time I checked.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
Assuming Sanders wins the nomination, this is still important going forward. He can win the White House, but both for getting there and for accomplishing things if he does win “bend the knee shitlibs” is not an approach that’s going to work. Beating Trump is going to require normie Democrats voting for him in large numbers, not an imaginary squadron of nonvoters who secretly crave socialism.This is my biggest reservation about Bernie. One of the few things the centrists can do well is broker compromise. But that means the Left is always in this situation of not getting what it wants on anything. It's a shitty place to be when all you want to do is get your ideas implemented to make people's lives better and it's not surprising that many of them want to just burn the whole thing down.
But wanting to burn the system down is just another aspect of privilege for a lot of us. We can only think that because we have the luxury of quite likely surviving the cleansing fire. Me? If the US goes Trumpian for another four years, I'll be fine. We have money. We can drive to Canada and catch a flight from Montreal out to Doha and then on to Australia if the SHTF and my wife becomes a target of tiki wielding jackboots. We're white so we won't have border control scrutinizing us. I'm sure for a lot of people here it would be like catching the flu, a temporary pain but we'll feel a lot better after it.
There are people out there who won't survive an attempted revolution and/or purge and they're depending on us. As much as the neoliberal agenda sucks for relying on an underclass, at least it's kept a detente stopping capital and the fascists from implementing a literal Hunger Games. Without it, well, if you come at capital, you best not miss and all that crap.
I get I can't make people love Biden, or Klobuchar, or Warren, and that's fine, I don't particularly love Biden either, but "you should have given us a more inspiring raft" just stinks of privilege at this point.
Another would be to get mad at the Democratic Party if they don't put forth a candidate worth voting for.This for example. The Democratic party is made up of everyone expressing their voice and the system sorting out all those voices. The result may be that the result isn't going to go the way you'd like it to. It might involve people abusing technicalities of that system. Which sucks. Voting for the lesser of two evil sucks. It sucks knowing that there was a way better choice if everyone else could just see it our way. But I think of people who will struggle and may not survive under a second Trump term and I just can't sit there and let them suffer for my purity test.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:40 AM on March 2, 2020 [21 favorites]
Moderate Democrats are generally better at building coalitions, and progressives are better at forceful messaging. How about they collaborate and learn from each other?
posted by argybarg at 8:45 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 8:45 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Also, there is every indication that a second Trump term will be devoted to ending meaningful American democracy (I'd already put it at a near-lock for the candidate, whoever we nominate, to be investigated by the FBI over the summer, and a small but not insignificant chance for them to be arrested on the eve of the election). So even if you're privileged enough to assume you can survive four more years of this, I still think it's short-sighted to assume trying again in 2024 is even possible.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
but "you should have given us a more inspiring raft" just stinks of privilege at this point.
If you want to talk about privilege, it takes an immense amount of privilege to think it's fine to live in a world that is currently hurtling well past RCP8.5 and with even if any of the moderates win, it's fine if we still end up at a cataclysmic RCP6.
Trump is horrifying for global warming, but Democratic centrists have plans that move so slow that for the billions of the global poor (who are all people of color), the effective amount of daylight between them is depressingly small. Even Sanders's plan, Green New Deal and all, is too slow to fully stop what is coming, but at least it's something far more meaningful than what any of the moderates or even Warren has put forth.
posted by Ouverture at 8:49 AM on March 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
If you want to talk about privilege, it takes an immense amount of privilege to think it's fine to live in a world that is currently hurtling well past RCP8.5 and with even if any of the moderates win, it's fine if we still end up at a cataclysmic RCP6.
Trump is horrifying for global warming, but Democratic centrists have plans that move so slow that for the billions of the global poor (who are all people of color), the effective amount of daylight between them is depressingly small. Even Sanders's plan, Green New Deal and all, is too slow to fully stop what is coming, but at least it's something far more meaningful than what any of the moderates or even Warren has put forth.
posted by Ouverture at 8:49 AM on March 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
There are people out there who won't survive an attempted revolution and/or purge and they're depending on us. As much as the neoliberal agenda sucks for relying on an underclass, at least it's kept a detente stopping capital and the fascists from implementing a literal Hunger Games. Without it, well, if you come at capital, you best not miss and all that crap.
I may be naive, but I don't think trying to implement some programs that all other wealthy nations have enjoyed for decades is a revolution. This isn't some coup. It is ceding a LOT of ground to even entertain the idea that the richest people in the country becoming a fraction of a percentage point less rich is the equivalent of guerrillas shooting families in the street.
But speaking of privilege, 26,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. Every year we stick with our ghoulish for-profit healthcare system literally kills tens of thousand of people.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:49 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
I may be naive, but I don't think trying to implement some programs that all other wealthy nations have enjoyed for decades is a revolution. This isn't some coup. It is ceding a LOT of ground to even entertain the idea that the richest people in the country becoming a fraction of a percentage point less rich is the equivalent of guerrillas shooting families in the street.
But speaking of privilege, 26,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. Every year we stick with our ghoulish for-profit healthcare system literally kills tens of thousand of people.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:49 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
You know what? I don't think we need apocalyptic scenarios to explain why building a broad coalition for the Democratic party is important. It's always important; it's always the right way. I don't want to belong to a party built on ideological narrowness; I like a diversity of viewpoints around common values. I don't find disagreeing with people about means to be that unbearably painful; I think it's healthy.
So say your peace, listen, get along. It's the best model in all situations.
posted by argybarg at 8:51 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
So say your peace, listen, get along. It's the best model in all situations.
posted by argybarg at 8:51 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
There are plenty of Sanders-or-bust voters who literally can not afford the insulin they need to live, so let's not talk about how they're voting their privilege.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:51 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:51 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
If you're saying you're mad at the Democratic Party for who they pick for the nominee, you're saying that you're mad at those millions of voters who voted for that person.
posted by octothorpe at 8:52 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:52 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Let's stop one-upping each other about privilege. This is a dead end.
posted by argybarg at 8:52 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 8:52 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
I have zero interest in belong to a party that is unanimous in all its beliefs. That's the illusion of strength, one conservatives and neofascists love.
I think a healthy offer to the nation is: Here is a party that unites around fundamental values; measures and sifts and debates over means; that tests its own assumptions; and that shows the world that this is exactly what compassion and strength are built on. You know — Democrats who love democracy!
Are we, collectively, living up to that ideal?
posted by argybarg at 8:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
I think a healthy offer to the nation is: Here is a party that unites around fundamental values; measures and sifts and debates over means; that tests its own assumptions; and that shows the world that this is exactly what compassion and strength are built on. You know — Democrats who love democracy!
Are we, collectively, living up to that ideal?
posted by argybarg at 8:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
If you want to talk about privilege, it takes an immense amount of privilege to think it's fine to live in a world that is currently hurtling well past RCP8.5 and with even if any of the moderates win, it's fine if we still end up at a cataclysmic RCP6.
Every 1% we improve now is 1% that compounds and is 2% we don't have to make down the road four years later. If we can get Biden in over Trump and Democrats start closing coal power plants by new regulations, yeah, we're not going to have a full solar revolution but it'll at least be better than drill baby drill and polluting the hell out of the ANWR.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Every 1% we improve now is 1% that compounds and is 2% we don't have to make down the road four years later. If we can get Biden in over Trump and Democrats start closing coal power plants by new regulations, yeah, we're not going to have a full solar revolution but it'll at least be better than drill baby drill and polluting the hell out of the ANWR.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Neoliberal ameliorism that occasionally makes tiny concessions to decency as long as they don't threaten capital is not sufficient for handling the imminent global challenge that is climate change. A Biden presidency would put us right back on the road that led us to Trump, and I expect it would fairly quickly deliver the country into the hands of ecofascists who will offer a terrible eliminationist solution to the problem that, in the absence of a meaningful alternative, will gather a critical mass of support.
2016 was the death of the neoliberal project, and trying to re-ignite its fading embers will only strengthen the far right. We don't have time to waste on a Biden presidency. If Biden wins the primary, it doesn't matter who we vote for in the general because we've already lost.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:06 AM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
2016 was the death of the neoliberal project, and trying to re-ignite its fading embers will only strengthen the far right. We don't have time to waste on a Biden presidency. If Biden wins the primary, it doesn't matter who we vote for in the general because we've already lost.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:06 AM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
Does "neoliberal" have any meaning beyond "dudes I don't like" at this point?
posted by Justinian at 9:09 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:09 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
Trump is horrifying for global warming, but Democratic centrists have plans that move so slow that for the billions of the global poor (who are all people of color), the effective amount of daylight between them is depressingly small. Even Sanders's plan, Green New Deal and all, is too slow to fully stop what is coming, but at least it's something far more meaningful than what any of the moderates or even Warren has put forth.
This is what infuriates me about a particular strain of lefty dead-ender-ism. It's not worth voting for Biden because his plans aren't good enough to solve the problems, they're just a Band-Aid! The only acceptable path forward is Sanders' plan, which is also not enough to solve the problem, but at least it's a "meaningful" half measure! Suddenly harm mitigation is worth considering again!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:09 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
This is what infuriates me about a particular strain of lefty dead-ender-ism. It's not worth voting for Biden because his plans aren't good enough to solve the problems, they're just a Band-Aid! The only acceptable path forward is Sanders' plan, which is also not enough to solve the problem, but at least it's a "meaningful" half measure! Suddenly harm mitigation is worth considering again!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:09 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Yeah, when I talk to activists to the left of me, and particularly POC activists, from their perspective there is literally no difference between "centrist" Dems and Trump. And I used to think the same as YCPR that white people with money will be OK and we should vote to make sure that poor and brown people will be OK, and the poor and brown people I know are like, 'it's always been bad, it won't get THAT much worse for us... but all you comfortable white people sure are gonna have a hard time when shit gets real" so I have dropped my attitude that I'm doing any kind of white savior thing by voting blue no matter who. It matters who.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Does "neoliberal" have any meaning beyond "dudes I don't like" at this point?
People always say this on this website, but yes, neoliberal does have a meaning. This is not the thread for a lecture about it, but if I were to sum it up, it's an ideology that says that the current distribution of power in society is inevitable and just, that the meritocracy works, that the market is sacrosanct and market solutions are preferable to public solutions, that the best approach to improving the world is to tinker around the edges of our system and subtly nudge people into positive behaviors, that our current system is slowly getting better and improving the world all the time, and that trying to fundamentally alter the system of global capitalism would invite only chaos and ruin.
Neoliberalism is noteable for being a rare ideology that never sees itself as an ideology. It cloaks itself in the guise of "common sense". It believes itself to be objective and scientific. This is why some people are very reluctant to believe the word "neoliberal" carries meaning.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:15 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
People always say this on this website, but yes, neoliberal does have a meaning. This is not the thread for a lecture about it, but if I were to sum it up, it's an ideology that says that the current distribution of power in society is inevitable and just, that the meritocracy works, that the market is sacrosanct and market solutions are preferable to public solutions, that the best approach to improving the world is to tinker around the edges of our system and subtly nudge people into positive behaviors, that our current system is slowly getting better and improving the world all the time, and that trying to fundamentally alter the system of global capitalism would invite only chaos and ruin.
Neoliberalism is noteable for being a rare ideology that never sees itself as an ideology. It cloaks itself in the guise of "common sense". It believes itself to be objective and scientific. This is why some people are very reluctant to believe the word "neoliberal" carries meaning.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:15 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
I want the president who staffs their government with good, competent people who can be trusted to serve with honor. That's more likely to happen with any of the remaining Democratic candidates than with Trump.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:16 AM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:16 AM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
Well, if "centrists" are going to be purged from the party, I'm sure I'm going to be purged with them. Not because I'm particularly "centrist" but because the idea of having to vote 100% pure and present my bona fides makes me almost physically sick. And I make the unforgivable sins of sometimes reading The Atlantic or quoting 538. Or because I show skepticism about other people's idea of a "revolution" (can't help it, sorry).
So have your purge, and goodbye to a viable national party — and hello to a party that has a good chance of actually being kind of revolting.
posted by argybarg at 9:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
So have your purge, and goodbye to a viable national party — and hello to a party that has a good chance of actually being kind of revolting.
posted by argybarg at 9:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yes, "neoliberal" still has meaning. It refers to those who promote "market solutions" vs. govt action to address issues. It's a valuable, accurate descriptor. Don't dismiss it because it might refer to some of the Dem candidates.
On preview, what OSBA said.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
On preview, what OSBA said.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Staying home and not voting is making just as much of a choice as voting for any of these clowns. You don't get to sit this one out. One way or another you ARE going to make a choice in November.
But I look forward to going around and around on this argument for the next 7 months or so. I don't think it's a debate we'll get to have after another four years of Trump so I might need to get my fill now.
posted by VTX at 9:23 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
But I look forward to going around and around on this argument for the next 7 months or so. I don't think it's a debate we'll get to have after another four years of Trump so I might need to get my fill now.
posted by VTX at 9:23 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well, if "centrists" are going to be purged from the party, I'm sure I'm going to be purged with them. Not because I'm particularly "centrist" but because the idea of having to vote 100% pure and present my bona fides makes me almost physically sick.
Well that is a plain case of reducto ad absurdum. The party moving slightly left (which would be considered centrist most other places in the world) isn't purging anyone. Except maybe people who literally represent lenders, campaign against the poor, and vote against the civil rights of minorities. Maybe those people shouldn't represent us.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:23 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
Well that is a plain case of reducto ad absurdum. The party moving slightly left (which would be considered centrist most other places in the world) isn't purging anyone. Except maybe people who literally represent lenders, campaign against the poor, and vote against the civil rights of minorities. Maybe those people shouldn't represent us.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:23 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
Mod note: Hiya -- this thread is 100% not going to become a "how much worse can it get?" thread. I know people are anxious about the primaries, but doomsaying stuff needs to go elsewhere.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:24 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:24 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
I had always thought of "neoliberal" as a vague label, but someone recently pointed me to The Neoliberal Club and The Neoliberal Agenda, both from 1982. There are a lot of familiar Democratic names in the articles, and something of a coherent platform and worldview. If nothing else, they were interesting from a historical perspective, and helped put into perspective that the policies of the Clinton presidency were not the result of being pushed around by an angry Republican Congress but were the direct outcome of what neoliberals wanted.
One night recently, Tsongas—who generally takes great pains to affirm his social-liberal credentials— capped a story about the difference between immigrants of his parents’ generation, who came to the Lowell, Massachusetts, area to work, and some of the young Greek immigrants of today, “who hang around the coffee shop in Lowell because they have the safety net of welfare, ” by saying, “Liberals have got to realize that some people just don’t want to work.”posted by clawsoon at 9:28 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm happy when the party moves left. No problem. I'm happy to move along.
I'm talking about the Chapo Trap House bullshit. The demonization. The name-calling. The everyone-to-the-right-of-me-is-the-same approach. The conspiracy peddling. I live in a deeply Lefty district and all the above is very real. I see it as a real cancer on the party, not because so many people participate in it but because of its secondary effects.
If anyone is calling for a purge of progressives, then I'm happy to denounce that too. That's not what the above is, in my estimation. Stand up and yell about the need to get aggressive about climate change. That's absolutely where I am! But using it as a pretext for burning the coalition down? For demonizing anyone outside a narrow ideological band? If that spreads, I'm out of here. That's the worst of human behavior.
posted by argybarg at 9:29 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm talking about the Chapo Trap House bullshit. The demonization. The name-calling. The everyone-to-the-right-of-me-is-the-same approach. The conspiracy peddling. I live in a deeply Lefty district and all the above is very real. I see it as a real cancer on the party, not because so many people participate in it but because of its secondary effects.
If anyone is calling for a purge of progressives, then I'm happy to denounce that too. That's not what the above is, in my estimation. Stand up and yell about the need to get aggressive about climate change. That's absolutely where I am! But using it as a pretext for burning the coalition down? For demonizing anyone outside a narrow ideological band? If that spreads, I'm out of here. That's the worst of human behavior.
posted by argybarg at 9:29 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm talking about the Chapo Trap House bullshit. The demonization. The name-calling. The everyone-to-the-right-of-me-is-the-same approach.
That is still not the case. The question in this primary is not a debate over a half-percent change in soy subsidies. The assertion has been made that people should live, and not as the modern equivalent indentured servants. There is actual disagreement about it. Vocal disagreement, comparing that idea to the worst years of Nazi Germany.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
That is still not the case. The question in this primary is not a debate over a half-percent change in soy subsidies. The assertion has been made that people should live, and not as the modern equivalent indentured servants. There is actual disagreement about it. Vocal disagreement, comparing that idea to the worst years of Nazi Germany.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Thank you to clawsoon for those links. That first one, "The Neoliberal Club" really sums it up well and matches the way I was describing Neoliberalism. Just look at these quotes from 1982:
BLEEDING HEARTS NEED NOT APPLY. NEOLIBERALS ARE COOL PRAGMATISTS WHO BELIEVE IN ECONOMIC ISSUES FIRST, SOCIAL PROGRAMS SECOND. THEY STRESS TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL SERVICE, BETTER DEFENSE, AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT.
[Neoliberalism is] the blending of realism and compassion in a manner that does not disrupt society. This combination requires judgment devoid of dogmatic blinders of ideological extremes.
It's a bad philosophy that took over most of the Democratic Party, starting in the 80's. It's one of the major reasons we're in the place we're in today, and it's still a current strain of thought among the centrist politicians in this primary. There's no point in pretending it doesn't exist.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:37 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
BLEEDING HEARTS NEED NOT APPLY. NEOLIBERALS ARE COOL PRAGMATISTS WHO BELIEVE IN ECONOMIC ISSUES FIRST, SOCIAL PROGRAMS SECOND. THEY STRESS TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL SERVICE, BETTER DEFENSE, AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT.
[Neoliberalism is] the blending of realism and compassion in a manner that does not disrupt society. This combination requires judgment devoid of dogmatic blinders of ideological extremes.
It's a bad philosophy that took over most of the Democratic Party, starting in the 80's. It's one of the major reasons we're in the place we're in today, and it's still a current strain of thought among the centrist politicians in this primary. There's no point in pretending it doesn't exist.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:37 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
FakeFreyja:
Perfectly summarized. Everyone except — what, one? maybe two? — candidates represents "the worst years of Nazi Germany."
posted by argybarg at 9:42 AM on March 2, 2020
Perfectly summarized. Everyone except — what, one? maybe two? — candidates represents "the worst years of Nazi Germany."
posted by argybarg at 9:42 AM on March 2, 2020
If you see an elderly person starving in the street and decide not to "deny them the dignity of work" by helping, you might be a neoliberal.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:42 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:42 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Last election I wanted Bernie, but I still voted for Hillary in the general because I see the value of picking justices and I still see the value in incremental change when I can get it. That being said, Hillary, the nice, safe, centrist choice lost. Just like the nice safe centrist John Kerry lost. Just like Al Gore “lost”. Just like the Democrats under Bill Clinton lost the House for the first time in a generation.
Hillary lost because she couldn’t turn out enough young voters and voters of color to offset gains Trump made among older white voters. Hillary failed to do this despite winning the primary among Black voters by an overwhelming margin.
I fail to see how Biden isn’t just a repeat of that in worse form, regardless of what the polls say now. Biden doesn’t only lose voters under 45 to Sanders, he also loses them to at least Warren and probably others. And his campaign doesn’t seem to think that is a problem.
Worse, he has yet to show he can consistently campaign, and he isn’t really being vetted for ongoing issues that surely will come up against Trump. He doesn’t have any of the strengths of Hillary Clinton, but he has all weaknesses.
Like I said, I’d vote for the guy (but I live in a non-swing state), but I’m not under any illusions. He talks about working with Republicans when they are committed to blocking all progressive legislation. He campaigned for Republicans last year. He worries about the Democrats becoming “too strong”. To me, his greatest virtue is that he says the quiet parts out loud. He doesn’t hide behind platitudes like Buttigieg.
I’ll vote for the guy, but I can’t get out of my mind how hopeless it is. After the Democrats lost the midterms in 2014, it was like they were out of ideas. Just gesture vaguely towards issues important to left while mainly running on not being insane like the Republicans. Except back then it as the Tea Party. Before that is was W. Bush (except he’s good now). Before that is was the Gingrich Republicans (except their moderates now). No plans to address climate change, racism, income inequality, student debt, rising rents, corruption, continued erosion of collective bargaining. No plans to win a governing majority to pass even vaguely progressive legislation except to wait for Republicans to fuck things up really badly again - I guess we have to go through a depression and a war with Iran/N. Korea to get a public option.
I’ll vote for Biden, but goddamn ....
posted by eagles123 at 9:43 AM on March 2, 2020 [25 favorites]
Hillary lost because she couldn’t turn out enough young voters and voters of color to offset gains Trump made among older white voters. Hillary failed to do this despite winning the primary among Black voters by an overwhelming margin.
I fail to see how Biden isn’t just a repeat of that in worse form, regardless of what the polls say now. Biden doesn’t only lose voters under 45 to Sanders, he also loses them to at least Warren and probably others. And his campaign doesn’t seem to think that is a problem.
Worse, he has yet to show he can consistently campaign, and he isn’t really being vetted for ongoing issues that surely will come up against Trump. He doesn’t have any of the strengths of Hillary Clinton, but he has all weaknesses.
Like I said, I’d vote for the guy (but I live in a non-swing state), but I’m not under any illusions. He talks about working with Republicans when they are committed to blocking all progressive legislation. He campaigned for Republicans last year. He worries about the Democrats becoming “too strong”. To me, his greatest virtue is that he says the quiet parts out loud. He doesn’t hide behind platitudes like Buttigieg.
I’ll vote for the guy, but I can’t get out of my mind how hopeless it is. After the Democrats lost the midterms in 2014, it was like they were out of ideas. Just gesture vaguely towards issues important to left while mainly running on not being insane like the Republicans. Except back then it as the Tea Party. Before that is was W. Bush (except he’s good now). Before that is was the Gingrich Republicans (except their moderates now). No plans to address climate change, racism, income inequality, student debt, rising rents, corruption, continued erosion of collective bargaining. No plans to win a governing majority to pass even vaguely progressive legislation except to wait for Republicans to fuck things up really badly again - I guess we have to go through a depression and a war with Iran/N. Korea to get a public option.
I’ll vote for Biden, but goddamn ....
posted by eagles123 at 9:43 AM on March 2, 2020 [25 favorites]
I think what FakeFreyja is referring to is Chris Matthews' histronics over Bernie winning Nevada, which he compared to Hitler overrunning the Maginot Line.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:43 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:43 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
BLEEDING HEARTS NEED NOT APPLY. NEOLIBERALS ARE COOL PRAGMATISTS WHO BELIEVE IN ECONOMIC ISSUES FIRST, SOCIAL PROGRAMS SECOND. THEY STRESS TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL SERVICE, BETTER DEFENSE, AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT.
This explanation by Innuendo Studios might be able to help people make sense of capital vs democracy.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:50 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
This explanation by Innuendo Studios might be able to help people make sense of capital vs democracy.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:50 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Neoliberalism wasn’t invented in the 1970’s, though; the term (first invented in the late 1800’s) comes from the postwar era and the Austrian/Chicago guys. That version is more of a Newt Gingrich 1990’s version than the Carter administration type of new liberalism.
It’s a natural term for a new liberalism that would’ve been adopted multiple times by different people who espoused different things and who didn’t care about the names some other guys already used.
So it can mean either arch-libertarianism or more-centrist liberalism, and is frequently conflated.
Was Bill Clinton a neoliberal? One way, yes!
Was Ronald Reagan a neoliberal? The other way, yes!
Were they the same? No!
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:55 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
It’s a natural term for a new liberalism that would’ve been adopted multiple times by different people who espoused different things and who didn’t care about the names some other guys already used.
So it can mean either arch-libertarianism or more-centrist liberalism, and is frequently conflated.
Was Bill Clinton a neoliberal? One way, yes!
Was Ronald Reagan a neoliberal? The other way, yes!
Were they the same? No!
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:55 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Huffy Puffy is correct about the two main things "neoliberalism" has meant but when people on the left now say it I think there's something of an intentional conflation - they mean to imply that the center-left and center-right alike (and thus the whole political mainstream) have bought into the same basic premise that there is no alternative to capitalism.
posted by atoxyl at 10:07 AM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 10:07 AM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
Well, if "centrists" are going to be purged from the party, I'm sure I'm going to be purged with them.
No one will be purging centrists. Sanders and AOC and all the social democrats and democratic socialists are well represented in the population, but they make up the smallest fraction of federal representatives and even fewer in leadership. For leftists/left liberals to treat the centrists as bad as they treat them would mean that the Speaker of the House (+House Majority Leader and Whip), the Senate Majority Leader (+Whip), the President (+VP, all Secretaries) would be chosen from the left flank of the party. They wouldn't be purged, they'd just have to recognize they were less important in the movement and should not feel entitled to any special position.
But the left flank of the party isn't even demanding that. It's demanding some sense of parity, some ability to be given any power within the party. The last 30 years of Democratic Leadership has been centrist, neoliberal Democrats. Not a single "Great Society" Democrat even; just a slurry of Dukakises and Clintons and Gores and Kerrys and Obamas and Clintons again. It's always been the centrist neoliberal candidate.
So what the centrists are really saying is that if they have to share power in the Democratic Party by letting others into positions of leadership and be the nominee, it will feel like a purge to the centrists. I think there's a great saying about equality, oppression, and privilege.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:17 AM on March 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
No one will be purging centrists. Sanders and AOC and all the social democrats and democratic socialists are well represented in the population, but they make up the smallest fraction of federal representatives and even fewer in leadership. For leftists/left liberals to treat the centrists as bad as they treat them would mean that the Speaker of the House (+House Majority Leader and Whip), the Senate Majority Leader (+Whip), the President (+VP, all Secretaries) would be chosen from the left flank of the party. They wouldn't be purged, they'd just have to recognize they were less important in the movement and should not feel entitled to any special position.
But the left flank of the party isn't even demanding that. It's demanding some sense of parity, some ability to be given any power within the party. The last 30 years of Democratic Leadership has been centrist, neoliberal Democrats. Not a single "Great Society" Democrat even; just a slurry of Dukakises and Clintons and Gores and Kerrys and Obamas and Clintons again. It's always been the centrist neoliberal candidate.
So what the centrists are really saying is that if they have to share power in the Democratic Party by letting others into positions of leadership and be the nominee, it will feel like a purge to the centrists. I think there's a great saying about equality, oppression, and privilege.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:17 AM on March 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
Becoming the nominee isn't "sharing power", it's taking over the party? Sharing power is, like, getting committee memberships and input on the platform.
posted by Justinian at 10:19 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 10:19 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Over the last 30 years, when has the nominee been from the left flank of the party. Only two people can be the nominees, but stretched out over a generation, you would think that you would have more than zero nominees. On the Republican side, they've continuously put the far right into the nomination slots.
How many leftists and left liberals are in the highest office of their chamber or branch? Because I guarantee that the right has no problem with putting rightwingers in positions of power.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:22 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
How many leftists and left liberals are in the highest office of their chamber or branch? Because I guarantee that the right has no problem with putting rightwingers in positions of power.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:22 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
I’m talking about the rhetoric. In power terms, I would love to see AOC and other progressives build a powerful caucus and assume leadership positions, and if anyone is taking anti democratic stances to block that, then they should get out of the way.
I’m talking about the vitriol. Perhaps you see it as harmless. I don’t.
posted by argybarg at 10:23 AM on March 2, 2020
I’m talking about the vitriol. Perhaps you see it as harmless. I don’t.
posted by argybarg at 10:23 AM on March 2, 2020
My aunt who lives in Indiana posted a few political things on FB today. Two were "thank you Mayor Pete for your historic campaign" things. One was a positive post about Elizabeth Warren. And one was a positive post about Bernie Sanders.
I just think it's important to remember that lots and lots of people like my aunt exist, and that support for non-Bernie candidates doesn't make a person the automatic enemy of anyone who is all-in for Bernie.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:26 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
I just think it's important to remember that lots and lots of people like my aunt exist, and that support for non-Bernie candidates doesn't make a person the automatic enemy of anyone who is all-in for Bernie.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:26 AM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
It has been genuinely interesting to see the narratives unfold on my different social medias. Metafilter seems to lean pretty Bernie, one of my SM groups leans pretty Warren, but I've also been surprised even in my 'liberal bubble' that some folks on my SM were genuinely sad to see Mayor Pete go and some others genuinely think Biden is the best shot, even before the SC primary. All of them are dedicated and regular Dem voters.
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:32 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:32 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
The world is burning, people are starving, and we have concentration camps in America. I don't for a minute begrudge people for their sense of urgency.
But when you have an option of 3 destinations, and you spend most of your time haranguing the folks who agree with your choice of destination because they've taking a different road than you'd like...your priorities are out of line.
At this point, the 4 big candidates are Bloomberg, Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Somehow despite Warren making her entire political career about sticking it to big business, banks, and billionaires, there's a core of Sanders supporters who think she's staying in it to hand the nomination over to a billionaire or a former senator beholden to big business and banks.
This is the claptrap that people complain about. Get mad, get passionate. But don't get so blinded that you let "they're moving too slow" turn into "they're all the same and holding us back."
posted by explosion at 10:32 AM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
But when you have an option of 3 destinations, and you spend most of your time haranguing the folks who agree with your choice of destination because they've taking a different road than you'd like...your priorities are out of line.
At this point, the 4 big candidates are Bloomberg, Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Somehow despite Warren making her entire political career about sticking it to big business, banks, and billionaires, there's a core of Sanders supporters who think she's staying in it to hand the nomination over to a billionaire or a former senator beholden to big business and banks.
This is the claptrap that people complain about. Get mad, get passionate. But don't get so blinded that you let "they're moving too slow" turn into "they're all the same and holding us back."
posted by explosion at 10:32 AM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
Mod note: comments removed -- feel free to repost accurately?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
But don't get so blinded that you let "they're moving too slow" turn into "they're all the same and holding us back."
When it comes to Warren, I agree with you. When it comes to Biden or Bloomberg, it's "they aren't just moving too slow, they're actively turning us around, driving backwards for 65 years, stealing the car, then fencing it to people who actively mean us harm."
posted by FakeFreyja at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
When it comes to Warren, I agree with you. When it comes to Biden or Bloomberg, it's "they aren't just moving too slow, they're actively turning us around, driving backwards for 65 years, stealing the car, then fencing it to people who actively mean us harm."
posted by FakeFreyja at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Amy Klobuchar Drops Out of Presidential Race and Plans to Endorse Biden
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Bad news for Sanders: the moderate Voltron is coming together
Good news for Sanders: this means Klobuchar didn't expect to win Minnesota
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:42 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Good news for Sanders: this means Klobuchar didn't expect to win Minnesota
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:42 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
I've heard the arguments about building momentum and getting your name out there a million times, but considering that around 2/3 of the New Hampshire delegates and around 1/3 of the Iowa delegates went to people who have already dropped out, I'm not sure what the point of having those states go at the very beginning achieved on that front. If we were all just waiting around for South Carolina since half the punditry has now decided that it's the only one of these early states that actually counts, maybe we should just let them go first and save us all the trouble of caring.
posted by Copronymus at 10:44 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 10:44 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
I wonder if Bloomberg's ego is too big for him to get in line and drop out with the rest?
posted by FakeFreyja at 10:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by FakeFreyja at 10:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
argybarg 45 years of being hated and dismissed by liberals who keep losing elections and capitulating to the right makes some people on the left a mite testy. I don't agree with the angry rhetoric but I sympathize with it.
Our ostensible allies seem to prefer to keep losing rather than let us have a scrap of power and seem to see negotiating with Republicans as a positive good but see negotiating with the left as an intolerable evil. It's easy to get angry at liberals after even a few years of that and for most on the left they've taken that abuse for their whole lives.
Maybe if they don't want the left to be angry the liberals should treat the left as something other than a hated enemy who they also shake down for campaign contributions and demand votes from?
"Hi we're the Democratic center! We hate your guts and will never give you respect, power, or a seat at the table, but vote blue no matter who or its your fault when Trump wins!"
That's not a message you can reasonably expect to make the left not angry with liberals. I disagree with the language being used, but I feel the anger that produces that language myself. 45 damn years of endless liberal failure and they still can't admit they're fucking up and listen to us for a change. They're about to anoint a guy who makes Al Gore look charismatic and when he inevitably loses guess who they'll blame? The left of course.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
Our ostensible allies seem to prefer to keep losing rather than let us have a scrap of power and seem to see negotiating with Republicans as a positive good but see negotiating with the left as an intolerable evil. It's easy to get angry at liberals after even a few years of that and for most on the left they've taken that abuse for their whole lives.
Maybe if they don't want the left to be angry the liberals should treat the left as something other than a hated enemy who they also shake down for campaign contributions and demand votes from?
"Hi we're the Democratic center! We hate your guts and will never give you respect, power, or a seat at the table, but vote blue no matter who or its your fault when Trump wins!"
That's not a message you can reasonably expect to make the left not angry with liberals. I disagree with the language being used, but I feel the anger that produces that language myself. 45 damn years of endless liberal failure and they still can't admit they're fucking up and listen to us for a change. They're about to anoint a guy who makes Al Gore look charismatic and when he inevitably loses guess who they'll blame? The left of course.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
Amy Klobuchar Drops Out of Presidential Race and Plans to Endorse Biden
Preceded by events from last night: Klobuchar’s Rally Cancelled After BLM Protesters Storm The Stage Over Murder Case
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:52 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Preceded by events from last night: Klobuchar’s Rally Cancelled After BLM Protesters Storm The Stage Over Murder Case
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:52 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well, Bloomberg has until 12:00pm tonight ... 7:00 am west coast time I guess when polls open. He’s talked about contesting the convention though and plans on it, so I imagine he’ll stay in if he can get at least some delegates..,
posted by eagles123 at 10:52 AM on March 2, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 10:52 AM on March 2, 2020
Imagine if Bloomberg spent $500 million and dropped out before he was ever on a ballot...
posted by sallybrown at 10:56 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:56 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
The thought of Biden with Bloomberg's money behind him makes me nauseous. It might actually be better to have him stay in the race pissing it away on his vanity campaign.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I wonder if Bloomberg's ego is too big for him to get in line and drop out with the rest?
Bloomberg hasn't been on a ballot yet. His entire strategy was to be big on Super Tuesday.
posted by Etrigan at 10:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Bloomberg hasn't been on a ballot yet. His entire strategy was to be big on Super Tuesday.
posted by Etrigan at 10:57 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
sallybrown: Imagine if Bloomberg spent $500 million and dropped out before he was ever on a ballot...
Of his $65 BILLION net worth (NY Post, Feb. 20, 2020), that would be a 0.77% drop in his wealth, assuming it's not a series of tax write-offs, or spun for financial gain a la Trump hosting events at Trump facilities.
He'd be out less than 1% of his net wealth, or a small gamble that could result in a big pay-out.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:00 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Of his $65 BILLION net worth (NY Post, Feb. 20, 2020), that would be a 0.77% drop in his wealth, assuming it's not a series of tax write-offs, or spun for financial gain a la Trump hosting events at Trump facilities.
He'd be out less than 1% of his net wealth, or a small gamble that could result in a big pay-out.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:00 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
I’d love to be wrong, but I think some of us might be overestimating how many people saw/remember the Nevada debate and underestimating the power of massive saturation advertising. Bloomberg could do pretty well tomorrow.
posted by theodolite at 11:01 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 11:01 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is what infuriates me about a particular strain of lefty dead-ender-ism. It's not worth voting for Biden because his plans aren't good enough to solve the problems, they're just a Band-Aid! The only acceptable path forward is Sanders' plan, which is also not enough to solve the problem, but at least it's a "meaningful" half measure! Suddenly harm mitigation is worth considering again!
That's because there are climate phenomena known as "tipping points" that will cause cataclysmic damage even with centrist slow walking on climate change. I strongly believe in harm reduction, but that harm mitigation starts with significant action.
posted by Ouverture at 11:03 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
That's because there are climate phenomena known as "tipping points" that will cause cataclysmic damage even with centrist slow walking on climate change. I strongly believe in harm reduction, but that harm mitigation starts with significant action.
posted by Ouverture at 11:03 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
I mean ffs the clock on my office elevator’s LCD screen was sponsored by Mike 2020 this morning.
posted by theodolite at 11:03 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 11:03 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
Bloomberg hasn't been on a ballot yet. His entire strategy was to be big on Super Tuesday.
Ah, good point.
I'm not too worried about the center-right coalition coming together though - Biden wins if Sanders doesn't get a majority, and these dropouts aren't going to affect potential Sanders voters too much.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:05 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ah, good point.
I'm not too worried about the center-right coalition coming together though - Biden wins if Sanders doesn't get a majority, and these dropouts aren't going to affect potential Sanders voters too much.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:05 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
The thought of Biden with Bloomberg's money behind him makes me nauseous. It might actually be better to have him stay in the race pissing it away on his vanity campaign.
Bloomberg staying in is probably best for Sanders for Super Tuesday. Bloomberg and Biden are going to split their vote.
But after Super Tuesday, Bloomberg's relentless campaigning right to the convention will likely just damage Sanders.
posted by JackFlash at 11:07 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Bloomberg staying in is probably best for Sanders for Super Tuesday. Bloomberg and Biden are going to split their vote.
But after Super Tuesday, Bloomberg's relentless campaigning right to the convention will likely just damage Sanders.
posted by JackFlash at 11:07 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
theodolite: I mean ffs the clock on my office elevator’s LCD screen was sponsored by Mike 2020 this morning.
At least Mike spent some of his mocking Trump (ahead of a Trump rallies in Phoenix and Las Vegas, he paid for billboards that said “Donald Trump’s wall fell over,” “Donald Trump eats burnt steak. Mike Bloomberg likes his steak medium rare,” “Donald Trump has declared bankruptcy 6 times,” “Donald Trump went broke running a casino” and “Donald Trump lost the popular vote.”) in a way one can when they have enough money to not really need to worry about how or where to spend a limited war chest.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2020
At least Mike spent some of his mocking Trump (ahead of a Trump rallies in Phoenix and Las Vegas, he paid for billboards that said “Donald Trump’s wall fell over,” “Donald Trump eats burnt steak. Mike Bloomberg likes his steak medium rare,” “Donald Trump has declared bankruptcy 6 times,” “Donald Trump went broke running a casino” and “Donald Trump lost the popular vote.”) in a way one can when they have enough money to not really need to worry about how or where to spend a limited war chest.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2020
Getting very concerned about Warren splitting the progressive vote. I didn't expect the neoliberals to form a coalition before the left in this election. Why is she still in this?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
What happens to the early votes for candidates who have dropped out?
posted by Harry Caul at 11:10 AM on March 2, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 11:10 AM on March 2, 2020
Tipping points exist and we've already blown through them. Permafrost melting and the concomitant methane release is happening now. The Amazon is burning (under the supervision of a pro-burning-the-Amazon Brazil government) now. It was T-shirt weather in Antarctica last week. I just want somebody in power who believes any of this is actually happening and is open to the idea of adaptation.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:10 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:10 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
“Donald Trump eats burnt steak. Mike Bloomberg likes his steak medium rare,”
Imagine thinking this is an actual way to fight Trump or attract voters.
posted by Ouverture at 11:11 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Imagine thinking this is an actual way to fight Trump or attract voters.
posted by Ouverture at 11:11 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Getting very concerned about Warren fracturing the progressive vote. I didn't expect the neoliberals to form a coalition before the left in this election. Why is she still in this?
If a lot of your opponents are bailing, why wouldn’t you stick around and see if you can move up?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
If a lot of your opponents are bailing, why wouldn’t you stick around and see if you can move up?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
Imagine thinking this is an actual way to fight Trump or attract voters.
Imagine living in a time where candidates are mocking one another based on how they each fared in their multi-billion dollar investments.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Imagine living in a time where candidates are mocking one another based on how they each fared in their multi-billion dollar investments.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:13 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
What happens to the early votes for candidates who have dropped out?
For early voters, those votes still count. And their names will still be on the ballot for those voting Tuesday.
posted by JackFlash at 11:13 AM on March 2, 2020
For early voters, those votes still count. And their names will still be on the ballot for those voting Tuesday.
posted by JackFlash at 11:13 AM on March 2, 2020
Getting very concerned about Warren splitting the progressive vote. I didn't expect the neoliberals to form a coalition before the left in this election. Why is she still in this?
To split the vote and cause a contested convention, where she either gets the nod or wrings out some consideration for her support.
posted by kafziel at 11:14 AM on March 2, 2020
To split the vote and cause a contested convention, where she either gets the nod or wrings out some consideration for her support.
posted by kafziel at 11:14 AM on March 2, 2020
But the power of the votes have been suddenly trashed by their candidates?
posted by Harry Caul at 11:15 AM on March 2, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 11:15 AM on March 2, 2020
Why is she still in this?
Fewer than 3% of the delegates have yet been pledged.
She got a huge surge of support after Nevada that couldn't really be parlayed into SC because Biden had already put all his eggs into that basket, so she spread her efforts into Super Tuesday states.
She's made her entire political career about fighting billionaires, big business, and banks. She's one of four serious candidates left, and to her right are an actual billionaire, and a former Senator of Delaware (home of banks and big business).
She can peel votes from "centrist" voters and form a coalition with Sanders, if not win some states outright.
posted by explosion at 11:15 AM on March 2, 2020 [25 favorites]
Fewer than 3% of the delegates have yet been pledged.
She got a huge surge of support after Nevada that couldn't really be parlayed into SC because Biden had already put all his eggs into that basket, so she spread her efforts into Super Tuesday states.
She's made her entire political career about fighting billionaires, big business, and banks. She's one of four serious candidates left, and to her right are an actual billionaire, and a former Senator of Delaware (home of banks and big business).
She can peel votes from "centrist" voters and form a coalition with Sanders, if not win some states outright.
posted by explosion at 11:15 AM on March 2, 2020 [25 favorites]
If you and your opponent both love the idea of a wealth-controlled police state where minorities can be stripped of their rights and poor people are treated like serfs, I guess it makes sense that one's vote comes down to a personal preference for how steak should be cooked.
"Hmm, both these far-right boots look great to me. Guess I gotta decide on whether they think a hotdog is a sandwich."
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
"Hmm, both these far-right boots look great to me. Guess I gotta decide on whether they think a hotdog is a sandwich."
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
It has been genuinely interesting to see the narratives unfold on my different social medias. Metafilter seems to lean pretty Bernie, one of my SM groups leans pretty Warren
It's interesting how these things shift. I thought there was a lot of hostility towards Bernie here in 2016-2017. Now it seems like Sanders supporters (including myself) are frequently the most dominant faction in the election threads.
I would have guessed Warren would be the most popular MeFi candidate and she might still be though I'm guessing that has been diminished by her limited success in the primary thus far. I think support pretty clearly drops off sharply after those two, at least as far as support people are willing to express openly.
posted by atoxyl at 11:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
It's interesting how these things shift. I thought there was a lot of hostility towards Bernie here in 2016-2017. Now it seems like Sanders supporters (including myself) are frequently the most dominant faction in the election threads.
I would have guessed Warren would be the most popular MeFi candidate and she might still be though I'm guessing that has been diminished by her limited success in the primary thus far. I think support pretty clearly drops off sharply after those two, at least as far as support people are willing to express openly.
posted by atoxyl at 11:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Everyone in this discussion agrees that climate change is an emergency of unprecedented proportions. The question is means. A maximalist, all-or-nothing approach might work, or might never gain political traction. More collaborative approaches might work, or might dissipate.
But "climate change is an emergency" is not an automatic endorsement of either approach.
posted by argybarg at 11:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
But "climate change is an emergency" is not an automatic endorsement of either approach.
posted by argybarg at 11:18 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
All of the arguments for Warren staying in were already made by Bernie Sanders four years ago, including the part where he was aiming for a result other than electing the winner with the majority of pledged delegates. We need not repeat them here again.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:19 AM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:19 AM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
Reuters: Pete Buttigieg plans to endorse Joe Biden in Democratic primary
posted by Rust Moranis at 11:20 AM on March 2, 2020
posted by Rust Moranis at 11:20 AM on March 2, 2020
in re: Bloomberg saturation. Yet another mailer and this one stood apart, as it features an endorsement from my own congressperson.
I called the local office to verify (as previous mail has been... creative), and office staff directed me to call the Bloomberg campaign to confirm whether or not my rep was endorsing this candidate. A follow-up email message at the congressperson's .gov page went unanswered. (My rep is on the ballot this year, too.)
PS Rep. Ayanna Pressley is campaigning for Warren. (TheRoot.com, Feb. 29, 2020)
On preview, what's Pete getting? Secretary of Veterans Affairs?
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:22 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I called the local office to verify (as previous mail has been... creative), and office staff directed me to call the Bloomberg campaign to confirm whether or not my rep was endorsing this candidate. A follow-up email message at the congressperson's .gov page went unanswered. (My rep is on the ballot this year, too.)
PS Rep. Ayanna Pressley is campaigning for Warren. (TheRoot.com, Feb. 29, 2020)
On preview, what's Pete getting? Secretary of Veterans Affairs?
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:22 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Why is she still in this?
Because she's a smart, determined, excellent candidate, and with Amy out, the only woman left in the race.
posted by Flannery Culp at 11:23 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
Because she's a smart, determined, excellent candidate, and with Amy out, the only woman left in the race.
posted by Flannery Culp at 11:23 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
Reuters: Pete Buttigieg plans to endorse Joe Biden in Democratic primary
The only LGBTQ candidate endorses the guy who voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Jesus wept.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:24 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
The only LGBTQ candidate endorses the guy who voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Jesus wept.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:24 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
More likely some sweet lobbying gigs and corporate board seats.
posted by eagles123 at 11:24 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 11:24 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
She can peel votes from "centrist" voters and form a coalition with Sanders
From what I've seen bandied about, she's staying in as part of the effort to blunt Sanders' momentum and is aiming at forming a coalition with Biden rather than Sanders. I just don't know if that's based on an actual source, just rumors, or if it's pure speculation though.
'Cause I would like it if Warren's strategy is to stay in the race and then later throw her support behind Bernie for VP or some other seat in his admin. But is there any evidence one way or the other?
posted by VTX at 11:25 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
From what I've seen bandied about, she's staying in as part of the effort to blunt Sanders' momentum and is aiming at forming a coalition with Biden rather than Sanders. I just don't know if that's based on an actual source, just rumors, or if it's pure speculation though.
'Cause I would like it if Warren's strategy is to stay in the race and then later throw her support behind Bernie for VP or some other seat in his admin. But is there any evidence one way or the other?
posted by VTX at 11:25 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
On preview, what's Pete getting? Secretary of Veterans Affairs?
Mostly he gets to keep the friends he made along the way.
posted by Copronymus at 11:25 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mostly he gets to keep the friends he made along the way.
posted by Copronymus at 11:25 AM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
All of the arguments for Warren staying in were already made by Bernie Sanders four years ago, including the part where he was aiming for a result other than electing the winner with the majority of pledged delegates. We need not repeat them here again.
You need not, but there is fundamentally a different dynamic between dropping out of what is effectively a two-person race and a multi-person race.
Sanders couldn't change the math except by appeal to something beyond the math. Warren is obviously changing the math with her presence in the race. Maybe she wants to for whatever purposes, maybe she doesn't, but she is.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:27 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
You need not, but there is fundamentally a different dynamic between dropping out of what is effectively a two-person race and a multi-person race.
Sanders couldn't change the math except by appeal to something beyond the math. Warren is obviously changing the math with her presence in the race. Maybe she wants to for whatever purposes, maybe she doesn't, but she is.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:27 AM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
From what I've seen bandied about, she's staying in as part of the effort to blunt Sanders' momentum and is aiming at forming a coalition with Biden rather than Sanders. I just don't know if that's based on an actual source, just rumors, or if it's pure speculation though.
I'm pretty sure the "she's not a real progressive" stuff is just troll nonsense. I wouldn't spread this around too much unless she were to actually go to the dark side.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:28 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
I'm pretty sure the "she's not a real progressive" stuff is just troll nonsense. I wouldn't spread this around too much unless she were to actually go to the dark side.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:28 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Even the billionaire backers would probably like Buttigieg to have political exp. beyond mayor of South Bend.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:29 AM on March 2, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:29 AM on March 2, 2020
We don't know Warren's motivations. But the practical effect of her staying in the race now is to split the progressive vote and make a Biden victory more likely. That will have really big implications, to put it mildly, and in my opinion, electing a moderate with tons of baggage (Iraq War??!) who is clearly suffering is going to have a hard time beating Trump.
This could all be moot by the end of the day today, there's a chance she may still drop out.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:32 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
This could all be moot by the end of the day today, there's a chance she may still drop out.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:32 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
It does look to me like the moderate "lane" is still larger than the other one. Biden+Bloomberg seems clearly bigger than Sanders+Warren, and it's not clear that all of Warren's people would go to Sanders instead of Biden.
posted by Justinian at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2020
posted by Justinian at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2020
If Gabbard drops out before Warren, then Warren would be the only woman and also the youngest candidate (at age 70).
posted by mbrubeck at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by mbrubeck at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
> We don't know Warren's motivations. But the practical effect of her staying in the race now is to split the progressive vote and make a Biden victory more likely.
I think people are dramatically overestimating people voting based on "progressive" or "centrist" buckets. Prior to Buttigieg dropping out, my preference was Warren - Buttigieg - Sanders. I have family members voting for Warren who would go to Biden before Sanders.
posted by No One Ever Does at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
I think people are dramatically overestimating people voting based on "progressive" or "centrist" buckets. Prior to Buttigieg dropping out, my preference was Warren - Buttigieg - Sanders. I have family members voting for Warren who would go to Biden before Sanders.
posted by No One Ever Does at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
And this is why we need a single nationwide ranked-choice primary day. Can we at least let the non-billionaire, non-misogynist, non-senile candidate get through Super Tuesday before writing her off and exhorting her to drop out based on a few small states?
posted by Flannery Culp at 11:36 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 11:36 AM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
The only LGBTQ candidate endorses the guy who voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Jesus wept.
It's a striking example of class as a form of identity.
posted by Ouverture at 11:38 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
It's a striking example of class as a form of identity.
posted by Ouverture at 11:38 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
It’s not based on a few small states, it’s also based on polling data and constituencies and projections. There’s almost no chance Warren wins the nomination. That is a fact.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:41 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:41 AM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Bernie boosters boldly browbeat ‘Bess backers—“Bail before balloting begins! Beware benefiting Biden!” Ballot breakdown baked-in?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:41 AM on March 2, 2020 [21 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:41 AM on March 2, 2020 [21 favorites]
cjelli:
The only thing that would help would be a shared agreement to think the best of the motives of everyone here; to be rigorous about the language of inclusion and learning rather than resentment and revenge; and to avoid artificial schisms at all cost.
There's no way to enforce that, except to have it as a common hope.
posted by argybarg at 11:43 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
The only thing that would help would be a shared agreement to think the best of the motives of everyone here; to be rigorous about the language of inclusion and learning rather than resentment and revenge; and to avoid artificial schisms at all cost.
There's no way to enforce that, except to have it as a common hope.
posted by argybarg at 11:43 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
The only LGBTQ candidate endorses the guy who voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Jesus wept.
If LGBTQ people held grudges against people for things they did 25 years ago, it'd be impossible for us to have a coalition of any size.
posted by No One Ever Does at 11:44 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
If LGBTQ people held grudges against people for things they did 25 years ago, it'd be impossible for us to have a coalition of any size.
posted by No One Ever Does at 11:44 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
My take is that people post on message boards for a variety of reasons: boredom, intellectual interest, anxiety relief, to gain a sense of control...
I think it’s pretty rare that minds get changed when two entrenched sides engaged, particularly when the subject is politics, particularly in a place like this...
I statements and personal experience are the best way to change minds in my view, and I’m pretty sure strong statements in one direction are more likely to produce opposing statements than messages of agreement
posted by eagles123 at 11:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think it’s pretty rare that minds get changed when two entrenched sides engaged, particularly when the subject is politics, particularly in a place like this...
I statements and personal experience are the best way to change minds in my view, and I’m pretty sure strong statements in one direction are more likely to produce opposing statements than messages of agreement
posted by eagles123 at 11:48 AM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
TBH I think Mayor Pete did his volunteers and small donors a HUGE disservice by dropping out before Super Tuesday.
I think Warren is smart to hang in there until then. It's almost here, and it's weird to drop out like two days beforehand when you have pledged delegates and have, in the past, done well in polling. I thought the same thing about Bernie back in the day, FTR.
Only if you see the race as a zero-sum game where you winning is good and everything else is equally bad. Buttigeig does not want a socialist on the ticket, as one could tell from his non-victory speech on Saturday. In addition, Biden's nomination would open up the political patronage jobs that are common in the modern Democratic Party while Sanders would probably staff his administration with either experts or activists. Mayor Pete wants to live in a West Wing world, not a earnest social democracy.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:50 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
I think Warren is smart to hang in there until then. It's almost here, and it's weird to drop out like two days beforehand when you have pledged delegates and have, in the past, done well in polling. I thought the same thing about Bernie back in the day, FTR.
Only if you see the race as a zero-sum game where you winning is good and everything else is equally bad. Buttigeig does not want a socialist on the ticket, as one could tell from his non-victory speech on Saturday. In addition, Biden's nomination would open up the political patronage jobs that are common in the modern Democratic Party while Sanders would probably staff his administration with either experts or activists. Mayor Pete wants to live in a West Wing world, not a earnest social democracy.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:50 AM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
If LGBTQ people held grudges against people for things they did 25 years ago, it'd be impossible for us to have a coalition of any size.
In my years working in LGBTQ activism, I also saw very different tendencies among wealthy white gay cis men and who they were comfortable working with compared to everyone else, particularly working class/poor queer/trans people of color.
Probably a good litmus test is one's reaction to cops participating in Pride.
posted by Ouverture at 11:50 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
In my years working in LGBTQ activism, I also saw very different tendencies among wealthy white gay cis men and who they were comfortable working with compared to everyone else, particularly working class/poor queer/trans people of color.
Probably a good litmus test is one's reaction to cops participating in Pride.
posted by Ouverture at 11:50 AM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
But no one should be expected to hurt themselves to help someone else, and who knows? She might pull it out before then. It's not impossible.
I do take issue with this because ultimately, no one in the race is there to help themselves. They are competing for public service and no one is owed a chance to do a job wisely. They may all think the best thing to happen to themselves is to win, but Warren's (and Sanders' and Biden's) job is to hurt themselves for the good of the people, even if it means someone else wins rather than them.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:52 AM on March 2, 2020
I do take issue with this because ultimately, no one in the race is there to help themselves. They are competing for public service and no one is owed a chance to do a job wisely. They may all think the best thing to happen to themselves is to win, but Warren's (and Sanders' and Biden's) job is to hurt themselves for the good of the people, even if it means someone else wins rather than them.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:52 AM on March 2, 2020
Mod note: Hi! You don't have a 🔮, don't act like you do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:53 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:53 AM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
Is that a purple submarine?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:59 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:59 AM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
The only LGBTQ candidate endorses the guy who voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell
I was in the US military before, during, and after Don't Ask Don't Tell was the law of the land, and I don't know where this collective idea came from that DADT was a step backward in LGBT rights. Before DADT, you could be kicked out of the US military because someone thought you were gay. DADT was a shitty policy, but it replaced a far shittier policy, and no one who voted for DADT in 1994 did so instead of equality.
posted by Etrigan at 12:01 PM on March 2, 2020 [24 favorites]
I was in the US military before, during, and after Don't Ask Don't Tell was the law of the land, and I don't know where this collective idea came from that DADT was a step backward in LGBT rights. Before DADT, you could be kicked out of the US military because someone thought you were gay. DADT was a shitty policy, but it replaced a far shittier policy, and no one who voted for DADT in 1994 did so instead of equality.
posted by Etrigan at 12:01 PM on March 2, 2020 [24 favorites]
Is that a purple submarine?
It is a crystal ball. Posting here with 100% certitude that you know what is going to happen on Tuesday insults all of our intelligences and should be avoided. The always-on mods are trying to be cool about having an almost-megathread about the election because they know people want to talk about it, but everyone has to pitch in and not make this thread all the terrible things which are the reasons we don't have megathreads anymore (nominally).
posted by jessamyn at 12:04 PM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
It is a crystal ball. Posting here with 100% certitude that you know what is going to happen on Tuesday insults all of our intelligences and should be avoided. The always-on mods are trying to be cool about having an almost-megathread about the election because they know people want to talk about it, but everyone has to pitch in and not make this thread all the terrible things which are the reasons we don't have megathreads anymore (nominally).
posted by jessamyn at 12:04 PM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
One thing to remember about tomorrow's results - California is, as we well know, the big prize tomorrow. If Biden wipes out in CA, he's likely done (I don't think he's going to, though.) But California is also slow to finish counting ballots and in the past there have been a significant amount of ballots outstanding after election night counts are in. So... we may not know what we're getting out of CA for days or even weeks.
posted by azpenguin at 12:12 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 12:12 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Now it seems like Sanders supporters (including myself) are frequently the most dominant faction in the election threads. I would have guessed Warren would be the most popular MeFi candidate and she might still be though I'm guessing that has been diminished by her limited success in the primary thus far.
There's a positive feedback loop going on, I think. The more visible support there is for a particular candidate, the more comfortable supporters of that candidate feel about talking, which maintains the visibility of support. That loop means that there's no way to judge just by the discussion... You don't actually know that Warren isn't the most popular MeFi candidate.
Many times, I disagree with something posted (or more often, think it insufficiently nuanced) but don't have time to answer all comers about it myself, and I don't expect there to be any other Warren supporters around to help. And that's just for me, a Warren supporter... imagine how supporters of Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Biden, etc. feel.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:21 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
There's a positive feedback loop going on, I think. The more visible support there is for a particular candidate, the more comfortable supporters of that candidate feel about talking, which maintains the visibility of support. That loop means that there's no way to judge just by the discussion... You don't actually know that Warren isn't the most popular MeFi candidate.
Many times, I disagree with something posted (or more often, think it insufficiently nuanced) but don't have time to answer all comers about it myself, and I don't expect there to be any other Warren supporters around to help. And that's just for me, a Warren supporter... imagine how supporters of Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Biden, etc. feel.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:21 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
As others have pointed out, there is a huge strategic difference between Bloomberg or Warren staying in now vs Sanders staying in when his loss to Clinton was foregone. Bloomberg is splitting the center and helping Sanders, and Warren is splitting the left and helping Biden. The dynamics are totally different when it's three or four candidates vs when it was two, when Sanders staying in had no electoral effect, just some marginal convention platform stuff.
That said, I think the ranked-choice polling has been somewhat mistaken so far; it's not just that the ideological lanes aren't coherent, but worse for the left, the majority of movement and defection has been to the non-Sanders side.
One illuminating chart I've seen is this chart of Warren's support over time. Most of her recent support loss has been from the non-Sanders faction, and at this point at best half of her support may go to Sanders. So if she stays in through Super Tuesday and bequeaths her delegates to Sanders that may help him more than if she dropped out. But that depends on 15% thresholds and a bunch of other stuff, so in this as in so many things, who can say? The one thing that does seem fairly consistent, though, is that she has not been gaining non-Sanders support as Biden has declined or the various minor candidates dropped out, so there is little reason to think that she will gain more than a small percentage of Buttigieg or Klobuchar supporters, or Bloomberg's if/when he drops out.
On the other hand, Bloomberg staying in clearly and unambiguously hurts Biden, so anyone in the left faction should support Bloomberg sticking it out.
posted by chortly at 12:22 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
That said, I think the ranked-choice polling has been somewhat mistaken so far; it's not just that the ideological lanes aren't coherent, but worse for the left, the majority of movement and defection has been to the non-Sanders side.
One illuminating chart I've seen is this chart of Warren's support over time. Most of her recent support loss has been from the non-Sanders faction, and at this point at best half of her support may go to Sanders. So if she stays in through Super Tuesday and bequeaths her delegates to Sanders that may help him more than if she dropped out. But that depends on 15% thresholds and a bunch of other stuff, so in this as in so many things, who can say? The one thing that does seem fairly consistent, though, is that she has not been gaining non-Sanders support as Biden has declined or the various minor candidates dropped out, so there is little reason to think that she will gain more than a small percentage of Buttigieg or Klobuchar supporters, or Bloomberg's if/when he drops out.
On the other hand, Bloomberg staying in clearly and unambiguously hurts Biden, so anyone in the left faction should support Bloomberg sticking it out.
posted by chortly at 12:22 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
The only LGBTQ candidate endorses the guy who voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Jesus wept.
I don't support Biden. However, he stated support for marriage equality before Obama. One could argue he lended his support as a way to test the waters for Obama's later change of opinion, but the fact remains that Biden was the first executive-level Democrat to give support for my rights. Somehow, even with Buttigieg out of the race, he's still not the right kind of gay. It's getting to be a bit of an ugly side to this site and not something it is managing well.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:28 PM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
I don't support Biden. However, he stated support for marriage equality before Obama. One could argue he lended his support as a way to test the waters for Obama's later change of opinion, but the fact remains that Biden was the first executive-level Democrat to give support for my rights. Somehow, even with Buttigieg out of the race, he's still not the right kind of gay. It's getting to be a bit of an ugly side to this site and not something it is managing well.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:28 PM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
Biden Apologizes to Obama for Jumping the Gay-Marriage Gun (Vanity Fair, May 11, 2012) Further details about Gaffoon-gate! One: it now seems as if Joe Biden’s endorsement of gay marriage a few days before that of the president was not a trial balloon. Two: this information, sadly, alleviates the need for the wonderful neologism “gaffoon.” Three: we’re going to keep using “gaffoon.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:32 PM on March 2, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:32 PM on March 2, 2020
> As others have pointed out, there is a huge strategic difference between Bloomberg or Warren staying in now vs Sanders staying in when his loss to Clinton was foregone.
Not by the standards that Bernie and his tribe evaluate others, there isn't. Once you start including caveats about how > 2 candidates in a first-past-the-post majority delegate count contest makes the calculus different in a pragmatic sense, then you lose the right to use charged rhetroric about subverting the democratic (*Janet boop* not actually democratic) process. Pragmatism for me but not for thee isn't a good look. In addition to this feat of situational ideological flexibility that other Democrats are constantly berated for espousing, such an argument also requires ignoring the fact that the harm done to the eventual nominee by staying in until mid July is much larger than the harm done by staying in... until Super Tuesday.
2016 was a very weird primary in that the field was moslty cleared by Clinton's immense political weight, but that doesn't mean primaries are expected to be wrapped up by March when there are more candidates.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Not by the standards that Bernie and his tribe evaluate others, there isn't. Once you start including caveats about how > 2 candidates in a first-past-the-post majority delegate count contest makes the calculus different in a pragmatic sense, then you lose the right to use charged rhetroric about subverting the democratic (*Janet boop* not actually democratic) process. Pragmatism for me but not for thee isn't a good look. In addition to this feat of situational ideological flexibility that other Democrats are constantly berated for espousing, such an argument also requires ignoring the fact that the harm done to the eventual nominee by staying in until mid July is much larger than the harm done by staying in... until Super Tuesday.
2016 was a very weird primary in that the field was moslty cleared by Clinton's immense political weight, but that doesn't mean primaries are expected to be wrapped up by March when there are more candidates.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Somehow, even with Buttigieg out of the race, he's still not the right kind of gay.
I've got a bunch of trans and queer friends (and I'm bi, myself), and nearly all of the criticism of Pete just didn't touch on his sexuality at all. There was so much other stuff to critique.
When people did mention it, it was mostly just that it was a conservative, predictable sort of "first gay" candidate in that he was white, cis, and heteronormative. The criticism was "gay, not queer," in that he didn't really have ties to the queer community, and he reminded queer folks of white, cis gay men who left the L,B,T, and Q folks behind the moment same-sex marriage was legalized.
It's not even so much a criticism of him as a criticism of his promoters who insist that we ought to be happy to see a gay candidate. We've endured decades of media portrayal of queer folks as villains, and our first gay/queer presidential candidate is...a villain?
As a private citizen, he can live his life however he likes. He's an individual, and as such, shouldn't be criticized too heavily in that regard. There's no wrong way to be gay. But when he's being promoted as a representative of the community, it'd be nice if he were more involved in the community, y'know?
posted by explosion at 12:44 PM on March 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
I've got a bunch of trans and queer friends (and I'm bi, myself), and nearly all of the criticism of Pete just didn't touch on his sexuality at all. There was so much other stuff to critique.
When people did mention it, it was mostly just that it was a conservative, predictable sort of "first gay" candidate in that he was white, cis, and heteronormative. The criticism was "gay, not queer," in that he didn't really have ties to the queer community, and he reminded queer folks of white, cis gay men who left the L,B,T, and Q folks behind the moment same-sex marriage was legalized.
It's not even so much a criticism of him as a criticism of his promoters who insist that we ought to be happy to see a gay candidate. We've endured decades of media portrayal of queer folks as villains, and our first gay/queer presidential candidate is...a villain?
As a private citizen, he can live his life however he likes. He's an individual, and as such, shouldn't be criticized too heavily in that regard. There's no wrong way to be gay. But when he's being promoted as a representative of the community, it'd be nice if he were more involved in the community, y'know?
posted by explosion at 12:44 PM on March 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
I'm a Warren supporter, with pretty good feelings about Sanders, and I really have a hard time seeing how Warren staying in the race is doing any meaningful damage to Sanders's shot at the nomination. If we get to the convention, and Sanders + Warren have a majority, with Sanders accounting for a bigger chunk of that majority than Warren, I would be beyond shocked if Warren didn't endorse him, in exchange for a bigger voice in the platform / administration. If Sanders + Warren don't have a majority, then what would Warren dropping out have achieved?
As long as she's still in the race I'll be voting for Warren because I think she'd be the best president, and because if the convention does end up contested I trust her campaign more than Bernie's to do its best to keep the party together. Unless I've thoroughly misjudged her character / position, there's no sense in which my vote makes it any harder for Bernie to get a majority of pledged delegates at the convention. It's neither my problem nor hers that he's decided to go all-in on the notion that having a simple plurality is necessary and sufficient to be The One True Nominee.
posted by rishabguha at 12:51 PM on March 2, 2020 [29 favorites]
As long as she's still in the race I'll be voting for Warren because I think she'd be the best president, and because if the convention does end up contested I trust her campaign more than Bernie's to do its best to keep the party together. Unless I've thoroughly misjudged her character / position, there's no sense in which my vote makes it any harder for Bernie to get a majority of pledged delegates at the convention. It's neither my problem nor hers that he's decided to go all-in on the notion that having a simple plurality is necessary and sufficient to be The One True Nominee.
posted by rishabguha at 12:51 PM on March 2, 2020 [29 favorites]
When people did mention it, it was mostly just that it was a conservative, predictable sort of "first gay" candidate in that he was white, cis, and heteronormative.
I don't see how he's heteronormative in any sense of the word. It seems like another way of saying that he's not the right sort of gay. He's also getting a less charitable read on his statements (which is the wrong word choice, since no one criticizing him on those issues seems to care about how he actually feels) on LGBTQ rights than I've seen any other candidate get.
posted by No One Ever Does at 12:59 PM on March 2, 2020
I don't see how he's heteronormative in any sense of the word. It seems like another way of saying that he's not the right sort of gay. He's also getting a less charitable read on his statements (which is the wrong word choice, since no one criticizing him on those issues seems to care about how he actually feels) on LGBTQ rights than I've seen any other candidate get.
posted by No One Ever Does at 12:59 PM on March 2, 2020
If Sanders + Warren don't have a majority, then what would Warren dropping out have achieved?
The worst scenario is that one of them gets 14% and the other one gets 36% in a bunch of states. Because of the 15% threshold, the result is that together they get 36% (or, rather, ~40%) of the delegates, rather than the 50% of delegates they would've gotten if all the votes had gone to one of them.
That precise scenario is an exaggerated version of what could happen, but it's the basic idea underlying calls for the candidate in the same presumptive "lane" with lower support to drop out.
posted by clawsoon at 1:04 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
The worst scenario is that one of them gets 14% and the other one gets 36% in a bunch of states. Because of the 15% threshold, the result is that together they get 36% (or, rather, ~40%) of the delegates, rather than the 50% of delegates they would've gotten if all the votes had gone to one of them.
That precise scenario is an exaggerated version of what could happen, but it's the basic idea underlying calls for the candidate in the same presumptive "lane" with lower support to drop out.
posted by clawsoon at 1:04 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
I really have a hard time seeing how Warren staying in the race is doing any meaningful damage to Sanders's shot at the nomination. If we get to the convention, and Sanders + Warren have a majority, with Sanders accounting for a bigger chunk of that majority than Warren, I would be beyond shocked if Warren didn't endorse him, in exchange for a bigger voice in the platform / administration.
If there was no effect of staying in apart from splitting the votes for a while, and then recombining them in the convention, then there would be no real harm in Bloomberg staying in or Warren staying in. But as we have seen, and as is baked into forecasting models such as 538's, this is a non-linear system: the non-Sanders vote being split in Iowa, NH, and NV meant that Sanders "won" or "tied" relative to the next-highest-vote-getting candidates, and that had a huge effect on Biden's real support levels. Had the centrist wing converged on Biden prior to Iowa, it's not just that he would have gotten those votes now compared to during the convention when everything consolidates anyway, it also had a feedback effect on his candidacy in the moment. If Bloomberg manages to split the centrist vote through June, it's not just that that side will reconsolidate in July, but that their continued "losses" to Sanders will feed back and increase defections to the "winner." In addition, the 15% threshold means that any time Bloomberg and Biden split things and one or both gets less than 15%, those delegates are effectively totally lost, with no chance to recoup in the convention.
And the same logic holds for the other side: if Warren staying led to Sanders "losing" the delegate count to Biden after Super Tuesday or sometime in later March, that will have a feedback effect as voters flock to the "winner" -- something that we've already seen, is well-established by past primaries, and is built into all models like 538's. That said, Warren has a much smaller percentage than Bloomberg and it looks like a smaller percentage of her supporters would go to Sanders than Bloomberg's to Biden, so her staying in on balance probably has a pretty small net effect.
posted by chortly at 1:09 PM on March 2, 2020
If there was no effect of staying in apart from splitting the votes for a while, and then recombining them in the convention, then there would be no real harm in Bloomberg staying in or Warren staying in. But as we have seen, and as is baked into forecasting models such as 538's, this is a non-linear system: the non-Sanders vote being split in Iowa, NH, and NV meant that Sanders "won" or "tied" relative to the next-highest-vote-getting candidates, and that had a huge effect on Biden's real support levels. Had the centrist wing converged on Biden prior to Iowa, it's not just that he would have gotten those votes now compared to during the convention when everything consolidates anyway, it also had a feedback effect on his candidacy in the moment. If Bloomberg manages to split the centrist vote through June, it's not just that that side will reconsolidate in July, but that their continued "losses" to Sanders will feed back and increase defections to the "winner." In addition, the 15% threshold means that any time Bloomberg and Biden split things and one or both gets less than 15%, those delegates are effectively totally lost, with no chance to recoup in the convention.
And the same logic holds for the other side: if Warren staying led to Sanders "losing" the delegate count to Biden after Super Tuesday or sometime in later March, that will have a feedback effect as voters flock to the "winner" -- something that we've already seen, is well-established by past primaries, and is built into all models like 538's. That said, Warren has a much smaller percentage than Bloomberg and it looks like a smaller percentage of her supporters would go to Sanders than Bloomberg's to Biden, so her staying in on balance probably has a pretty small net effect.
posted by chortly at 1:09 PM on March 2, 2020
The worst scenario is that one of them gets 14% and the other one gets 36% in a bunch of states. Because of the 15% threshold, the result is that together they get 36% (or, rather, ~40%) of the delegates, rather than the 50% of delegates they would've gotten if all the votes had gone to one of them.
Yeah, this is a reasonable point. I would just point out that Klobuchar + Buttigieg dropping out makes this scenario less likely on the margin, which makes the coordinated calls from Sanders people for Warren to drop out today seem suspect.
Additionally, it seems totally reasonable to think that Warren / her campaign are actually quite a bit leftier than her median voter---she shares voters / donors with Pete, Amy, and Kamala in a way Bernie just doesn't, and at this point much of her left flank sure looks like it's defected to Bernie. It's really not obvious to me that a Warren drop-out would see >50% of her voters go to Bernie, so at that point... I might as well just skip the punditry and support the candidate I think would make the best president.
posted by rishabguha at 1:13 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Yeah, this is a reasonable point. I would just point out that Klobuchar + Buttigieg dropping out makes this scenario less likely on the margin, which makes the coordinated calls from Sanders people for Warren to drop out today seem suspect.
Additionally, it seems totally reasonable to think that Warren / her campaign are actually quite a bit leftier than her median voter---she shares voters / donors with Pete, Amy, and Kamala in a way Bernie just doesn't, and at this point much of her left flank sure looks like it's defected to Bernie. It's really not obvious to me that a Warren drop-out would see >50% of her voters go to Bernie, so at that point... I might as well just skip the punditry and support the candidate I think would make the best president.
posted by rishabguha at 1:13 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Klobuchar and Buttigeig are not sticking it out to the convention to extract ideological concessions. Whatever reason they endorsed Biden, they felt dropping and endorsing now would be more effective for Biden than sticking it out.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:18 PM on March 2, 2020
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:18 PM on March 2, 2020
According to different parts of my social media, Warren is simultaneously laughably centrist/"used to be a Republican" but is also siphoning leftie votes from Bernie.
posted by nakedmolerats at 1:20 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 1:20 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
For what it’s worth, most polling I’ve seen had Sanders as the #2 choice of Warren supporters. But it’s not 100 percent. None of the candidates would draw more than a plurality from any other candidate from what I can tell. Sanders tends to have the least overlap with Buttigieg- for the most part. With the small sample sizes when you break things down in polling, values jump around a lot.
If Bloomberg dropped out and it was Sanders versus Biden versus Warren, that would be bad for Sanders and Warren though.
It’s worth mentioning that Sanders has won head to head in polling versus all of the other candidates for at least the past month. He also won a recent ranked choice voting poll from Fairvote.org. It was narrow versus Biden though: 49 Biden versus 51 Sanders in the head to head. Sanders continues to lead in the latest national polls as well, but Biden closed the gap. Biden is now in a strong second before factoring the effect of Klobuchar and Buttegeig dropping out.
posted by eagles123 at 1:22 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
If Bloomberg dropped out and it was Sanders versus Biden versus Warren, that would be bad for Sanders and Warren though.
It’s worth mentioning that Sanders has won head to head in polling versus all of the other candidates for at least the past month. He also won a recent ranked choice voting poll from Fairvote.org. It was narrow versus Biden though: 49 Biden versus 51 Sanders in the head to head. Sanders continues to lead in the latest national polls as well, but Biden closed the gap. Biden is now in a strong second before factoring the effect of Klobuchar and Buttegeig dropping out.
posted by eagles123 at 1:22 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm curious how much pressure Steyer, Buttigieg and Klobuchar were under to withdraw right away. I say that because I'm looking at the sudden flood of mainstream Dems coming out to endorse Biden. Looking at tomorrow night, we know that Bernie has been laying groundwork in California for a long time, and he's got a very active operation in the state. Biden... not so much. The more candidates there are in the field, the more fragmented the vote share gets. I don't think Biden gets wiped out in CA. However, if he were to somehow fall below the viability threshold because of the other candidates and Bernie took a Nevada size share of the vote, then his goose is cooked. There are so many delegates at stake and Biden can't let Sanders take a giant lead there; falling below viability could mean losing as much as 300 delegates worth of ground there. Stay within 50 or so and Biden might be able to work his way to a delegate lead within a week or two.
Regardless, this needs to be a situation that is handled carefully by the powerbrokers. If Bernie comes into the convention with a non-significant lead in delegates plus a lead in the popular vote, and Biden or someone else gets the nomination through a contested convention, there will be hell to pay. And most of that hell will be paid by vulnerable populations who will suffer at the hands of Trump.
posted by azpenguin at 2:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Regardless, this needs to be a situation that is handled carefully by the powerbrokers. If Bernie comes into the convention with a non-significant lead in delegates plus a lead in the popular vote, and Biden or someone else gets the nomination through a contested convention, there will be hell to pay. And most of that hell will be paid by vulnerable populations who will suffer at the hands of Trump.
posted by azpenguin at 2:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
I've been quiet because it hasn't felt like Warren supporters are particularly welcome. But I am here. I support Warren because I think she can beat Trump, I think she has the best plans, and I think she would be the best President. I am hopeful that she will still be in the race in 3 weeks because I would really like to vote for her in the Georgia primary. I have given up on crystal balls and n-dimensional chess type scheming--I just want to vote for the person I think is the best candidate.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:26 PM on March 2, 2020 [41 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 3:26 PM on March 2, 2020 [41 favorites]
A final plea to the wavering Warren voter, by @buttpraxis
Butt Praxis
@buttpraxis
Please, I know there’s a lot of mufos I respect who see something in Warren that I don’t. I don’t know what, but I know it means a lot to you. But the president is either going to be Bernie Sanders or some dude with a long history of touching women without permission. I’m begging
2:10 PM · Mar 2, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
I know it’s hard. I know it hurts. But we need you. America needs you. People are dying. If Bernie was in this position I’d be throwing everything behind Warren right now, even though the way she lied about her background still hurts me
You’re strong. You have a lot of persuasive power and a lot of people who trust you. You can be a deciding voice that will bring people over away from Biden or Trump. You can help flip TEXAS! You can save lives
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:38 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
Butt Praxis
@buttpraxis
Please, I know there’s a lot of mufos I respect who see something in Warren that I don’t. I don’t know what, but I know it means a lot to you. But the president is either going to be Bernie Sanders or some dude with a long history of touching women without permission. I’m begging
2:10 PM · Mar 2, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
I know it’s hard. I know it hurts. But we need you. America needs you. People are dying. If Bernie was in this position I’d be throwing everything behind Warren right now, even though the way she lied about her background still hurts me
You’re strong. You have a lot of persuasive power and a lot of people who trust you. You can be a deciding voice that will bring people over away from Biden or Trump. You can help flip TEXAS! You can save lives
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:38 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
I can't think of a worse scenario than for the party poobahs to weigh in for Biden and then tomorrow for him to fall flat.
Wait, yes I can: Biden and Trump doing performance art dueling wordsalad in the 2020 debates.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:44 PM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Wait, yes I can: Biden and Trump doing performance art dueling wordsalad in the 2020 debates.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:44 PM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Oh, Well, if Butt Praxis on Twitter says that Joe Biden is the same as Donald Trump in his treatment of women, then I'll vote for Bernie over the woman!
posted by Reverend John at 3:46 PM on March 2, 2020 [27 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 3:46 PM on March 2, 2020 [27 favorites]
Thanks, but I'm an unwavering Warren voter.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:47 PM on March 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 3:47 PM on March 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
I'm curious how much pressure Steyer, Buttigieg and Klobuchar were under to withdraw right away.
I’m imagining a lot of teary moneyed desperate calls.
posted by Harry Caul at 3:51 PM on March 2, 2020
I’m imagining a lot of teary moneyed desperate calls.
posted by Harry Caul at 3:51 PM on March 2, 2020
Looking at tomorrow night, we know that Bernie has been laying groundwork in California for a long time, and he's got a very active operation in the state. Biden... not so much. The more candidates there are in the field, the more fragmented the vote share gets. I don't think Biden gets wiped out in CA.
According to the 538 tracking poll for California as of March 1:
Sanders: 34.3%
Biden: 20.4%
Warren: 15.6%
Bloomberg: 13.2%
posted by kirkaracha at 4:01 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
According to the 538 tracking poll for California as of March 1:
Sanders: 34.3%
Biden: 20.4%
Warren: 15.6%
Bloomberg: 13.2%
posted by kirkaracha at 4:01 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Please, choose not to talk shit about each other. You're here talking to people you want to be talking to; stop it with the "you're illiterate if you think x" stuff.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:08 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:08 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Looks like Chris Mathews is the latest primary figure to depart the scene. Happy trails Chris. I’ll pour out a cold one for you and think of ol’ Tip O’Neil.
posted by eagles123 at 4:32 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by eagles123 at 4:32 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
In a little over 24 hours from now, I may well be receptive to a "Warren has no realistic path to the nomination" argument. I am decidedly not receptive to it now, with less than 4% of the delegates allocated, and people who are trying to convince me otherwise today are not making me feel warmly towards their candidate. (Although it's largely academic since I don't get a vote until May 5.)
If it reaches the point where Biden is in the lead and has the nomination locked up for practical purposes, one wonders how receptive those Bernie supporters making such an argument today will be to an analogous one.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:43 PM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
If it reaches the point where Biden is in the lead and has the nomination locked up for practical purposes, one wonders how receptive those Bernie supporters making such an argument today will be to an analogous one.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:43 PM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
Jonathan Martin of the NYT is reporting in the NYT liveblog that Beto O’Rourke is also endorsing Biden tonight in Texas. (Says a lot about how far Beto has fallen that it didn’t even occur to me to wonder if he would endorse someone before Texas votes. He really should have run for Senate again...)
posted by sallybrown at 4:44 PM on March 2, 2020
posted by sallybrown at 4:44 PM on March 2, 2020
My final plea to the wavering Warren voter: she's electable if you fucking vote for her.
posted by Flannery Culp at 4:50 PM on March 2, 2020 [44 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 4:50 PM on March 2, 2020 [44 favorites]
I hope Warren gets delegates in my state. It's a wee bit early to say she's out of the running. Even if she doesn't get the nod, I'm happy to help her get whatever delegates she can get, in order to help with horsetrading down the road. Her platform is solid and she has the smarts and organizational strength to see through what she proposes. I don't see a need to vote strategically at this juncture, nor do I think it is my business to dictate to others how they should vote, the way I've seen it done to me and other Warren supporters on various social platforms (this one, included).
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
Circle the wagons. Need to keep the socialist out.
I've just been talking to my family for the day. They're all women in Minnesota that were going to vote in the Warren/Klobuchar way tomorrow. I told them that no matter what, opposing Joe Biden is paramount to everything we can do. I said I understood whatever it is they do (my sister said that she would rationally support Sanders to stop Biden, but that she may irrationally vote for Warren because she just likes her too much to abandon her now). We talked about the poverty that we experienced growing up and how so much of the Democratic Party will choose moderate after moderate as long as nothing fundamentally changes.
I'm so emotionally worn from this news today. I'm hoping that Sanders lays down a sizable margin tomorrow and makes a lot of dropped candidates feel foolish about spending their endorsement on Joe fucking Biden.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:57 PM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
I've just been talking to my family for the day. They're all women in Minnesota that were going to vote in the Warren/Klobuchar way tomorrow. I told them that no matter what, opposing Joe Biden is paramount to everything we can do. I said I understood whatever it is they do (my sister said that she would rationally support Sanders to stop Biden, but that she may irrationally vote for Warren because she just likes her too much to abandon her now). We talked about the poverty that we experienced growing up and how so much of the Democratic Party will choose moderate after moderate as long as nothing fundamentally changes.
I'm so emotionally worn from this news today. I'm hoping that Sanders lays down a sizable margin tomorrow and makes a lot of dropped candidates feel foolish about spending their endorsement on Joe fucking Biden.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:57 PM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
Looks like Chris Mathews is the latest primary figure to depart the scene. Happy trails Chris. I’ll pour out a cold one for you and think of ol’ Tip O’Neil.
I'll get drunk on cheap wine, and remember all the times he burped on air and couldn't finish a sentence while shouting over an interviewee for the thousandth time.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'll get drunk on cheap wine, and remember all the times he burped on air and couldn't finish a sentence while shouting over an interviewee for the thousandth time.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Beto O'Rourke uncapping a sharpie and adding an asterisk to all of his Rage Against the Machine T-shirts:
*Actually, the Machine's not so bad after all!
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
*Actually, the Machine's not so bad after all!
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
Warren got Bloomberg to release women from their NDAs. She got Chris Matthews fired. That was all in the past 2 weeks. Imagine what she could do with 4 years to get shit done.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:00 PM on March 2, 2020 [46 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 5:00 PM on March 2, 2020 [46 favorites]
Somebody collected the results of a bunch of different second-choice-of-Buttigieg-voters polls - which I'm having trouble finding right now, apologies - and they were all dramatically different. One of them even had Sanders as the top second choice of Buttigieg voters. Without ranked choice ballots, nobody actually knows what the second choice of voters is, and it's even worse in this case than with the usual limitations of polling.
posted by clawsoon at 5:02 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 5:02 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Warren got Bloomberg to release women from their NDAs. She got Chris Matthews fired. That was all in the past 2 weeks. Imagine what she could do with 4 years to get shit done.
But the MSM hasn't and will never cover her. It's been a prerequisite fix against her.
But she's blazingly effective, again and again and again.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
But the MSM hasn't and will never cover her. It's been a prerequisite fix against her.
But she's blazingly effective, again and again and again.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
She got Chris Matthews fired.
I totally get the Bloomberg NDA release thing (kudos for that, Liz), but how does it figure with the Chris Matthews thing. Did I miss something? I thought it was mostly women like Lauren Bassett accusing him of harassing behavior combined with his recent freakouts over Bernie Sanders winning states (which I'm not going to credit Sanders for that; all he did was be a socialist that won).
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:07 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I totally get the Bloomberg NDA release thing (kudos for that, Liz), but how does it figure with the Chris Matthews thing. Did I miss something? I thought it was mostly women like Lauren Bassett accusing him of harassing behavior combined with his recent freakouts over Bernie Sanders winning states (which I'm not going to credit Sanders for that; all he did was be a socialist that won).
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:07 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
According to different parts of my social media, Warren is simultaneously laughably centrist/"used to be a Republican" but is also siphoning leftie votes from Bernie.
I think that phenomenon can explained by the fact that "leftie" is a very different thing from "leftist". I'm not sure where the term "leftie" came from, but to assume that anti-imperialist anti-capitalist leftists are the same thing as whatever "leftie" means is to erase a lot of really crucial differences between the two groups.
Warren can definitely siphon off leftie voters who might feel more comfortable with her reformist ideology while that same reformist position being unpalatable to a leftist who is dedicated to anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, and anti-racism.
posted by Ouverture at 5:12 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think that phenomenon can explained by the fact that "leftie" is a very different thing from "leftist". I'm not sure where the term "leftie" came from, but to assume that anti-imperialist anti-capitalist leftists are the same thing as whatever "leftie" means is to erase a lot of really crucial differences between the two groups.
Warren can definitely siphon off leftie voters who might feel more comfortable with her reformist ideology while that same reformist position being unpalatable to a leftist who is dedicated to anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, and anti-racism.
posted by Ouverture at 5:12 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Lord Chancellor, you missed: Chris Matthews Confronts Warren: Why Do You Believe a Woman Over Bloomberg? (The Daily Beast, Feb. 26, 2020)
The Massachusetts senator was left incredulous over Matthews’ line of questioning, but she fired back.
“Everybody deserves a credible response when they make a charge like that,” Matthews retorted. “My question, do you believe he’s lying?”
Warren replied that she believes the woman, prompting the MSNBC host to shoot back: “You believe he’s lying!”
“Why would he lie?” Matthews continued. “Because just to protect himself?”
Telling the MSNBC star “yeah,” an incredulous Warren then asked Matthews “Why would she lie?”—leaving the host briefly dumbstruck.
“I just want to make sure you’re clear about this,” Matthews said after recovering. “You’re confident of your accusation?”
--
This exchange features in Lauren Bassett's GQ article, pointedly titled: Like Warren, I Had My Own Sexist Run-In with Chris Matthews.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:25 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
The Massachusetts senator was left incredulous over Matthews’ line of questioning, but she fired back.
“Everybody deserves a credible response when they make a charge like that,” Matthews retorted. “My question, do you believe he’s lying?”
Warren replied that she believes the woman, prompting the MSNBC host to shoot back: “You believe he’s lying!”
“Why would he lie?” Matthews continued. “Because just to protect himself?”
Telling the MSNBC star “yeah,” an incredulous Warren then asked Matthews “Why would she lie?”—leaving the host briefly dumbstruck.
“I just want to make sure you’re clear about this,” Matthews said after recovering. “You’re confident of your accusation?”
--
This exchange features in Lauren Bassett's GQ article, pointedly titled: Like Warren, I Had My Own Sexist Run-In with Chris Matthews.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:25 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Chris Matthews under fire after pressing Warren on Bloomberg allegation
“Why Would He Lie?”
Elizabeth Warren’s deft approach to male bluster, as seen in a disastrous post-debate Chris Matthews interview on MSNBC.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:26 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
“Why Would He Lie?”
Elizabeth Warren’s deft approach to male bluster, as seen in a disastrous post-debate Chris Matthews interview on MSNBC.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:26 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
Ah, that makes more sense now. Yeah, Chris Matthews really shit the bed these last few weeks. I mean, he was always shitty, but he managed to be so shitty in such a short period of time that it finally got him fired. Good on Warren for confronting Matthews on always believing rich white male harassers.
Now that he's dropped out, I'm sure he'll endorse Biden tonight.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:30 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Now that he's dropped out, I'm sure he'll endorse Biden tonight.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:30 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Open FPP on Chris Matthews; per the man of twists and turns in that thread, Chris Matthews to Retire From MSNBC
posted by XMLicious at 5:36 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 5:36 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
oh dang i just gave more money to sanders how did that happen whoops.
but also: good luck all the warren folx out there. i hope you’re right and i’m wrong and warren can get comfortably above viability and we end up with some flavor of left unity ticket. it’s the best chance we have — i know sanders is right now polling above biden in a hypothetical one on one, but if the race resolves to that he’s going to be hurt by the media sandbagging him while propping up the shambling mess that is joe biden.
i know my “mom and dad are friends!!!” schtick is kind of obnoxious, but i stand by it. there’s two candidates who’ve been ratfucked by the media this time around — warren and sanders. both of them are worthy candidates and both of them would make fantastic presidents. warren could be fdr version 2 and sanders could be a genuine north american allende and i can’t stand the thought of neither of those candidates getting the nomination.
after super tuesday we’ll know for sure whether warren needs to cut bait. i suspect that the time is already here for that, but we just don’t know for sure, and that uncertainty is just deadly. if she tanks it tomorrow i am going to be so pissed, since this is decidedly not the decade to run this sort of risk without a reasonable expectation of the risk paying off. but she might not tank it?
we stand at a legit historical turning point right now and oh god it’s terrifying. we might be in the green new deal timeline. we might be in the timeline where we know for sure that electoral politics doesn’t work. and we have no way of knowing which way the world will break.
blargh it’s all awful. let’s all get off the Internet and go textbank for the candidate of our choice. unless that choice is biden or bloomberg, of course, in which case i urge you to continue dinking around online.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 5:36 PM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
but also: good luck all the warren folx out there. i hope you’re right and i’m wrong and warren can get comfortably above viability and we end up with some flavor of left unity ticket. it’s the best chance we have — i know sanders is right now polling above biden in a hypothetical one on one, but if the race resolves to that he’s going to be hurt by the media sandbagging him while propping up the shambling mess that is joe biden.
i know my “mom and dad are friends!!!” schtick is kind of obnoxious, but i stand by it. there’s two candidates who’ve been ratfucked by the media this time around — warren and sanders. both of them are worthy candidates and both of them would make fantastic presidents. warren could be fdr version 2 and sanders could be a genuine north american allende and i can’t stand the thought of neither of those candidates getting the nomination.
after super tuesday we’ll know for sure whether warren needs to cut bait. i suspect that the time is already here for that, but we just don’t know for sure, and that uncertainty is just deadly. if she tanks it tomorrow i am going to be so pissed, since this is decidedly not the decade to run this sort of risk without a reasonable expectation of the risk paying off. but she might not tank it?
we stand at a legit historical turning point right now and oh god it’s terrifying. we might be in the green new deal timeline. we might be in the timeline where we know for sure that electoral politics doesn’t work. and we have no way of knowing which way the world will break.
blargh it’s all awful. let’s all get off the Internet and go textbank for the candidate of our choice. unless that choice is biden or bloomberg, of course, in which case i urge you to continue dinking around online.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 5:36 PM on March 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
The hard truth is that Warren remains viable because donors swooped in with a PAC money lifeline and she reversed her position on accepting this type of money. And you don’t need to be a brain genius to figure out their motives.
posted by moorooka at 5:39 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 5:39 PM on March 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Wait, yes I can: Biden and Trump doing performance art dueling wordsalad in the 2020 debates.
That might be one of the bigger redeeming features of a Trump/Biden duel, IMO. Might as well have some fun on our way down the tubes.
If it reaches the point where Biden is in the lead and has the nomination locked up for practical purposes, one wonders how receptive those Bernie supporters making such an argument today will be to an analogous one.
Wait - an analogous argument for Biden or for Warren? If it was Warren/Biden/Sanders with Warren and Sanders swapping their current position in the race, I'd certainly be considering switching from Sanders to Warren. I wouldn't switch from anybody to Biden in a duel with Biden unless Biden had it sewn up and if he had it sewn up he wouldn't need me.
posted by atoxyl at 5:45 PM on March 2, 2020
That might be one of the bigger redeeming features of a Trump/Biden duel, IMO. Might as well have some fun on our way down the tubes.
If it reaches the point where Biden is in the lead and has the nomination locked up for practical purposes, one wonders how receptive those Bernie supporters making such an argument today will be to an analogous one.
Wait - an analogous argument for Biden or for Warren? If it was Warren/Biden/Sanders with Warren and Sanders swapping their current position in the race, I'd certainly be considering switching from Sanders to Warren. I wouldn't switch from anybody to Biden in a duel with Biden unless Biden had it sewn up and if he had it sewn up he wouldn't need me.
posted by atoxyl at 5:45 PM on March 2, 2020
(I'd vote Biden over Bloomberg if it came down to those two. And if I lived in a state where that situation was possible and I hadn't already mailed my ballot but you know...)
posted by atoxyl at 5:48 PM on March 2, 2020
posted by atoxyl at 5:48 PM on March 2, 2020
I guess Klobuchar's gambit worked, because you didn't hear about why she cancelled her rally.
She was absolutely going to get pummeled, even in her home state.
posted by explosion at 5:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
She was absolutely going to get pummeled, even in her home state.
posted by explosion at 5:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yea, I’m perceiving simultaneous scenarios of Buttigieg and Klobuchar saving face by suddenly going Biden pre-S Tuesday, in spite of their early voters because reasons. Doesn’t seem strategic.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:21 PM on March 2, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 6:21 PM on March 2, 2020
I voted early for Senator Warren in North Carolina. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and have for a long time, but I agree with posters above - she can get things done. And I worry that my personal ideology is much less palatable to the mainstream; I am a raging leftist to most of my entire professional and social groups, yet I am a gun owner and believe in capital punishment for proven egregious crimes.
Senator Sanders is my second choice, and I really did have an internal moral conundrum about which bubble I would be filling in.
I would be extremely happy to vote for either of them in the general election, and I hope the opportunity will present itself.
I will vote for Biden if he is the nominee. I have missed voting in one election (2010 midterms) since I turned 18 in 2001, and I still feel poorly about that.
I...have no idea what to do about Bloomberg. I really don’t want him to become the nominee.
I always vote down ballot, and November will be no exception.
posted by sara is disenchanted at 6:21 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
Senator Sanders is my second choice, and I really did have an internal moral conundrum about which bubble I would be filling in.
I would be extremely happy to vote for either of them in the general election, and I hope the opportunity will present itself.
I will vote for Biden if he is the nominee. I have missed voting in one election (2010 midterms) since I turned 18 in 2001, and I still feel poorly about that.
I...have no idea what to do about Bloomberg. I really don’t want him to become the nominee.
I always vote down ballot, and November will be no exception.
posted by sara is disenchanted at 6:21 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
I’m not sure where this automatic assumption comes from that Buttegeig and Klobuchar voters are automatically going to go en mass to Biden, even with the endorsements. Some might, sure, but Warren and even Bloomberg seem logical destinations as well for various reasons. When they polled second choices, it was never the case that a candidate was even close to 100 percent the second choice of another candidates supporters. The Nates (Nate Cohen and Nate Silver) seem pretty sure Butt and Klob supporters will bolster Biden, but I’m not sure where the certainty comes from.
posted by eagles123 at 6:23 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by eagles123 at 6:23 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
The good news is that I think the odds of Bloomberg being the nominee have got to be like 1% at this point.
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
America is that one contestant on love is blind who has a perfectly good little awkward progressive fiancée who can finally make them happy but they keep running back to the sleazy old hunk with crinkly eyes named EVERYTHING BACK 2 NORMAL.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:28 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:28 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Wait - an analogous argument for Biden or for Warren?
Sorry, I phrased that badly — I meant Biden.
I wouldn't switch from anybody to Biden in a duel with Biden unless Biden had it sewn up and if he had it sewn up he wouldn't need me.
He wouldn't need your primary vote, but he would need your support (not yours personally, but Bernie supporters generally) for the general election, and the sooner the better.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:36 PM on March 2, 2020
Sorry, I phrased that badly — I meant Biden.
I wouldn't switch from anybody to Biden in a duel with Biden unless Biden had it sewn up and if he had it sewn up he wouldn't need me.
He wouldn't need your primary vote, but he would need your support (not yours personally, but Bernie supporters generally) for the general election, and the sooner the better.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:36 PM on March 2, 2020
America's just not a super-progressive nation. Never has been, except in fits and starts. Americans vote weirdly, with a chip on their shoulder about whatever they think counts for rugged individualism. The progressive lane in American politics has had to get whatever it could here and there, but in general if you're a committed progressive you have to figure out how to support your favorite band even though it doesn't sell very many records.
posted by argybarg at 6:38 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 6:38 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Which, again, is why the "purge the moderates" talk is so discouraging — not because it's going to happen, but because it's the progressive lane defeating itself with a chestiness that's way beyond its role in the electorate.
posted by argybarg at 6:39 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 6:39 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
The progressive lane in American politics has had to get whatever it could here and there,
Too bad the crumbs we're permitted don't include insulin.
but in general if you're a committed progressive you have to figure out how to support your favorite band even though it doesn't sell very many records.
Politics isn't fandom or sports or entertainment, it's about trying to keep yourself and the planet alive.
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:44 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
Too bad the crumbs we're permitted don't include insulin.
but in general if you're a committed progressive you have to figure out how to support your favorite band even though it doesn't sell very many records.
Politics isn't fandom or sports or entertainment, it's about trying to keep yourself and the planet alive.
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:44 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
Did I say that that's how it's ought to be? I believe it's how it is, and that it's a shame and an oddity.
If you want to extend the progressive agenda, work with moderates. This hubris of telling moderates they're a bunch of jackbooted corporatist hicks who represent the problem, then trying to win (and, past that, govern) from a narrow slice of the electorate is an utter disaster.
posted by argybarg at 6:50 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
If you want to extend the progressive agenda, work with moderates. This hubris of telling moderates they're a bunch of jackbooted corporatist hicks who represent the problem, then trying to win (and, past that, govern) from a narrow slice of the electorate is an utter disaster.
posted by argybarg at 6:50 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Besides, every political viewpoint is a minority viewpoint. Everyone has to figure out how to work with people who don't agree with them. That will never change.
posted by argybarg at 6:51 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 6:51 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Did Hillary Clinton lose because she was too radical?
Did the Democrats lose the house and Senate, along with most state governments, under Obama because they were too progressive?
Did Kerry lose because he was too progressive?
Did Gore lose to Bush because he was too progressive?
Did the Democrats lose the house for the first time in a generation in 94 because they were too progressive?
I’d be lying if I said I was sure a more aggressive platform combined with robust grass roots promotion ala Sanders would be any better, but from where I sit, it’s been one defeat after another since the “centrists” really took over in the 90’s.
posted by eagles123 at 6:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [26 favorites]
Did the Democrats lose the house and Senate, along with most state governments, under Obama because they were too progressive?
Did Kerry lose because he was too progressive?
Did Gore lose to Bush because he was too progressive?
Did the Democrats lose the house for the first time in a generation in 94 because they were too progressive?
I’d be lying if I said I was sure a more aggressive platform combined with robust grass roots promotion ala Sanders would be any better, but from where I sit, it’s been one defeat after another since the “centrists” really took over in the 90’s.
posted by eagles123 at 6:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [26 favorites]
Elections are multivariate. You've just described five events with dozens of factors at work.
That said, saying the Democrats lost the house in '94 because they weren't liberal enough is a hell of a take. At the very least it needs proving.
posted by argybarg at 7:00 PM on March 2, 2020
That said, saying the Democrats lost the house in '94 because they weren't liberal enough is a hell of a take. At the very least it needs proving.
posted by argybarg at 7:00 PM on March 2, 2020
Politics isn't fandom or sports or entertainment, it's about trying to keep yourself and the planet alive.
This is exactly why getting this moment right, instead of pissing it away on revenge fantasies and dogmatic isolation, is so important.
posted by argybarg at 7:01 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is exactly why getting this moment right, instead of pissing it away on revenge fantasies and dogmatic isolation, is so important.
posted by argybarg at 7:01 PM on March 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
My point is Democrats have been losing under moderates for as long as I’ve been alive.
posted by eagles123 at 7:03 PM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 7:03 PM on March 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
Hillary Clinton ran the most progressive Democratic platform ever, largely due to leftward pressure from Bernie Sanders.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:07 PM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 7:07 PM on March 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
She also won the popular vote by 3,000,000 and lost because a baseball-stadium sized group of people in three states voted for Trump after the director of the FBI reopened a bullshit investigation right before the election.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:10 PM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 7:10 PM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
Americans want to be excited. Trump didn't win with "I'm going to slowly strangle the nation," he won with "build the wall" and "make America great again."
No matter if you're progressive or moderate, you need a plan and conviction. Joe Biden could cuss up a storm and say, "we put a man on the damn moon, I can't see why America can't take care of its own health," and suddenly Universal Healthcare is a "moderate" position.
Just shoot for the stars, remind people of all the things the US accomplished back when we actually *tried*.
posted by explosion at 7:11 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
No matter if you're progressive or moderate, you need a plan and conviction. Joe Biden could cuss up a storm and say, "we put a man on the damn moon, I can't see why America can't take care of its own health," and suddenly Universal Healthcare is a "moderate" position.
Just shoot for the stars, remind people of all the things the US accomplished back when we actually *tried*.
posted by explosion at 7:11 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
When were you born?
I was born in 1970. Of course what counts as moderate/progressive has changed in that time. Carter was a mishmosh, generally seen as the more moderate option compared to Ted Kennedy. Clinton won twice as a decided moderate. Obama … was he progressive? He certainly talked a lot, maybe too much, about the need to build bridges and be bipartisan. He essentially ruled as a moderate, however the Republicans tried to mark him.
You might say Dukakis and Mondale were moderates, but that certainly wasn't how they were seen, especially at the time. In the 1980s, or the 90s for that reason, there simply was no nascent Democratic Socialism. The general consensus, at least, was that the two were out-of-bounds liberal.
Gore and Kerry were lousy, low-charisma candidates. Gore won the popular vote, and an accurate count of Florida would have won him the election. Kerry lost against a president seeking reelection after a terrorist attack.
Anyway, in that time there's been a bit more Republican rule than Democrat. Go back 100 years and you find it evens way out. And there is no pattern that says that only progressives win elections. It just doesn't work that way, for either party.
Congressional control has swung around. Last year's blue wave was mostly moderate Dems in purple districts. Yes, there was AOC and other progressives, but they won in deep-blue districts. The actual shift that put the Dems in power consisted of moderate Dems.
I think there is no singular pattern that applies throughout.
posted by argybarg at 7:12 PM on March 2, 2020
I was born in 1970. Of course what counts as moderate/progressive has changed in that time. Carter was a mishmosh, generally seen as the more moderate option compared to Ted Kennedy. Clinton won twice as a decided moderate. Obama … was he progressive? He certainly talked a lot, maybe too much, about the need to build bridges and be bipartisan. He essentially ruled as a moderate, however the Republicans tried to mark him.
You might say Dukakis and Mondale were moderates, but that certainly wasn't how they were seen, especially at the time. In the 1980s, or the 90s for that reason, there simply was no nascent Democratic Socialism. The general consensus, at least, was that the two were out-of-bounds liberal.
Gore and Kerry were lousy, low-charisma candidates. Gore won the popular vote, and an accurate count of Florida would have won him the election. Kerry lost against a president seeking reelection after a terrorist attack.
Anyway, in that time there's been a bit more Republican rule than Democrat. Go back 100 years and you find it evens way out. And there is no pattern that says that only progressives win elections. It just doesn't work that way, for either party.
Congressional control has swung around. Last year's blue wave was mostly moderate Dems in purple districts. Yes, there was AOC and other progressives, but they won in deep-blue districts. The actual shift that put the Dems in power consisted of moderate Dems.
I think there is no singular pattern that applies throughout.
posted by argybarg at 7:12 PM on March 2, 2020
In summary, politics is a land of contrasts.
posted by Justinian at 7:14 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:14 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Sorry, I phrased that badly — I meant Biden.
That's how I read it. I had just been taking it as a given that the main subtext of "Warren supporters under pressure to switch to Bernie" is "don't you want the other social democrat, if he has a clearer path to the nomination?" At what point it's worth giving up on contesting a two-way primary race in the interest of unity for the general is a question I'm not really thinking about yet.
(or at all really just because my vote is already in and will be counted starting tomorrow)
posted by atoxyl at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2020
That's how I read it. I had just been taking it as a given that the main subtext of "Warren supporters under pressure to switch to Bernie" is "don't you want the other social democrat, if he has a clearer path to the nomination?" At what point it's worth giving up on contesting a two-way primary race in the interest of unity for the general is a question I'm not really thinking about yet.
(or at all really just because my vote is already in and will be counted starting tomorrow)
posted by atoxyl at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2020
At at one point Medicare for All and employment guarantees were considered at least respectable positions with the Democratic Party, so I’m not sure about that “most progressive platform ever claim”, even though I see it constantly repeated. In any case, party platforms are weak non-binding documents. Hillary Clinto certainly presented herself as the moderate, and the campaign against Trump largely centered around his unfitness for office and various scandals. Ed Rendell summed up the strategy well: For every blue collar worker we lose in central PA, we’ll gain two voters in the suburbs”.
Anyway, that’s the last I’m rehashing 2016.
posted by eagles123 at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Anyway, that’s the last I’m rehashing 2016.
posted by eagles123 at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
And to answer your question, I was born in 83. My first political memories were of the Clinton years.
posted by eagles123 at 7:20 PM on March 2, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 7:20 PM on March 2, 2020
I think it comes down to the candidates and the dynamics of the country at that moment far more than it does to a single metric of moderate/progressive (or moderate/conservative).
posted by argybarg at 7:20 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 7:20 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
America's just not a super-progressive nation.
A lot of us just don't believe that so much anymore. Or put a little more realistically, it's polarized and there are generational differences. I saw a poll a few weeks ago that put the combined percentage for Sanders or Warren as first choice candidate at something like 70 percent for voters under 35! We all know that relying on youth turnout is easier said then done, but there are concrete reasons that many of us in that younger cohort believe the politics of the nation are changing.
I also think it's often underestimated just how dissatisfied a lot of left-wing loyal Democrats are with having dutifully voted for the lesser evil for years only the see the government slide inexorably to the right. And those of us who are in our 30s and thus at the intersection of both categories? Not to imply that wanting it more makes you more likely to win, but it certainly makes you more likely to take a shot at the moon.
posted by atoxyl at 7:36 PM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
A lot of us just don't believe that so much anymore. Or put a little more realistically, it's polarized and there are generational differences. I saw a poll a few weeks ago that put the combined percentage for Sanders or Warren as first choice candidate at something like 70 percent for voters under 35! We all know that relying on youth turnout is easier said then done, but there are concrete reasons that many of us in that younger cohort believe the politics of the nation are changing.
I also think it's often underestimated just how dissatisfied a lot of left-wing loyal Democrats are with having dutifully voted for the lesser evil for years only the see the government slide inexorably to the right. And those of us who are in our 30s and thus at the intersection of both categories? Not to imply that wanting it more makes you more likely to win, but it certainly makes you more likely to take a shot at the moon.
posted by atoxyl at 7:36 PM on March 2, 2020 [23 favorites]
Like some upthread, I've also been a mostly quiet lurker because of the candidate I support.
Sanders earned this lefty's vote in 2016. This time, Warren has earned my vote in 2020, in fact, several times over (better plans, policy, personnel, message, etc.). It wasn't close.
I really do like Bernie, but he did not earn my vote this time (and unfortunately Sirota, King, Turner, Grim, the Bruenigs, Jacobin, Moore, the Chapo guys et al have only hardened my stance). There have been plenty of opportunities to reach out to voters like me, but they failed. I still have seen nothing to make me believe Bernie is better at beating Trump (e.g. I feel he still gets defensive about certain labels instead of insisting they don't matter, and promised youth turnout has been mostly the same as 2016), nothing to make me believe that he'd make a better president (e.g. his theory of change doesn't seem to account for the years of near 90% support for firearm sales background checks that congress doesn't seem to care about, and 6 year term limits and the filibuster seem to indicate a drawn-out war to get anything done), etc.
If his campaign has truly run the campaign that can win this, Bernie will win. And I will fight like hell so he wins the general. I would be frustrated that I think we'd have to fight harder to win, given his weaknesses, and even if he wins, I would be extremely disappointed if he can't pass a progressive agenda that I've dreamt about for most of my adult life. But I can cope, because a Trump win would be a cataclysmic event for this country.
Of course, Biden did not earn my vote, either. And I also think Biden is at least as weak as Sanders for the general election. His pitch to voters is very weak. He looks like he's almost phoning in speeches, debates. It's not encouraging. And I know the GOP will harp on the appearance of profiting from his positions (which Bernie is also not immune to) and the confusion in the electorate about Ukraine. His policy stances range from uninspiring to despairing, IMO.
But if his campaign is right in thinking their fortunes will change after essentially gambling on SC, then Biden will win. And I will also fight like hell so he wins the general. And if he wins, I would still be devastated that we would be likely putting a band-aid on climate change, and that we would continue to be the hold-out on a national health insurance system of the first world, which my partner badly needs. But I could also cope, because again, a Trump win would be a cataclysmic event for this country.
For me, Warren is the best we've got. She'd be the best general election candidate in my opinion, and she'd be the most effective president. Again, for me, it's not close. But this is a primary and a chance for all of us to vote for who we think would be the best candidate/president.
But the past few days I've seen and heard Sanders supporters AND Biden supporters telling Warren supporters the only chance to stop the other white old man pushing 80 is to vote for them. And I won't buy it. You haven't earned my vote. And I refuse to compromise my hope because of your fear. I don't owe you anything. And if your gut reaction is to think "I guess people dying because of a lack of healthcare must not mean much to this guy", kindly fuck off and see my candidate's platform. And also know that this kind of argument only alienates people like me further.
TL;DR We need a better primary and electoral system, something like RCV because FPTP is broken.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 7:39 PM on March 2, 2020 [50 favorites]
Sanders earned this lefty's vote in 2016. This time, Warren has earned my vote in 2020, in fact, several times over (better plans, policy, personnel, message, etc.). It wasn't close.
I really do like Bernie, but he did not earn my vote this time (and unfortunately Sirota, King, Turner, Grim, the Bruenigs, Jacobin, Moore, the Chapo guys et al have only hardened my stance). There have been plenty of opportunities to reach out to voters like me, but they failed. I still have seen nothing to make me believe Bernie is better at beating Trump (e.g. I feel he still gets defensive about certain labels instead of insisting they don't matter, and promised youth turnout has been mostly the same as 2016), nothing to make me believe that he'd make a better president (e.g. his theory of change doesn't seem to account for the years of near 90% support for firearm sales background checks that congress doesn't seem to care about, and 6 year term limits and the filibuster seem to indicate a drawn-out war to get anything done), etc.
If his campaign has truly run the campaign that can win this, Bernie will win. And I will fight like hell so he wins the general. I would be frustrated that I think we'd have to fight harder to win, given his weaknesses, and even if he wins, I would be extremely disappointed if he can't pass a progressive agenda that I've dreamt about for most of my adult life. But I can cope, because a Trump win would be a cataclysmic event for this country.
Of course, Biden did not earn my vote, either. And I also think Biden is at least as weak as Sanders for the general election. His pitch to voters is very weak. He looks like he's almost phoning in speeches, debates. It's not encouraging. And I know the GOP will harp on the appearance of profiting from his positions (which Bernie is also not immune to) and the confusion in the electorate about Ukraine. His policy stances range from uninspiring to despairing, IMO.
But if his campaign is right in thinking their fortunes will change after essentially gambling on SC, then Biden will win. And I will also fight like hell so he wins the general. And if he wins, I would still be devastated that we would be likely putting a band-aid on climate change, and that we would continue to be the hold-out on a national health insurance system of the first world, which my partner badly needs. But I could also cope, because again, a Trump win would be a cataclysmic event for this country.
For me, Warren is the best we've got. She'd be the best general election candidate in my opinion, and she'd be the most effective president. Again, for me, it's not close. But this is a primary and a chance for all of us to vote for who we think would be the best candidate/president.
But the past few days I've seen and heard Sanders supporters AND Biden supporters telling Warren supporters the only chance to stop the other white old man pushing 80 is to vote for them. And I won't buy it. You haven't earned my vote. And I refuse to compromise my hope because of your fear. I don't owe you anything. And if your gut reaction is to think "I guess people dying because of a lack of healthcare must not mean much to this guy", kindly fuck off and see my candidate's platform. And also know that this kind of argument only alienates people like me further.
TL;DR We need a better primary and electoral system, something like RCV because FPTP is broken.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 7:39 PM on March 2, 2020 [50 favorites]
atoxyl:
I do think a big part of the demographic is moving leftward. What the upshot of that will be is hard to say. To be crystal clear: Go leftward, young person! That's how I feel. But go leftward and learn how to make your case, how to build coalitions, how to exercise real power, and how to question yourself. Don't stab yourself in the face with the belligerence and inflexibility that Chapo et al are peddling, because that puts a limit on your power and is fundamentally illiberal. Find the controls of power, and work them.
posted by argybarg at 7:53 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
I do think a big part of the demographic is moving leftward. What the upshot of that will be is hard to say. To be crystal clear: Go leftward, young person! That's how I feel. But go leftward and learn how to make your case, how to build coalitions, how to exercise real power, and how to question yourself. Don't stab yourself in the face with the belligerence and inflexibility that Chapo et al are peddling, because that puts a limit on your power and is fundamentally illiberal. Find the controls of power, and work them.
posted by argybarg at 7:53 PM on March 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
That’s well written .... but I’d say it could equally apply to all “sides” in this conflict. From where I sit, the “moderates” haven’t exactly been very compromising with the “radicals”. And they haven’t been exactly judicious or wise in their exercise of the levers of power.
posted by eagles123 at 8:02 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 8:02 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Okay, so everyone work together and be generous.
posted by argybarg at 8:09 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 8:09 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Don't stab yourself in the face with the belligerence and inflexibility...Find the controls of power, and work them.
Everything I know about belligerence and inflexibility I learned from watching the Democratic establishment's response to the left's pleas for a turn at the controls of power for the last 30 years.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:11 PM on March 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
Everything I know about belligerence and inflexibility I learned from watching the Democratic establishment's response to the left's pleas for a turn at the controls of power for the last 30 years.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:11 PM on March 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
if your gut reaction is to think "I guess people dying because of a lack of healthcare must not mean much to this guy", kindly fuck off and see my candidate's platform.
Bernie’s M4A plan is to lower the age of eligibility for the existing Medicare program so that it covers the entire population within four years
You can trace Warren’s fall in the polls from front-runner to now coming fourth in a four-person race to the moment that she announced her plan to shelve M4A for the first three years of her administration and focus instead on introducing a “public option” that would compete in the market with private insurers.
They aren’t remotely the same, so why expect people to pretend that they are?
posted by moorooka at 8:37 PM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Bernie’s M4A plan is to lower the age of eligibility for the existing Medicare program so that it covers the entire population within four years
You can trace Warren’s fall in the polls from front-runner to now coming fourth in a four-person race to the moment that she announced her plan to shelve M4A for the first three years of her administration and focus instead on introducing a “public option” that would compete in the market with private insurers.
They aren’t remotely the same, so why expect people to pretend that they are?
posted by moorooka at 8:37 PM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
They aren’t remotely the same, so why expect people to pretend that they are?
Because neither of them are going to pass?
posted by No One Ever Does at 8:55 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Because neither of them are going to pass?
posted by No One Ever Does at 8:55 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Even within the left we have incommensurabile weltanschauungen apparently. It's hard for me to imagine a political figure who I could view more positively than Nina Turner, whose forceful rhetoric gives voice to the anger and frustration at the endless grinding depression of the status quo. Whereas Warren, who 6 months ago I would have rated as one of the best and most principled people in politics, has dimmed her bulb through concession and self assimilation to an establishment that absolutely, positively needs to be destroyed. History (undoubtedly written in Mandarin) will judge this era on whether we had the courage to overcome the calcified and cancerous business as usual, whether we are up to shattering conventional wisdom with a bold vision of a better future. I'm confident Turner has the inner resources to step over the precipice and into the necesarry. To see her name on a list of reasons to abjure this lane of the left is disheartening and makes me wonder whether we can ever hope for progress with unity behind it. Here's hoping victory will be the cure for dissonance.
posted by dis_integration at 8:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 8:58 PM on March 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
I'm so tired of the M4A argument. It's always been an intellectually dishonest attack on Warren. First, I didn't say they were the same. So let's start there. I will also say that Warren's plan is really the only executable plan to M4A in 3 years with a full pay-for.
It's simple:
1. Warren starts with extending an expanded medicare to the 50 and up and 18 and under demographics and establishes a medicare buy-in "public option" with a scheduled cost-sharing reduction to zero in 3 years, which importantly, can be passed with 50 votes and by senators who are averse to full single-payer.
2. People will switch to the medicare option because it will be better coverage, cheaper, and not tied to their jobs.
3. Halfway through her term, once people are on the plan and now convinced, opposition in the senate will be vastly reduced via midterm elections (which will likely feature M4A as a litmus test), so senators will have to change their policy platform or face difficulty in re-election. Also, by this time the cost-sharing rolling down to zero means that it will be CHEAPER for the federal government to now pass full M4A rather than footing the bill for the expanded medicare public option (because of economies of scale, bargaining power, efficiencies from removing other insurance providers, etc.). Finally, if there is obstruction, the filibuster is ended, it can pass with 50 votes.
Bonus: We already have a pay-for for all of it, AND you can say the current proposal does not raise taxes on middle-class families by one penny, great for the general election.
Bernie is thin on specifics about his M4A plan except to say that if senators don't support it, he'll foment popular uprisings in their states and get them voted out as needed. I can understand that, but for some senators that's 6 years of waiting until they may lose an election. That can be a long time to even begin. Even then, 60 votes in the senate is a tall ask. Finally, there is no proposed pay-for, just various possible avenues for funding (including 4% premiums on incomes over 29K for a family of 4) which do not add up to the full cost of the policy. Bernie's plan is not executable in its current state, and to say so is to traffic in misinformation.
The head tax argument is a red herring because, again, there is no plan to get it passed or plan to fully fund it on Sanders' side. But I digress, I hate this attack because it's always been intellectually dishonest. Again, kindly please read her plan on her site, Bernie's plan on his, and THEN we can talk about the best way to get there. But we really are on the same side about this.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 9:15 PM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
It's simple:
1. Warren starts with extending an expanded medicare to the 50 and up and 18 and under demographics and establishes a medicare buy-in "public option" with a scheduled cost-sharing reduction to zero in 3 years, which importantly, can be passed with 50 votes and by senators who are averse to full single-payer.
2. People will switch to the medicare option because it will be better coverage, cheaper, and not tied to their jobs.
3. Halfway through her term, once people are on the plan and now convinced, opposition in the senate will be vastly reduced via midterm elections (which will likely feature M4A as a litmus test), so senators will have to change their policy platform or face difficulty in re-election. Also, by this time the cost-sharing rolling down to zero means that it will be CHEAPER for the federal government to now pass full M4A rather than footing the bill for the expanded medicare public option (because of economies of scale, bargaining power, efficiencies from removing other insurance providers, etc.). Finally, if there is obstruction, the filibuster is ended, it can pass with 50 votes.
Bonus: We already have a pay-for for all of it, AND you can say the current proposal does not raise taxes on middle-class families by one penny, great for the general election.
Bernie is thin on specifics about his M4A plan except to say that if senators don't support it, he'll foment popular uprisings in their states and get them voted out as needed. I can understand that, but for some senators that's 6 years of waiting until they may lose an election. That can be a long time to even begin. Even then, 60 votes in the senate is a tall ask. Finally, there is no proposed pay-for, just various possible avenues for funding (including 4% premiums on incomes over 29K for a family of 4) which do not add up to the full cost of the policy. Bernie's plan is not executable in its current state, and to say so is to traffic in misinformation.
The head tax argument is a red herring because, again, there is no plan to get it passed or plan to fully fund it on Sanders' side. But I digress, I hate this attack because it's always been intellectually dishonest. Again, kindly please read her plan on her site, Bernie's plan on his, and THEN we can talk about the best way to get there. But we really are on the same side about this.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 9:15 PM on March 2, 2020 [17 favorites]
I was born in 1974, I lived through the Reagan years, and yes, I can definitely say that those 45 years were characterized by the Democrats going all in on hippie punching and losing, and losing, and losing, and losing. I argue that the first is the cause of the second. It seems really obvious to me that a Party shouldn't institutionalize attacking a significant fraction of its voters, but that's what hte Democrats have done. They've been convinced that they can win back the white racist vote if only they show the MAGA cultists that they hate hippies too. It has never, not one single time, worked.
Isn't 45 years of total and complete failure enough to prove that liberal "centrism" and triangulation is a losing approach? Do we really have to give the nomination to yet another boring, anti-charismatic, center-right liberal who is going to, yet again, lose in a humiliating way to the worst possible candidate the Republicans can find?
Seriously guys, the liberals had 45 years to win. They failed. Admit it. They had total power in the Party, they blew it, there's no shame in admitting they can't win and their approach is a failure.
How about we try something else? I mean, shit, the worst that could happen is that the left could do about as badly as the liberals have done. I don't really see how we could possibly do any worse.
I have a simple, two step, program for not losing.
Step 1) Stop nominating anti-charismatic losers who can't work a crowd. The fact that Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, were even in contention while the Party establishment worked overtime to drive out Dean because he said "yeah" in an excited way once is all the proof we need that the center-right liberal faction just loves losing and deliberately picks the worst possible candidates they can dig up.
Step 2) Stop telling people that better things aren't possible and start promoting the Democrats as people who can, and will, improve matters. This has the double benefit of being true, and being a political winner.
We need charismatic candidates talking about how they'll fix everything in short punchy sound bites. Not Mondale or Gore spending endless boring, droning, paragraphs to explain why they can't improve our lives.
posted by sotonohito at 9:26 PM on March 2, 2020 [31 favorites]
Isn't 45 years of total and complete failure enough to prove that liberal "centrism" and triangulation is a losing approach? Do we really have to give the nomination to yet another boring, anti-charismatic, center-right liberal who is going to, yet again, lose in a humiliating way to the worst possible candidate the Republicans can find?
Seriously guys, the liberals had 45 years to win. They failed. Admit it. They had total power in the Party, they blew it, there's no shame in admitting they can't win and their approach is a failure.
How about we try something else? I mean, shit, the worst that could happen is that the left could do about as badly as the liberals have done. I don't really see how we could possibly do any worse.
I have a simple, two step, program for not losing.
Step 1) Stop nominating anti-charismatic losers who can't work a crowd. The fact that Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, were even in contention while the Party establishment worked overtime to drive out Dean because he said "yeah" in an excited way once is all the proof we need that the center-right liberal faction just loves losing and deliberately picks the worst possible candidates they can dig up.
Step 2) Stop telling people that better things aren't possible and start promoting the Democrats as people who can, and will, improve matters. This has the double benefit of being true, and being a political winner.
We need charismatic candidates talking about how they'll fix everything in short punchy sound bites. Not Mondale or Gore spending endless boring, droning, paragraphs to explain why they can't improve our lives.
posted by sotonohito at 9:26 PM on March 2, 2020 [31 favorites]
I like Warrens plan to insure the 18 and under, less so the 50 and up -- to start with.
Insuring the 18 and under is dirt cheap compared to the 50 and up which are five times as expensive per person. It's a much easier sell.
Give every kid today and baby a Medicare card the day they are born. Nineteen year olds won't be happy losing that nice Medicare they grew up with and might get out and vote for extending Medicare for everyone.
Yes, it is incremental, but face it, Medicare for All ain't happening in the next four years.
posted by JackFlash at 9:29 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Insuring the 18 and under is dirt cheap compared to the 50 and up which are five times as expensive per person. It's a much easier sell.
Give every kid today and baby a Medicare card the day they are born. Nineteen year olds won't be happy losing that nice Medicare they grew up with and might get out and vote for extending Medicare for everyone.
Yes, it is incremental, but face it, Medicare for All ain't happening in the next four years.
posted by JackFlash at 9:29 PM on March 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
So Warren can start by immediately expanding Medicare to 50 and over with only 50 senators, but to lower the eligibility further requires a filibuster proof majority for some unspecified reason. So let’s wait until the midterm elections, which are guaranteed to go great for her, and at that point there will be a majority of senators lining up to vote to eliminate the filibuster, because they’ll do that. Meanwhile there’s no senate majority for lowering Medicare eligibility to 49 or 48, however there is a majority for implementing a public option which will put the private health insurance out of business because it’s so great. Oh and by the way - universal healthcare? Sounds expensive, how do you even pay for something like that?
Yeah, no, it’s not a surprise that her polling fell off a cliff after that.
posted by moorooka at 9:31 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yeah, no, it’s not a surprise that her polling fell off a cliff after that.
posted by moorooka at 9:31 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
We don't have to "pay" for universal healthcare. It'll cost trillions less than our current approach of allowing medical corporations to murder poor people for profits. Switching to universal healthcare has no cost, it gives us money.
The idea that there's a huge cost associated with universal healthcare is the biggest lie the Republican/liberal coalition has ever gotten away with telling.
posted by sotonohito at 9:41 PM on March 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
The idea that there's a huge cost associated with universal healthcare is the biggest lie the Republican/liberal coalition has ever gotten away with telling.
posted by sotonohito at 9:41 PM on March 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted. Having gone around that loop a few more times, please stop. Rather than round ten million of The Same People's Opinions On Centrists vs Leftists, bring it back to specifics about the primary situation or just pause commenting until there's something new to comment about.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:48 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:48 PM on March 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
The idea that Warren's phased M4A plan was responsible for her polling decline is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc. I haven't seen any empirical reason to believe it.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:57 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:57 PM on March 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
We don't have to "pay" for universal healthcare. It'll cost trillions less than our current approach of allowing medical corporations to murder poor people for profits. Switching to universal healthcare has no cost, it gives us money.
And better health outcomes. America has the worst cost-to-outcome ratio among developed nations. Candidates and pundits who get away with saying this can't be done are sentencing people to sickness and early death.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:38 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
And better health outcomes. America has the worst cost-to-outcome ratio among developed nations. Candidates and pundits who get away with saying this can't be done are sentencing people to sickness and early death.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:38 PM on March 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Bloomberg says he called Buttigieg after he dropped out (CNN, March 2, 2020) Michael Bloomberg said he called Pete Buttigieg on Sunday and talked to him after the former South Bend mayor dropped out of the president race.
---
What is he talking abou-- Mayor Pete joins Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative (ABC News, July 18, 2017) South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been named to the inaugural class of the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative.
Buttigieg is one of 40 mayors in the inaugural class. The initiative brings together mayor and business leaders from across the country. The mayors receive training and tools to help them tackle the problems facing their cities. [...] The year-long program includes a three-day training session in New York City this month and a four-day session in August.
--
Buttigieg was also a winner of Bloomberg Philanthropies' 2018 Mayors Challenge, "Spurring Innovation Through"Competition: As part of the Bloomberg American Cities Initiative, the 2018 Mayors Challenge returned to the United States, awarding nine cities $1 million each to bring their ideas to life. The winning cities were chosen from a record 324 applications. The winners include Denver, Colorado; Durham, North Carolina; Fort Collins, Colorado; Georgetown, Texas; Huntington, West Virginia; Los Angeles, California; New Rochelle, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and South Bend, Indiana. These cities will address a range of challenges, from reducing carbon emissions and confronting the opioid crisis to making the justice system less traumatic for young people. Prior to selecting the winners, 35 finalist cities each received $100,000 to test and refine their ideas.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:32 PM on March 2, 2020
“I just said -- it took two minutes -- I just said, look, I’m sorry it ended that way for you, and you’re a gentleman and I listened when you were, to your speeches, and I thought a lot of what you said made sense and I tell you you have a big career going forward," Bloomberg told CNN's Don Lemon."He went through the Bloomberg Foundation training program for mayors, he was in the first class, so I have to say nice things about him," Bloomberg said.
---
What is he talking abou-- Mayor Pete joins Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative (ABC News, July 18, 2017) South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been named to the inaugural class of the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative.
Buttigieg is one of 40 mayors in the inaugural class. The initiative brings together mayor and business leaders from across the country. The mayors receive training and tools to help them tackle the problems facing their cities. [...] The year-long program includes a three-day training session in New York City this month and a four-day session in August.
--
Buttigieg was also a winner of Bloomberg Philanthropies' 2018 Mayors Challenge, "Spurring Innovation Through"Competition: As part of the Bloomberg American Cities Initiative, the 2018 Mayors Challenge returned to the United States, awarding nine cities $1 million each to bring their ideas to life. The winning cities were chosen from a record 324 applications. The winners include Denver, Colorado; Durham, North Carolina; Fort Collins, Colorado; Georgetown, Texas; Huntington, West Virginia; Los Angeles, California; New Rochelle, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and South Bend, Indiana. These cities will address a range of challenges, from reducing carbon emissions and confronting the opioid crisis to making the justice system less traumatic for young people. Prior to selecting the winners, 35 finalist cities each received $100,000 to test and refine their ideas.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:32 PM on March 2, 2020
Step 1) Stop nominating anti-charismatic losers who can't work a crowd.
You have a point, and that step may be enough. Obama wasn't a progressive firebrand, but he sure ran as one, and he won as one. Same with Bill Clinton. Every other post-Reagan Dem, including Bill's other half, did not do so, and they lost.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:55 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
You have a point, and that step may be enough. Obama wasn't a progressive firebrand, but he sure ran as one, and he won as one. Same with Bill Clinton. Every other post-Reagan Dem, including Bill's other half, did not do so, and they lost.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:55 PM on March 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
The Little Bloomberg Urban Achievers
and proud we are of all of them.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 11:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
and proud we are of all of them.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 11:56 PM on March 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
So Warren can start by immediately expanding Medicare to 50 and over with only 50 senators, but to lower the eligibility further requires a filibuster proof majority for some unspecified reason.
Sanders being against killing the filibuster is a pretty good reason.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:13 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sanders being against killing the filibuster is a pretty good reason.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:13 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sanders being against killing the filibuster is a pretty good reason.
Care to explain why lowering the age of eligibility to 50 doesn’t require a filibuster-proof majority, but lowering the age of eligibility to 49 does?
posted by moorooka at 1:07 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Care to explain why lowering the age of eligibility to 50 doesn’t require a filibuster-proof majority, but lowering the age of eligibility to 49 does?
posted by moorooka at 1:07 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
For what it’s worth, Sanders plan is to pass Medicare for All (that is, lowering the age of eligibility to zero) through reconciliation, requiring only a simple majority. Why Warren thinks that 50 is the lowest she’s able to go is the real question for anyone who still thinks she’s actually serious about universal healthcare.
posted by moorooka at 1:11 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by moorooka at 1:11 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sorry, moorooka, I thought you were contrasting her approach with Sanders' plan. I reckon she doesn't go all in on Sanders' approach in her first bill because there's not likely to be a majority in the Senate for it -- even if we sweep the competitive races of AZ/CO/NC/ME (while losing Alabama 😔), we'll end up with a 50-50 Senate, and several of those 50 don't support a direct transition to full M4A coverage. So she starts with the lower-hanging fruit of kids, 50+, and a strong public option, which has broader support from moderate Dems, and delays the push for full M4A until after the next midterm, where winning back some of the swing Senate seats we barely lost in 2016 would make it more plausible to pass Congress. It's ambitious, difficult, and requires multiple election victories (as any sweeping reform rightfully should), but it's a lot more realistic than Sanders' plan to push for it on day one only to have his signature issue defeated at the hands of moderate Dems.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:30 AM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 1:30 AM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
If your premise coming into office is that it is legitimate for the Senate to stand in the way of a public demand for universal healthcare, then you will simply never achieve universal healthcare. Overcoming the enormous vested interest of the private health insurance industry will require a sustained organized mass movement across the entire country.
Sanders wants to lead this movement from the Oval Office, as organizer-in-chief. He wants to transform the Democratic Party so that “moderate” insurance-industry stooges no longer have a place in it. He knows that his election will manifest a undeniable public demand. The mandate he brings to the Office, the obvious moral legitimacy of the cause, the anger of a loyal and activated base prepared to punish any Democratic Senator who would betray their president to deny people healthcare - these are the things that *might* overcome the vested interests that oppose Medicare for All, if you join him. Nothing else ever will.
posted by moorooka at 2:05 AM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
Sanders wants to lead this movement from the Oval Office, as organizer-in-chief. He wants to transform the Democratic Party so that “moderate” insurance-industry stooges no longer have a place in it. He knows that his election will manifest a undeniable public demand. The mandate he brings to the Office, the obvious moral legitimacy of the cause, the anger of a loyal and activated base prepared to punish any Democratic Senator who would betray their president to deny people healthcare - these are the things that *might* overcome the vested interests that oppose Medicare for All, if you join him. Nothing else ever will.
posted by moorooka at 2:05 AM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
Thing is, this magical popular uprising of young and non-voters demanding socialism has failed to materialized thus far. Sanders has only had one big win, and that was in a notoriously unrepresentative and low-turnout caucus (as most of his big 2016 wins were). If he can't stoke The People to come out in droves for him in the context of a Democratic primary, that doesn't bode well for him in the general (especially when Trump goes all-in on red-baiting older voters who *do* reliably turn out), or as president if he does win.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:44 AM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 2:44 AM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
That's my position; if Sanders were going to lead a mass movement of young and non-voters, Sanders would be leading a mass movement of young and non-voters. His base is very, very passionate but they aren't even a majority of the Democratic electorate (it appears) so how are they gonna carry us to victory in the general?
He may still be the nominee and he may win the presidency if he is, but I think it'll be on the backs of most of the same coalition as always.
posted by Justinian at 3:17 AM on March 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
He may still be the nominee and he may win the presidency if he is, but I think it'll be on the backs of most of the same coalition as always.
posted by Justinian at 3:17 AM on March 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
Whoever gets in will at best have a Senate will a very shaky Democratic majority and at worst will still be run by McConnell. The house will most likely be similar to the makeup that it has now. Getting any major legislation through is going to resemble the Obamacare process because the you're probably going to have to bargain with Senators like Manchin who are going to try to slow or stop everything.
posted by octothorpe at 3:27 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 3:27 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Maybe you missed this:
[Hi! You don't have a 🔮, don't act like you do.]
posted by jessamyn (staff)
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:51 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
[Hi! You don't have a 🔮, don't act like you do.]
posted by jessamyn (staff)
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:51 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Politicians have been ignoring the clear will of the people for years. A politician with tepid support from his own party isn't going to change that in the next four years through the "obvious moral legitimacy of the cause [and] the anger of a loyal and activated base." The only way things are going to get better is to change the reasons politicians can ignore their constituents, primarily big money and voter suppression & disenfranchisement. I love that Sanders and his supporters (and lots of other activists who have been doing this work for years) have moved the Overton window left. But this rot has built for decades and it will not be undone by moral legitimacy and anger making Senators do the right thing. It's going to be long, and tedious, and will require bringing a lot more people into the movement to fix the reasons why Senators can freely ignore voters. I suspect Warren will be out soon, and then Sanders will be my first choice. But I have grave doubts about his ability to expand his coalition to include the people (a huge chunk of the Democratic party) his supporters have so much contempt for. And what's going to happen when he can't get M4A done?
posted by Mavri at 5:45 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Mavri at 5:45 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
But I have grave doubts about his ability to expand his coalition to include the people (a huge chunk of the Democratic party) his supporters have so much contempt for.
I can't speak for other leftists (let alone "lefties"), but I don't have contempt for a "huge chunk" of Democratic party supporters. I reserve my contempt for the bipartisan consensus of neoliberalism and neoconservatism (and that minority consensus certainly is vocal and overrepresented online and in the media), but the vast majority of people offline just want healthcare, education, an end to forever wars that have killed millions of people of color, and a world that isn't dying.
To this queer immigrant of color, Sanders represents our best shot to achieving those things. Everyone else thinks the Monster can be reformed with enough glossy white papers or that the Monster is good, actually, and the problem is that the person at the top is just too darn unpresidential.
posted by Ouverture at 5:59 AM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
I can't speak for other leftists (let alone "lefties"), but I don't have contempt for a "huge chunk" of Democratic party supporters. I reserve my contempt for the bipartisan consensus of neoliberalism and neoconservatism (and that minority consensus certainly is vocal and overrepresented online and in the media), but the vast majority of people offline just want healthcare, education, an end to forever wars that have killed millions of people of color, and a world that isn't dying.
To this queer immigrant of color, Sanders represents our best shot to achieving those things. Everyone else thinks the Monster can be reformed with enough glossy white papers or that the Monster is good, actually, and the problem is that the person at the top is just too darn unpresidential.
posted by Ouverture at 5:59 AM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
I voted for Warren this morning in VA. The Sanders and Bloomberg campaigns had signs up near the polling station. The Biden and Warren campaigns didn't.
posted by nangar at 6:09 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by nangar at 6:09 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
And as we consider who is strongest against Trump, here are the most recent RCP general election aggregates:
* Biden: +5.4
* Sanders: +4.9
* Bloomberg: +4.0
* Warren: +2.0
I'm genuinely surprised by how well Bloomberg is doing, but I suppose that's the benefit of being a wholly immoral billionaire.
While we're talking about electability/turnout concerns, has Warren made any progress in building her base of PoC support? I remember reading her base being the whitest in the primary and then there was this whole mess in Nevada.
posted by Ouverture at 6:14 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
* Biden: +5.4
* Sanders: +4.9
* Bloomberg: +4.0
* Warren: +2.0
I'm genuinely surprised by how well Bloomberg is doing, but I suppose that's the benefit of being a wholly immoral billionaire.
While we're talking about electability/turnout concerns, has Warren made any progress in building her base of PoC support? I remember reading her base being the whitest in the primary and then there was this whole mess in Nevada.
posted by Ouverture at 6:14 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
> Politicians have been ignoring the clear will of the people for years.
centuries.
here's the common feature of most movements for equality, democracy, and liberty since back when liberté, égalité, fraternité was a new slogan. they're sparked in the street by sans culottes, and then harnessed, contained, and redirected by the money men, who simultaneously thwart these movements while also taking credit for them. a mass uprising for economic equality — bread, and the free time to eat bread — is thereby shifted toward a set of political demands that establish a certain abstract freedom for the people who already had bread and the free time to eat bread. the liberty of the market, the liberty to elect whichever money man one chooses to run the state, a state which is understood primarily as a tool to keep the market humming, to keep the borders up, to defend property against the poor, and to keep the money men moneyed.
the calendar says it's march, but the weather feels more like thermidor to me.
my head tells me that nothing so moderate and liberal as the sanders movement (and nothing so moderate and liberal as the warren movement) will ever succeed in bringing freedom to the people like us, people who must spend most of our time doing work for the money men, making the money men more fat while keeping our own starvation just barely at bay.1 my heart, on the other hand, wants it so badly, thinks it's almost in our grasp, thinks that maybe it is in our grasp if we just reach a little bit more.
i hope my head is wrong and my heart is right and we come out of today with sanders winning the lion's share of the delegates, warren either winning enough to make her the kingmaker or else losing so hard that she drops out, and biden and bloomberg, that charming pair of patriarchs, knocked back so hard that not even their pet media outlets can stand them back up again.
one thing we know for sure: if these mild, moderate, liberal-leaning social democratic campaigns are beaten down by the media scare campaigns, if in fact sanders's social democracy and warren's keynesianism can be suppressed, the answer isn't going to be running a better campaign next time around, or picking a more charismatic figurehead, or whatever. the answer is going to be action outside of electoral democracy. building unions, building networks of mutual aid, building underground societies, performing direct action, using diverse tactics, building tenant's unions, withdrawing our labor whatever way we can, refusing to pay the bills the money men charge, building capacity for a general strike, and aiming to establish alternate systems that can seize control over enough physical infrastructure to (no fooling) establish a state of dual power wherein both the radical organizations and the money men's government hold valid claims to legitimacy. and then toppling the money men.
but we have to do it fast. because the waters are rising and it may already be too late.
let's hope sanders wins. because right now a sanders win is the only offramp from this grim fuckin' highway we're on. thank you to everyone who's given money to the campaign and volunteered for the campaign and supported the campaign. in the future, let's spend less of our precious free time on metafilter.
1: this rhetoric feels florid, but that's what we mean when we talk about living from paycheck to paycheck. the wolf is on the doorstep, and only by frantically turning the crank can we keep it from busting in and eating us.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:18 AM on March 3, 2020 [35 favorites]
centuries.
here's the common feature of most movements for equality, democracy, and liberty since back when liberté, égalité, fraternité was a new slogan. they're sparked in the street by sans culottes, and then harnessed, contained, and redirected by the money men, who simultaneously thwart these movements while also taking credit for them. a mass uprising for economic equality — bread, and the free time to eat bread — is thereby shifted toward a set of political demands that establish a certain abstract freedom for the people who already had bread and the free time to eat bread. the liberty of the market, the liberty to elect whichever money man one chooses to run the state, a state which is understood primarily as a tool to keep the market humming, to keep the borders up, to defend property against the poor, and to keep the money men moneyed.
the calendar says it's march, but the weather feels more like thermidor to me.
my head tells me that nothing so moderate and liberal as the sanders movement (and nothing so moderate and liberal as the warren movement) will ever succeed in bringing freedom to the people like us, people who must spend most of our time doing work for the money men, making the money men more fat while keeping our own starvation just barely at bay.1 my heart, on the other hand, wants it so badly, thinks it's almost in our grasp, thinks that maybe it is in our grasp if we just reach a little bit more.
i hope my head is wrong and my heart is right and we come out of today with sanders winning the lion's share of the delegates, warren either winning enough to make her the kingmaker or else losing so hard that she drops out, and biden and bloomberg, that charming pair of patriarchs, knocked back so hard that not even their pet media outlets can stand them back up again.
one thing we know for sure: if these mild, moderate, liberal-leaning social democratic campaigns are beaten down by the media scare campaigns, if in fact sanders's social democracy and warren's keynesianism can be suppressed, the answer isn't going to be running a better campaign next time around, or picking a more charismatic figurehead, or whatever. the answer is going to be action outside of electoral democracy. building unions, building networks of mutual aid, building underground societies, performing direct action, using diverse tactics, building tenant's unions, withdrawing our labor whatever way we can, refusing to pay the bills the money men charge, building capacity for a general strike, and aiming to establish alternate systems that can seize control over enough physical infrastructure to (no fooling) establish a state of dual power wherein both the radical organizations and the money men's government hold valid claims to legitimacy. and then toppling the money men.
but we have to do it fast. because the waters are rising and it may already be too late.
let's hope sanders wins. because right now a sanders win is the only offramp from this grim fuckin' highway we're on. thank you to everyone who's given money to the campaign and volunteered for the campaign and supported the campaign. in the future, let's spend less of our precious free time on metafilter.
1: this rhetoric feels florid, but that's what we mean when we talk about living from paycheck to paycheck. the wolf is on the doorstep, and only by frantically turning the crank can we keep it from busting in and eating us.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:18 AM on March 3, 2020 [35 favorites]
There are not a lot of early ballots returned in California. Only 23% so far. On the dem side, the 18-34 group has returned only 12% of their ballots and the 35-49 group is only at 15%. The 65+ group is at 44%. I’m wondering if Sanders isn’t going to do worse than expected in the state, still winning, but by a much smaller margin than expected. Pete, Amy, and Steyer dropping out is a wildcard because we don’t know how much of the early vote went to them. Answers will come soon enough. Sanders needs to win big in CA. Biden just needs to keep it close. And I’m still hoping (probably unrealistically) for a Warren miracle.
posted by azpenguin at 6:51 AM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 6:51 AM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
The problem for Democrats is that there is a fundamental split between the economic interests of young people and the economic interests of their older voters. Issues like health care, student debt, rent, and police reform, to name a few, are life and death.
Unfortunately, our political system cannot address those concerns. The reasons are numerous. To use healthcare as an example, anything that would seriously threaten the profit taking entities in our “system” will never pass - even a “strong” public option. Arguing about the merits and pitfalls of various plans is pointless.
In turn, the inability of the political system to address life or death concerns people have leads to a combination of anger and apathy. If Democrats don’t find a way to address this problem, they are in serious trouble.
posted by eagles123 at 7:02 AM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
Unfortunately, our political system cannot address those concerns. The reasons are numerous. To use healthcare as an example, anything that would seriously threaten the profit taking entities in our “system” will never pass - even a “strong” public option. Arguing about the merits and pitfalls of various plans is pointless.
In turn, the inability of the political system to address life or death concerns people have leads to a combination of anger and apathy. If Democrats don’t find a way to address this problem, they are in serious trouble.
posted by eagles123 at 7:02 AM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
It's go time, everyone! Regardless of your preference, get out there and exercise your right to vote.
posted by Flannery Culp at 7:22 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 7:22 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Our household voted for Warren today in NC, but we're happy to vote for Sanders in the general (and donate/volunteer) if that's the outcome. I also wrote a long post on social media explaining my reasoning as an attempt to convince myself and reconcile with my friends who support Sanders. Also it turns out I know a ton of quiet Warren fans who thought they were the only one. The local independent newsweekly also endorsed Warren, as did some other community leaders we admire. I will say that the Sanders-supporting friends I interact with did nothing to bring me into the fold and actively alienated me. Not that I'd change my vote for such a petty reason, but boy do they love to send me "A-HA!" links to a twitter guy (it's always a guy) who claims to have evidence that she's secretly evil. The worst was a 10 second clip of her saying she likes Bernie but thinks she can do better with the details, with a bunch of comments from people claiming to have lost all respect for her and what a shame it is! It feels a lot like "but her tone" and makes me think another male president is a general mistake no matter who it is.
My biggest concern with Bernie is that the reality of building a consensus with a bunch of centrist and swing state Democrats (and a few Republicans) to get legislation passed is going to be a blocker. Painting everyone else in the party except AOC as a horrible corporate apologist is going to result in exactly zero getting done, even if that's true about some of them.
My friends' method of asking me to strategically vote Sanders is like trying to convince someone to date you by talking a bunch of shit about their current boyfriend/girlfriend and telling them you're the only one who can make them happy. 100% not effective!
posted by freecellwizard at 7:31 AM on March 3, 2020 [32 favorites]
My biggest concern with Bernie is that the reality of building a consensus with a bunch of centrist and swing state Democrats (and a few Republicans) to get legislation passed is going to be a blocker. Painting everyone else in the party except AOC as a horrible corporate apologist is going to result in exactly zero getting done, even if that's true about some of them.
My friends' method of asking me to strategically vote Sanders is like trying to convince someone to date you by talking a bunch of shit about their current boyfriend/girlfriend and telling them you're the only one who can make them happy. 100% not effective!
posted by freecellwizard at 7:31 AM on March 3, 2020 [32 favorites]
I spent a couple hours at the local polling station passing out flyers for one of the local DA candidates (Audia Jones, for anyone in Harris County). Lots of turnout, lines about 20-30 minutes long by the time I left. All but one person I spoke to, and the huge majority of those I didn't, was there to vote Democratic. I'm going back this afternoon for another shift.
I had someone I know call me "comrade" pejoratively (here's a hint: that doesn't work on card-carrying socialists) and flat-out say they wouldn't vote for anyone I supported. I declined to suggest that if that was the case they go vote in the Republican primary instead, but it reminded me why we don't see each other much anymore.
posted by heteronym at 7:41 AM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
I had someone I know call me "comrade" pejoratively (here's a hint: that doesn't work on card-carrying socialists) and flat-out say they wouldn't vote for anyone I supported. I declined to suggest that if that was the case they go vote in the Republican primary instead, but it reminded me why we don't see each other much anymore.
posted by heteronym at 7:41 AM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
Oops, forgot to mention that other than my irony-resistant friend and a couple rude strangers, most people were pretty friendly to everyone working the polls, so it was a pretty pleasant way to start the morning.
posted by heteronym at 7:45 AM on March 3, 2020
posted by heteronym at 7:45 AM on March 3, 2020
If the latest polls are anywhere close to correct, Biden is going to win big and probably be the nominee.
I hope none of you are fond of malarkey.
posted by eagles123 at 8:52 AM on March 3, 2020
I hope none of you are fond of malarkey.
posted by eagles123 at 8:52 AM on March 3, 2020
Biden is far from my first choice. But if he's going to win, I hope it won't be by a contested convention or a razor-thin margin. Same for any nominee.
posted by argybarg at 9:02 AM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 9:02 AM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
I will vote for whoever they drop the balloon shower on at the convention.
posted by all about eevee at 9:15 AM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 9:15 AM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
On one hand, yes that is very disappointing. On the other hand, I'm really not a big fan of malarkey.
But can we trust Biden to stick to his anti-malarkey campaign promises?
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:28 AM on March 3, 2020
But can we trust Biden to stick to his anti-malarkey campaign promises?
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:28 AM on March 3, 2020
It feels a bit like Biden has been running a zombie campaign on a shoestring budget, so if he’s the nominee then I hope the silver lining is that his team accepts a lot of help from the other leading campaigns, especially Bernie, and treats this as a team effort. He seemed to be making a special effort last night to point out the best characteristics of Pete, Amy, and Beto and I hope that continues.
Biden seems fundamentally different to me from both Hillary Clinton and Kerry, even though he also isn’t an Obama or Bill Clinton. His focus on grief and loss would be an interesting and unusual trait in a President. Usually we appreciate figures who look forward and project joy but that grief is the quality that draws a lot of people to Biden. It is a willingness to be vulnerable that is the direct opposite of Trump. While Trump divides people into winners/killers and the rest of us who aren’t worth bothering with, Joe seems to understand that at some point in life we all lose and get stuck in the dumps. (Although I have to say, every time he brings up Beau in his stump speech I think about what life has been like for Hunter.) Joe brags about his (true or not) lack of money the way Trump brags about his riches. Other silver linings...well, maybe an Amtrak fan in office would finally make headway on a better national high-speed rail system.
This article was sweet: Running for president is a weird and lonely experience. At least Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, two salty candidates, had their own kind of friendship.
posted by sallybrown at 9:34 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Biden seems fundamentally different to me from both Hillary Clinton and Kerry, even though he also isn’t an Obama or Bill Clinton. His focus on grief and loss would be an interesting and unusual trait in a President. Usually we appreciate figures who look forward and project joy but that grief is the quality that draws a lot of people to Biden. It is a willingness to be vulnerable that is the direct opposite of Trump. While Trump divides people into winners/killers and the rest of us who aren’t worth bothering with, Joe seems to understand that at some point in life we all lose and get stuck in the dumps. (Although I have to say, every time he brings up Beau in his stump speech I think about what life has been like for Hunter.) Joe brags about his (true or not) lack of money the way Trump brags about his riches. Other silver linings...well, maybe an Amtrak fan in office would finally make headway on a better national high-speed rail system.
This article was sweet: Running for president is a weird and lonely experience. At least Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, two salty candidates, had their own kind of friendship.
posted by sallybrown at 9:34 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I've watched Joe Biden with interest since 1988, when I preferred him over at least Dukakis. He has always tripped himself up. He's always stumbled over his own words, faked and bluffed his way through things he should have done his homework on, and committed unforced errors. He's a slightly lovable uncle who frustrates the hell out of you — but he can be snapped out of it.
One thing that contrasts Biden with Hillary, as sallybrown says, is that he wears his heart on his sleeve. He looks foolish sometimes, but he resists attempts at being polished. Interesting that he shares that with Bernie; they're both untrainable.
He's someone that a Dem congress (and, fingers crossed) Senate can work with. For me he's a B, maybe B- candidate. So it goes.
posted by argybarg at 9:40 AM on March 3, 2020
One thing that contrasts Biden with Hillary, as sallybrown says, is that he wears his heart on his sleeve. He looks foolish sometimes, but he resists attempts at being polished. Interesting that he shares that with Bernie; they're both untrainable.
He's someone that a Dem congress (and, fingers crossed) Senate can work with. For me he's a B, maybe B- candidate. So it goes.
posted by argybarg at 9:40 AM on March 3, 2020
I will vote for whoever they drop the balloon shower on at the convention.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not get ahead of ourselves yet.
posted by FJT at 9:41 AM on March 3, 2020
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not get ahead of ourselves yet.
posted by FJT at 9:41 AM on March 3, 2020
So are we going to get a lot less scolding in the future for voting third party from today's Warren voters? I support voting your heart, particularly because any individual vote is more important to you than it is likely to affect the outcome. But that's precisely how the Nader and Stein voters reasoned. Prior to the 2000 and 2016 elections it wasn't certain that those votes would decisively hurt the second-best candidate (Gore, Clinton), and the third-party voters reasoned that they would rather vote their hearts and give their preferred candidate extra clout in the future. It is similarly uncertain here whether the Warren votes that could have gone to Sanders will make the difference between him winning or losing to Biden, but it seems like a fair possibility, just as it did pre-November in 2000 or 2016. I'm not one of those who blame Stein and Nader particularly, but Warren is in structurally a very similar position right now -- better on the merits, but endangering the downstream probability of winning by the second-best candidate. Hopefully the Warren folks might at least come out of this a bit more sympathetic to the strategy-defying aspect of voting for Stein and Nader (though of course Nader and Stein are in no way comparable to Warren on the merits).
posted by chortly at 9:50 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by chortly at 9:50 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I had a hard decision in NC but I was finally persuaded to simply vote for who I want to be President, and not indulge in any kind of strategic Biden-denying attempts. In the long run, I can't accept that I am disenfranchised from expressing a preference after only 4 States have voted.
posted by thelonius at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Voting for Warren in the primary is very different from voting third party in the general election. I will not be bullied into feeling guilty for casting my ballot for who I think is the best-qualified candidate when 92% of delegates are still up for grabs.
posted by Flannery Culp at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [43 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [43 favorites]
> So are we going to get a lot less scolding in the future for voting third party from today's Warren voters?
Did I fall asleep and wake up after the Democratic primary? It's asinine to suggest that voting for a third party spoiler in November is just a difference of degree from voting for your preferred primary candidate in early March.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
Did I fall asleep and wake up after the Democratic primary? It's asinine to suggest that voting for a third party spoiler in November is just a difference of degree from voting for your preferred primary candidate in early March.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
But that's precisely how the Nader and Stein voters reasoned.
That's kind of what makes little sense to me. Why do people always resort to high pressure tactics to get other people to change their vote, when they know it hasn't worked before (and sometimes they know because the exact same tactics were tried on them)? It happens in decisions other than voting too, but it seems for voting it's especially interesting since it happens ever 4 to 8 years and you figure people would learn.
posted by FJT at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
That's kind of what makes little sense to me. Why do people always resort to high pressure tactics to get other people to change their vote, when they know it hasn't worked before (and sometimes they know because the exact same tactics were tried on them)? It happens in decisions other than voting too, but it seems for voting it's especially interesting since it happens ever 4 to 8 years and you figure people would learn.
posted by FJT at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Why are you assuming that Warren votes would go to Sanders if she dropped out? I voted for Warren in the primary and Biden would be my second choice, not Bernie.
posted by all about eevee at 9:57 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 9:57 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think one problem is that people are describing reasoned argumentation as "high pressure tactics" and "bullying". I think it would be better if there was less of that characterization here.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:59 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:59 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Warren voters I know (probably me included!) are less likely to vote third party than average—they like concrete plans and pragmatism.
posted by sallybrown at 10:00 AM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:00 AM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
So are we going to get a lot less scolding in the future for voting third party from today's Warren voters?
The primaries are exactly the place that these things get sorted out. While you might have settled on your preferred candidate, millions of other Democrats have not. And to suggest that everyone must fall in line for your candidate at this point is disrespectful of others. We really don't know who is the best candidate to beat Trump yet.
posted by JackFlash at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
The primaries are exactly the place that these things get sorted out. While you might have settled on your preferred candidate, millions of other Democrats have not. And to suggest that everyone must fall in line for your candidate at this point is disrespectful of others. We really don't know who is the best candidate to beat Trump yet.
posted by JackFlash at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
Did I fall asleep and wake up after the Democratic primary? It's asinine to suggest that voting for a third party spoiler in November is just a difference of degree from voting for your preferred primary candidate in early March. GTFO with this nonsense -- it's beneath your usual standard of argumentation.
That seems a bit strong. Strategically, it's the same; substantively, it's different. In both cases, voting for the better candidate is lessening the chances of the second-best candidate winning. I don't want anyone to change their vote -- I don't give a hoot about any MF voters -- but the "throw strategy to the winds and vote your heart" is both a logic I support, and the same logic used in 2000 and 2016 by a segment of left voters (though the stakes, of course, were very different, and I don't mean to imply otherwise).
Why are you assuming that Warren votes would go to Sanders if she dropped out? I voted for Warren in the primary and Biden would be my second choice, not Bernie.
Yes, as I mentioned above, I think it would actually be close to a wash. These points only matter for the Warren > Sanders > Biden voters, not the Warren > Biden > Sanders voters. They may also matter for Warren herself if her next preference is Sanders.
The Warren voters I know (probably me included!) are less likely to vote third party than average—they like concrete plans and pragmatism.
Warren is not third-party, but she is in structurally the same position right now: very unlikely to win, and affecting the chances of winning by the second-most-preferred candidate (for some Warren voters anyway).
And again: not trying to pressure anyone to change their vote! On the contrary, trying to argue for more sympathy for past and future voters for the non-leading-candidate on the left.
posted by chortly at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
That seems a bit strong. Strategically, it's the same; substantively, it's different. In both cases, voting for the better candidate is lessening the chances of the second-best candidate winning. I don't want anyone to change their vote -- I don't give a hoot about any MF voters -- but the "throw strategy to the winds and vote your heart" is both a logic I support, and the same logic used in 2000 and 2016 by a segment of left voters (though the stakes, of course, were very different, and I don't mean to imply otherwise).
Why are you assuming that Warren votes would go to Sanders if she dropped out? I voted for Warren in the primary and Biden would be my second choice, not Bernie.
Yes, as I mentioned above, I think it would actually be close to a wash. These points only matter for the Warren > Sanders > Biden voters, not the Warren > Biden > Sanders voters. They may also matter for Warren herself if her next preference is Sanders.
The Warren voters I know (probably me included!) are less likely to vote third party than average—they like concrete plans and pragmatism.
Warren is not third-party, but she is in structurally the same position right now: very unlikely to win, and affecting the chances of winning by the second-most-preferred candidate (for some Warren voters anyway).
And again: not trying to pressure anyone to change their vote! On the contrary, trying to argue for more sympathy for past and future voters for the non-leading-candidate on the left.
posted by chortly at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm voting for Warren, although I believe she has no chance. I think that kind of calculation is vastly different in the primary than it is in the general.
posted by argybarg at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
> That seems a bit strong.
Yeah, I edited the nasty part at the end out, and apologize for posting it in the first place. I shouldn't have.
> In both cases, voting for the better candidate is lessening the chances of the second-best candidate winning.
In the case of doing it in the primary, the worst outcome is that a lesser Democrat faces Trump in the general. In the case of doing it in the general, the best Democrat, worst Democrat, or any in between could be denied the presidency in an election they would have otherwise won. One can argue (but not here, I'm sure the mods will remind us!) about how much an individual spoiler in the past affected the outcome, but the risk calculus is completely different, as there is no Democrat with a chance of winning that would be as bad a president as Trump is.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I edited the nasty part at the end out, and apologize for posting it in the first place. I shouldn't have.
> In both cases, voting for the better candidate is lessening the chances of the second-best candidate winning.
In the case of doing it in the primary, the worst outcome is that a lesser Democrat faces Trump in the general. In the case of doing it in the general, the best Democrat, worst Democrat, or any in between could be denied the presidency in an election they would have otherwise won. One can argue (but not here, I'm sure the mods will remind us!) about how much an individual spoiler in the past affected the outcome, but the risk calculus is completely different, as there is no Democrat with a chance of winning that would be as bad a president as Trump is.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
This article was sweet: Running for president is a weird and lonely experience. At least Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, two salty candidates, had their own kind of friendship.
I lost the funniest version of the tweet that imagined Amy and Pete flying on a plane together to speak for Joe Biden but I assume this is the opposite of that.
posted by atoxyl at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I lost the funniest version of the tweet that imagined Amy and Pete flying on a plane together to speak for Joe Biden but I assume this is the opposite of that.
posted by atoxyl at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
In the case of doing it in the primary, the worst outcome is that a lesser Democrat faces Trump in the general. In the case of doing it in the general, the best Democrat, worst Democrat, or any in between could be denied the presidency in an election they would have otherwise won. One can argue (but not here, I'm sure the mods will remind us!) about how much an individual spoiler in the past affected the outcome, but the risk calculus is completely different, as there is no Democrat with a chance of winning that would be as bad a president as Trump is.
I totally agree with that. The stakes are utterly different. It's hard to make the strategy analogy without also implying that Biden is analogous to Trump or Bush, or that Warren is analogous to Nader or Stein. But for what it's worth, I heartily agree that there are orders of magnitude differences in substance, and only some general structural similarities at best.
posted by chortly at 10:12 AM on March 3, 2020
I totally agree with that. The stakes are utterly different. It's hard to make the strategy analogy without also implying that Biden is analogous to Trump or Bush, or that Warren is analogous to Nader or Stein. But for what it's worth, I heartily agree that there are orders of magnitude differences in substance, and only some general structural similarities at best.
posted by chortly at 10:12 AM on March 3, 2020
I voted for Warren despite knowing that she probably wasn't going to win. If Bloomberg had a chance, I probably would have went for Sanders. As it is, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know whether Sanders or Biden will perform better in the general. I will happily vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. If you compare voting for a third party candidate in the general to someone who is a long shot in the primary it seems to me that you see Biden and Trump as the same level of "badness", which is definitely an interesting take.
posted by No One Ever Does at 10:13 AM on March 3, 2020
posted by No One Ever Does at 10:13 AM on March 3, 2020
FWIW, no, it hurt a lot in 2016 but I think chiding third party voters is irrelevant at best and undemocratic at worst. No one is owed your vote until they earn it, and no one is obligated to vote for anyone because "it's our only choice to beat X." I would personally choose that choice, but I can't shame or scorn others for a different one.
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:14 AM on March 3, 2020
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:14 AM on March 3, 2020
Warren is not third-party, but she is in structurally the same position right now: very unlikely to win, and affecting the chances of winning by the second-most-preferred candidate (for some Warren voters anyway).
But a primary candidate can garner support through the primary vote, even when she doesn’t win, that she can leverage to affect the eventual nominee. If Warren stays in and comes in a strong third place, she can use that proof of support to get backing for her policies from the nominee in return for her support. A third party run in the real election doesn’t have that aspect.
posted by sallybrown at 10:15 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
But a primary candidate can garner support through the primary vote, even when she doesn’t win, that she can leverage to affect the eventual nominee. If Warren stays in and comes in a strong third place, she can use that proof of support to get backing for her policies from the nominee in return for her support. A third party run in the real election doesn’t have that aspect.
posted by sallybrown at 10:15 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
If Warren stays in and comes in a strong third place, she can use that proof of support to get backing for her policies from the nominee in return for her support.
Good luck. Sanders has already adopted or exceeded her platform so there's not a lot she could push him on. Joe Biden doesn't care. He thinks we're all just doing fine as long as we can return to the sunny days of the Obama Presidency. Do you think he's going to push for M4A because Liz Warren has about 200 delegates in June?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:20 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Good luck. Sanders has already adopted or exceeded her platform so there's not a lot she could push him on. Joe Biden doesn't care. He thinks we're all just doing fine as long as we can return to the sunny days of the Obama Presidency. Do you think he's going to push for M4A because Liz Warren has about 200 delegates in June?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:20 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
But a primary candidate can garner support through the primary vote, even when she doesn’t win, that she can leverage to affect the eventual nominee. If Warren stays in and comes in a strong third place, she can use that proof of support to get backing for her policies from the nominee in return for her support. A third party run in the real election doesn’t have that aspect.
That's true. Once again, I'm only thinking of the Warren > Sanders > Biden voters here, but the thing is, those delegates of hers are fairly worthless if Sanders loses the plurality, particularly if he loses it in a way that Warren + Sanders doesn't equal a majority. If he's certain to win (as Clinton was in 2016), then amassing delegates will certainly help with the platform. But if her delegates nudge Sanders below Biden -- especially in conjunction with states where she's below threshold and all those Warren votes produce no delegates at all -- then what delegates she does gain will be fairly worthless. It's of course impossible to know for sure what's going to happen, but that was the case in 2000 and 2016 as well; the strategic rule I generally heard was that if there was even a decent chance of strategic backfire, you should vote strategically. But again, I had my doubts about that in 2000 and 2016, and I have my doubts about it too. Perversely, I guess, I'm just arguing for more sympathy for the Nader, Stein, and disaffected Sanders voters who all quite reasonably thought there was a good chance voting their heart wouldn't make a difference to the eventual winner. (And again, no intended analogies substantively between any of these candidates.)
posted by chortly at 10:23 AM on March 3, 2020
That's true. Once again, I'm only thinking of the Warren > Sanders > Biden voters here, but the thing is, those delegates of hers are fairly worthless if Sanders loses the plurality, particularly if he loses it in a way that Warren + Sanders doesn't equal a majority. If he's certain to win (as Clinton was in 2016), then amassing delegates will certainly help with the platform. But if her delegates nudge Sanders below Biden -- especially in conjunction with states where she's below threshold and all those Warren votes produce no delegates at all -- then what delegates she does gain will be fairly worthless. It's of course impossible to know for sure what's going to happen, but that was the case in 2000 and 2016 as well; the strategic rule I generally heard was that if there was even a decent chance of strategic backfire, you should vote strategically. But again, I had my doubts about that in 2000 and 2016, and I have my doubts about it too. Perversely, I guess, I'm just arguing for more sympathy for the Nader, Stein, and disaffected Sanders voters who all quite reasonably thought there was a good chance voting their heart wouldn't make a difference to the eventual winner. (And again, no intended analogies substantively between any of these candidates.)
posted by chortly at 10:23 AM on March 3, 2020
Well there's also just worrying about whether Biden is a strong candidate. And there's worrying about what happens after Biden wins but shows himself to be ineffectual (in ways he has sort of promised to be, IMO) but then of course there are other versions for other candidates so altogether we are talking about multiple chained probabilities.
FWIW, no, it hurt a lot in 2016 but I think chiding third party voters is irrelevant at best and undemocratic at worst. No one is owed your vote until they earn it, and no one is obligated to vote for anyone because "it's our only choice to beat X." I would personally choose that choice, but I can't shame or scorn others for a different one.
I strongly believe that it's always a person's right to vote for whoever, including in the general. I think it's also legitimate to try to persuade people, however. I don't know whether this is a sensible or significant venue to try to do that.
If Warren stays in and comes in a strong third place, she can use that proof of support to get backing for her policies from the nominee in return for her support. A third party run in the real election doesn’t have that aspect.
Can she get any promise out of Biden that he's likely to keep, though? A lot of these questions are about when it makes sense to get behind another candidate, where "when" affects who is an option (c.f. how good the timing of all these other endorsements might be for Biden).
posted by atoxyl at 10:24 AM on March 3, 2020
FWIW, no, it hurt a lot in 2016 but I think chiding third party voters is irrelevant at best and undemocratic at worst. No one is owed your vote until they earn it, and no one is obligated to vote for anyone because "it's our only choice to beat X." I would personally choose that choice, but I can't shame or scorn others for a different one.
I strongly believe that it's always a person's right to vote for whoever, including in the general. I think it's also legitimate to try to persuade people, however. I don't know whether this is a sensible or significant venue to try to do that.
If Warren stays in and comes in a strong third place, she can use that proof of support to get backing for her policies from the nominee in return for her support. A third party run in the real election doesn’t have that aspect.
Can she get any promise out of Biden that he's likely to keep, though? A lot of these questions are about when it makes sense to get behind another candidate, where "when" affects who is an option (c.f. how good the timing of all these other endorsements might be for Biden).
posted by atoxyl at 10:24 AM on March 3, 2020
There are more avenues of influence than just changing Joe Biden's mind. Coalitions are complex and indirect.
posted by argybarg at 10:25 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 10:25 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I have trouble imagining the particulars of a Biden presidency because I have real trouble imagining him not losing.
What I have no trouble imagining is the left being blamed for not turning out enough after Biden's disastrous campaign and for being mean on twitter, and the Democratic Party using that as their excuse to turn even farther to the right and punch left for another four years while the world burns.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:25 AM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
What I have no trouble imagining is the left being blamed for not turning out enough after Biden's disastrous campaign and for being mean on twitter, and the Democratic Party using that as their excuse to turn even farther to the right and punch left for another four years while the world burns.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:25 AM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
The middle class can get fucked—they don't sleep in their cars or go serve entitled pricks at Olive Garden that don't even tip.
if middle means "upper middle" (means "pretty wealthy")
otherwise it's more that a "middle class" lifestyle is increasingly inaccessible to large parts of the working class, and it's part of his pitch that this doesn't need to be the case
posted by atoxyl at 10:27 AM on March 3, 2020
if middle means "upper middle" (means "pretty wealthy")
otherwise it's more that a "middle class" lifestyle is increasingly inaccessible to large parts of the working class, and it's part of his pitch that this doesn't need to be the case
posted by atoxyl at 10:27 AM on March 3, 2020
Rust Moranis:
We all have our nightmares. Mine came from seeing Jeremy Corbyn get clobbered in the UK and one of his backers saying it was because "he made too many concessions to the right."
In the end, we don't know. After the outcome of 2016 I have to say I don't know nothing about nothing.
posted by argybarg at 10:29 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
We all have our nightmares. Mine came from seeing Jeremy Corbyn get clobbered in the UK and one of his backers saying it was because "he made too many concessions to the right."
In the end, we don't know. After the outcome of 2016 I have to say I don't know nothing about nothing.
posted by argybarg at 10:29 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
But if her delegates nudge Sanders below Biden -- especially in conjunction with states where she's below threshold and all those Warren votes produce no delegates at all -- then what delegates she does gain will be fairly worthless.
If Sanders and Biden come into the convention at a draw, with neither holding a majority and Mike having belly flopped (all big What Ifs), Warren’s endorsement and support will be priceless.
The persistent view of Warren as Diet Sanders by Sanders supporters is keeping them from understanding that Warren has her own base who see her as fundamentally different from Bernie (and the rest of the candidates). They are not just willing to swap her out.
posted by sallybrown at 10:30 AM on March 3, 2020 [29 favorites]
If Sanders and Biden come into the convention at a draw, with neither holding a majority and Mike having belly flopped (all big What Ifs), Warren’s endorsement and support will be priceless.
The persistent view of Warren as Diet Sanders by Sanders supporters is keeping them from understanding that Warren has her own base who see her as fundamentally different from Bernie (and the rest of the candidates). They are not just willing to swap her out.
posted by sallybrown at 10:30 AM on March 3, 2020 [29 favorites]
Mod note: Couple deleted; please skip the dementia jokes
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:31 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:31 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
If Sanders and Biden come into the convention at a draw, with neither holding a majority and Mike having belly flopped (all big What Ifs), Warren’s endorsement and support will be priceless.
What concessions do you expect she'd be able to extract from either Sanders or Biden?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 11:04 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
What concessions do you expect she'd be able to extract from either Sanders or Biden?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 11:04 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
In the 2000 election George W. Bush won (or "won") Florida by 537 votes and won the Electoral College 271-266 despite Al Gore winning the popular vote by over half a million votes.
In the 2016 election Donald Trump won Michigan by 0.3 percent (13,080 votes), Wisconsin by 1.0 percent (27,257 votes), Pennsylvania by 1.2 percent (68,236 votes), and Florida by 1.2 percent (114,455 votes). He won the Electoral College 304-227 despite Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by three million votes.
Every vote counts.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:09 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
In the 2016 election Donald Trump won Michigan by 0.3 percent (13,080 votes), Wisconsin by 1.0 percent (27,257 votes), Pennsylvania by 1.2 percent (68,236 votes), and Florida by 1.2 percent (114,455 votes). He won the Electoral College 304-227 despite Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by three million votes.
Every vote counts.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:09 AM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
The persistent view of Warren as Diet Sanders by Sanders supporters is keeping them from understanding that Warren has her own base who see her as fundamentally different from Bernie (and the rest of the candidates). They are not just willing to swap her out.
There are a lot of Midwestern folks on my FB timeline who have been talking about their political leanings throughout the primaries. One trend I noticed is quite a few had Warren as either first or second (first being either Klobuchar or Pete), and after SC the majority of them have switched their vote to Biden for a variety of reasons, including believing he's much safer in the general, believing he's more experienced, and believing Biden will lose the general but Bernie will lose us the House. Only one indicated switching to Bernie. So. Do with that what you will.
posted by brook horse at 11:12 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
There are a lot of Midwestern folks on my FB timeline who have been talking about their political leanings throughout the primaries. One trend I noticed is quite a few had Warren as either first or second (first being either Klobuchar or Pete), and after SC the majority of them have switched their vote to Biden for a variety of reasons, including believing he's much safer in the general, believing he's more experienced, and believing Biden will lose the general but Bernie will lose us the House. Only one indicated switching to Bernie. So. Do with that what you will.
posted by brook horse at 11:12 AM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Opinion: Here's What To Do If You Hate The Democratic Nominee
posted by kirkaracha at 11:13 AM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Now the time has finally come. The 2020 election is here, and the Democratic primary is very slowly narrowing, with only a handful of candidates remaining. You’ve been preparing for this for three years, and yet: When you look at the possibilities, you’re deflated. Or maybe you feel it more viscerally: You cannot stomach the idea of casting a ballot for ______, let alone knocking a door for them or giving them money. You know you have a moral responsibility to act, but there is simply no way you can do it on behalf of ________.Ceterum autem censeo Trump delenda est
Advertisement
Don’t worry. There is another, equally important, way to make a difference this November that won’t require you to fake it through a canvassing shift: Go local.
With your time, money, attention, and most importantly, your vote, you can help beat Trump and build sustainable power for Democrats without ever saying the Democratic nominee’s name.
...
It’s your right to cast your ballot for whomever you prefer. But especially if you’re a person with any kind of privilege, you have a responsibility to think beyond your self-interest. This election is about the most vulnerable among us who need you to be an ally.
While it might be tempting to take a principled stand and not vote, the facts are what they are: The general election will be between Trump and the eventual Democratic nominee. You don’t get to go off menu. The people who will be most harmed by your failure to vote against Trump are people who are already seriously hurting — that is a responsibility to take seriously, especially if you live in one of the battleground states where the margin could be dangerously close.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:13 AM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
What can they offer Warren? VP. Or, if she trusts them, oaths to spend all the political capital it takes to get some of her agenda passed.
If they're smart both Biden and Sanders know they need someone younger and ideally a woman or person of color on the ticket, and I don't think Warren is young enough (I'm hoping for VP Stacy Abrams). So probably policy concessions and sub-VP cabinet partitions either for her or someone she trusts while she stays in the Senate.
posted by sotonohito at 11:15 AM on March 3, 2020
If they're smart both Biden and Sanders know they need someone younger and ideally a woman or person of color on the ticket, and I don't think Warren is young enough (I'm hoping for VP Stacy Abrams). So probably policy concessions and sub-VP cabinet partitions either for her or someone she trusts while she stays in the Senate.
posted by sotonohito at 11:15 AM on March 3, 2020
I cannot emphasize enough how much relatively unexplored political work there is to be done at the local level. Where I am, in Washington State, the state legislature is wrapping up a session with some consequential measures, particularly around climate change, and nary a peep from any of the activists I know. You can meet with your state legislator in a cafe; I have. You can canvas in a group, pick up 67 votes, and turn your legislature blue; we did in 2018. It's an area of politics that is actually about practical power and drastically needs attention.
posted by argybarg at 11:25 AM on March 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 11:25 AM on March 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
I don't know how to feel about Nate's model this time around. It seems to make sense but the predictions all show a comically huge turnout for Bloomberg. Like the most conservative estimate has him walking away with 133 delegates and the most generous with 298.
I really, really can't see that happening.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:31 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
I really, really can't see that happening.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:31 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
I voted for Warren in Washington last week. I honestly don't know who I'd pick between Berrnie and Biden. I think Bernie's strategy of running against the Democratic party (while also running as a Democrat) is going to backfire and lose the House. His plant to get M4A passed is to ignite a mass revolution so large that doesn't matter, I guess?
Except he doesn't seem to be doing that. He's not turning out new voters in overwhelming numbers. If he were, Biden wouldn't be a threat. If people won't turn out to vote for him over Biden in SC, how is he going to get people in the streets calling for M4A in red states?
People's biggest concern in this election is beating Trump. Unfortunately, we don't know who is more electable until there's an actual election. So far, Nevada and South Carolina have told opposite stories.
I think we need big, structural change. I don't think either Biden or Sanders will deliver it. Biden because he doesn't think it's a priority, and Sanders because he can't build the coalition needed to drive change. However, I think they'll both work for the interests of poor, middle class, and working folks. They'll both fight to roll back the Trump tax cuts. But neither of them is going to effectively investigate and prosecute the corruption of the Trump era, or fix the structural problems that got us into this mess.
posted by heathkit at 11:41 AM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
Except he doesn't seem to be doing that. He's not turning out new voters in overwhelming numbers. If he were, Biden wouldn't be a threat. If people won't turn out to vote for him over Biden in SC, how is he going to get people in the streets calling for M4A in red states?
People's biggest concern in this election is beating Trump. Unfortunately, we don't know who is more electable until there's an actual election. So far, Nevada and South Carolina have told opposite stories.
I think we need big, structural change. I don't think either Biden or Sanders will deliver it. Biden because he doesn't think it's a priority, and Sanders because he can't build the coalition needed to drive change. However, I think they'll both work for the interests of poor, middle class, and working folks. They'll both fight to roll back the Trump tax cuts. But neither of them is going to effectively investigate and prosecute the corruption of the Trump era, or fix the structural problems that got us into this mess.
posted by heathkit at 11:41 AM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
I don't know how to feel about Nate's model this time around. It seems to make sense but the predictions all show a comically huge turnout for Bloomberg. Like the most conservative estimate has him walking away with 133 delegates and the most generous with 298.
Based on their predictions for the states that have already voted and some outliers in future states, I have my doubts that they're actually modeling the number of delegates anyone is actually going to get but instead using some attempt at a weird hack based on predicted vote percentage. For example, they predicted Buttigieg would get 1 delegate in South Carolina, which I guess wasn't completely impossible, but I think it would require some unlikely combination of doing well in exactly one congressional district but not hitting 15% in the state overall. Instead of modeling that, they just gave him credit for a bunch of .2 delegate predictions that could never plausibly get turned into actual delegates. Similarly, in Vermont they're giving Bloomberg 1 predicted delegate with 11% of the vote, which I believe is impossible. The model has been fairly close on vote percentage so far, but that's not nearly the same thing as having accurate delegate predictions, where it's been way off multiple times so far, and I don't put a ton of stock into whatever numbers they're throwing out there for delegates.
posted by Copronymus at 11:44 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Based on their predictions for the states that have already voted and some outliers in future states, I have my doubts that they're actually modeling the number of delegates anyone is actually going to get but instead using some attempt at a weird hack based on predicted vote percentage. For example, they predicted Buttigieg would get 1 delegate in South Carolina, which I guess wasn't completely impossible, but I think it would require some unlikely combination of doing well in exactly one congressional district but not hitting 15% in the state overall. Instead of modeling that, they just gave him credit for a bunch of .2 delegate predictions that could never plausibly get turned into actual delegates. Similarly, in Vermont they're giving Bloomberg 1 predicted delegate with 11% of the vote, which I believe is impossible. The model has been fairly close on vote percentage so far, but that's not nearly the same thing as having accurate delegate predictions, where it's been way off multiple times so far, and I don't put a ton of stock into whatever numbers they're throwing out there for delegates.
posted by Copronymus at 11:44 AM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Tonight is going to give us a bunch of answers I hope. When do results start coming in?
And will there be a new FPP?
posted by Windopaene at 11:48 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
And will there be a new FPP?
posted by Windopaene at 11:48 AM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
I cannot emphasize enough how much relatively unexplored political work there is to be done at the local level. Where I am, in Washington State, the state legislature is wrapping up a session with some consequential measures, particularly around climate change, and nary a peep from any of the activists I know.
Absolutely! Washington also recently passed a public option. I have a lot of hope for building progressive movements at the local level to get the changes we need state-by-state, and present them as a model for the rest of the county.
posted by heathkit at 11:49 AM on March 3, 2020
Absolutely! Washington also recently passed a public option. I have a lot of hope for building progressive movements at the local level to get the changes we need state-by-state, and present them as a model for the rest of the county.
posted by heathkit at 11:49 AM on March 3, 2020
I've been a Warren supporter and had planned to vote for her in the primary here in Virginia today, but since the strong push for Biden post-South Carolina, I've become very worried that Biden will take the nomination -- so I voted for Bernie this morning. (My father did the same as me, and my mother has been ride-or-die for Biden for decades).
I have a lot of respect for and goodwill toward Biden, but I don't think that he has the organic enthusiasm behind him to stand up to Trump in the general, and I don't think he has a positive argument for his candidacy or a vision for the future that I can articulate to other voters or even get behind myself.
I'm kind of sick over it because I have reservations about Bernie as a candidate and feel extremely alienated by a certain fanatical segment of his base, and because I feel disloyal to Warren (who I think is a better candidate and has run a better campaign). But I think Bernie's got a shot at the general that Biden doesn't have, and I think he's the realistic Biden alternative in this primary, so...
Maybe I should have voted Warren anyhow. Who knows.
Signed,
Someone Who Followed Her Gut Rather Than Her Heart And May Live To Regret It
posted by rue72 at 11:56 AM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
I have a lot of respect for and goodwill toward Biden, but I don't think that he has the organic enthusiasm behind him to stand up to Trump in the general, and I don't think he has a positive argument for his candidacy or a vision for the future that I can articulate to other voters or even get behind myself.
I'm kind of sick over it because I have reservations about Bernie as a candidate and feel extremely alienated by a certain fanatical segment of his base, and because I feel disloyal to Warren (who I think is a better candidate and has run a better campaign). But I think Bernie's got a shot at the general that Biden doesn't have, and I think he's the realistic Biden alternative in this primary, so...
Maybe I should have voted Warren anyhow. Who knows.
Signed,
Someone Who Followed Her Gut Rather Than Her Heart And May Live To Regret It
posted by rue72 at 11:56 AM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
Per The Daily Kos guide to Super Tuesday (all times Eastern)
3:00 pm: American Samoa
7:00 pm: Vermont and Virginia
7:30 pm: North Carolina
8:00 pm: Alabama, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and most of Texas
8:30 pm: Arkansas
9:00 pm: Colorado and Minnesota and the westernmost part of Texas (El Paso area)
10:00 pm: Utah
11:00 pm: California
posted by kirkaracha at 12:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
3:00 pm: American Samoa
7:00 pm: Vermont and Virginia
7:30 pm: North Carolina
8:00 pm: Alabama, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and most of Texas
8:30 pm: Arkansas
9:00 pm: Colorado and Minnesota and the westernmost part of Texas (El Paso area)
10:00 pm: Utah
11:00 pm: California
posted by kirkaracha at 12:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Be prepared for delays though. I doubt this goes smoothly.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:03 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:03 PM on March 3, 2020
Definitely don't stay up for California. They likely won't have final results for weeks.
posted by Automocar at 12:05 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 12:05 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
> I don't know how to feel about Nate's model this time around. It seems to make sense but the predictions all show a comically huge turnout for Bloomberg.
Nate Silver's said in recent podcasts that he thinks Bloomberg will under-perform his poll numbers because he doesn't have a committed base of supporters who'll turn out for him, unlike other candidates who do. But that's a hunch on Nate's part. If that turn out to be true, his model won't take that into account until he has actual numbers to plug in from primary results where Bloomberg's on the ballots.
Nate's a stats nerd; his model doesn't take hunches into account. But in this case, Nate's on record saying his gut disagrees with what his algorithm is predicting about Bloomberg's chances.
posted by nangar at 12:19 PM on March 3, 2020
Nate Silver's said in recent podcasts that he thinks Bloomberg will under-perform his poll numbers because he doesn't have a committed base of supporters who'll turn out for him, unlike other candidates who do. But that's a hunch on Nate's part. If that turn out to be true, his model won't take that into account until he has actual numbers to plug in from primary results where Bloomberg's on the ballots.
Nate's a stats nerd; his model doesn't take hunches into account. But in this case, Nate's on record saying his gut disagrees with what his algorithm is predicting about Bloomberg's chances.
posted by nangar at 12:19 PM on March 3, 2020
The comparison between voting for Warren today and voting for Nader in 2000 is silly, because the state-level allocation of electors is winner-take-all, so a vote for Nader was literally a wasted vote. In areas where Warren is viable* a vote for her will directly increase the proportion of delegates she gets to take to the convention, where the nominee will be chosen. These delegates are not in any meaningful sense wasted---if no one secures an outright majority they will almost certainly be vital for picking the eventual nominee. There's no reason any of us need to buy into the (frankly undemocratic) hype that being the plurality winner is all that matters.
* funnily enough, you rarely see Sanders people on the internet suggesting that people vote for Warren in places where she might be on the cusp of viability, even though doing so would probably net gain delegates for the left writ large
posted by rishabguha at 12:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
* funnily enough, you rarely see Sanders people on the internet suggesting that people vote for Warren in places where she might be on the cusp of viability, even though doing so would probably net gain delegates for the left writ large
posted by rishabguha at 12:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
funnily enough, you rarely see Sanders people on the internet suggesting that people vote for Warren in places where she might be on the cusp of viability, even though doing so would probably net gain delegates for the left writ large
I think the left is largely feeling pretty burned about the way Warren suddenly pivoted away from a united progressive front and started frequently criticizing Bernie over the last few months. There's a real sense of betrayal there, and a lot of concern that she could end up endorsing Biden if she drops out. It's NOT a sure bet that delegates for Warren translate to delegates for a united left.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:28 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
I think the left is largely feeling pretty burned about the way Warren suddenly pivoted away from a united progressive front and started frequently criticizing Bernie over the last few months. There's a real sense of betrayal there, and a lot of concern that she could end up endorsing Biden if she drops out. It's NOT a sure bet that delegates for Warren translate to delegates for a united left.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:28 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
She's campaigning for herself, not for him. Her statement in one of the later debates "Bernie and I have a lot of similar ideas, but I think I'd make a better president, and here's why" is exactly what Warren should have been presenting all along... or, has been presenting all along, but to media crickets.
posted by Flannery Culp at 12:38 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 12:38 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
It's fine for her to campaign for herself, I'm just explaining why Sanders supporters aren't suggesting that people vote for her to get her over the threshold and why we don't see her as necessarily our ally.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:39 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:39 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
We don’t know what might be the effect of having a President directing his supporters to personally target senators, donors, lobbyists and corporate executives standing in the way of his agenda. We don’t know because it’s never been tried. Maybe he will fail. But nothing else has a hope in hell.
posted by moorooka at 12:41 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by moorooka at 12:41 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sure, and I'm explaining why that shouldn't be the expectation with the way primaries are currently run. For a "united progressive front" instead of "here's why I'm better than the others" you need ranked choice voting. Right now they're rivals, not senatorial colleagues with similar goals.
posted by Flannery Culp at 12:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 12:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
We're on the same page about that.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:46 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:46 PM on March 3, 2020
I disagree, One Second Before Awakening. I think the people "disappointed" with Warren bought into smears by pro-Sanders outlets like Jacobin and Sanders surrogates, who desperately tried to paint Warren as anything but the progressive candidate she has been the entire time. One easy tell is when I read words like "betrayal".
In the mind of this Warren supporter, she IS the better candidate, and the lefty outlets trying to find purity tests for her policies to fail in order to promote Sanders are the ones "betraying" the movement. In any case, this concept of "betrayal" should have no place in a primary. No single candidate owns a movement.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 12:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
In the mind of this Warren supporter, she IS the better candidate, and the lefty outlets trying to find purity tests for her policies to fail in order to promote Sanders are the ones "betraying" the movement. In any case, this concept of "betrayal" should have no place in a primary. No single candidate owns a movement.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 12:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
That's my position; if Sanders were going to lead a mass movement of young and non-voters, Sanders would be leading a mass movement of young and non-voters.
This is obtuse. We are imagining a scenario where Sanders has beaten Trump and come into office on a universal healthcare agenda. He would have authority of this victory, control of the DNC and all the levers of executive power. You’re comparing that to him having as recently as a few months ago been a marginal also-ran candidate in a crowded primary, written off as having no chance and recovering from a heart attack
posted by moorooka at 12:52 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is obtuse. We are imagining a scenario where Sanders has beaten Trump and come into office on a universal healthcare agenda. He would have authority of this victory, control of the DNC and all the levers of executive power. You’re comparing that to him having as recently as a few months ago been a marginal also-ran candidate in a crowded primary, written off as having no chance and recovering from a heart attack
posted by moorooka at 12:52 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
In the mind of this Warren supporter, she IS the better candidate, and the lefty outlets trying to find purity tests for her policies to fail in order to promote Sanders are the ones "betraying" the movement. In any case, this concept of "betrayal" should have no place in a primary. No single candidate owns a movement.I promise I'll go back to biting my tongue for at least a few hours after this but OMG, yes. I live in a state that won't get to cast its primary votes until everything is all but over (in the normal course of things, anyway.. this year who knows?) but frankly the surest way to drive Warren supporters into the arms of Biden is to keep explaining to us why we're wrong to want the candidate that we want.
You know how many Sanders supporters have justifiably criticized many from the Democratic party over the years for taking their votes for granted, refusing to engage substantively with their disagreements, and demanding they get on board for a candidate they're not much enthused by? Don't become the thing that you have despised.
posted by Nerd of the North at 12:58 PM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
The darkly conspiratorial muttering about Warren being ready to betray her principles and endorse Biden is exactly the kind of bad-faith politics that makes me despair for the left. As others have pointed out upthread, she's landed some hits on Bernie in an effort to make the case that she'd be a better candidate. She's also landed plenty of hits on Biden and, god knows, Bloomberg.
The idea that Warren would endorse Biden instead of Bernie, who shares her broad approach to politics *and* her key policy ideas, just because she dared criticize his approach once or twice, strikes me as paranoiac purity politics at its worst, and I really wish the online left would either get more evidence or cut it out.
posted by rishabguha at 12:59 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
The idea that Warren would endorse Biden instead of Bernie, who shares her broad approach to politics *and* her key policy ideas, just because she dared criticize his approach once or twice, strikes me as paranoiac purity politics at its worst, and I really wish the online left would either get more evidence or cut it out.
posted by rishabguha at 12:59 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
We don’t know what Warren’s true agenda is - in a brokered convention maybe she’d help Bernie, maybe Biden, maybe she still somehow thinks that she should be made the nominee even with fewer delegates than either of them.
But we absolutely know the agenda of the wealthy anonymous donors behind PersistPAC, whose money (which she used to say she’d never accept) has allowed her to stay in the race.
posted by moorooka at 1:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
But we absolutely know the agenda of the wealthy anonymous donors behind PersistPAC, whose money (which she used to say she’d never accept) has allowed her to stay in the race.
posted by moorooka at 1:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
And Bernie said he hated superdelegates until he decided he didn't hate them enough to reject them if it helped him. Your own guy doesn't pass your own purity tests.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:04 PM on March 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:04 PM on March 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
And Bernie said he hated superdelegates until he decided he didn't hate them enough to reject them if it helped him. Your own guy doesn't pass your own purity tests.
That's silly. You can hate a game even if you're forced to play it.
posted by FakeFreyja at 1:07 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
That's silly. You can hate a game even if you're forced to play it.
posted by FakeFreyja at 1:07 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
A game like... campaign financing?
posted by Flannery Culp at 1:07 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 1:07 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
> That's silly. You can hate a game even if you're forced to play it.
How is "you won't get the nomination unless superdelegates vote in opposition to the pledged delegates" any more of a "game" one is required to play than "your campaign will end if you don't raise more money?" Both are self-serving, there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes, "winning is more important than my previously-articulated principles" moves.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
How is "you won't get the nomination unless superdelegates vote in opposition to the pledged delegates" any more of a "game" one is required to play than "your campaign will end if you don't raise more money?" Both are self-serving, there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes, "winning is more important than my previously-articulated principles" moves.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
This conspiratorial PAC support nonsense against Warren really gets my goat. Sanders has received support from PACs and dark money groups too, for years. Where were the cries of "Sanders is betraying the movement! We don't know where his true loyalties lie anymore!" Come ON.
I think I know what the disconnect is. I'll repeat it for comprehension: No single candidate owns a movement. For example, I've seen Warren as more progressive than Sanders for years now.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 1:10 PM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
I think I know what the disconnect is. I'll repeat it for comprehension: No single candidate owns a movement. For example, I've seen Warren as more progressive than Sanders for years now.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 1:10 PM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
I have no concern what-so-ever that Warren will endorse Biden. Doing so would go against everything she's fought for her entire life and during her entire career as a politician. I have no regrets about voting for Warren and I don't give a shit about your *%*$*&$%(^# conspiracy theories.
posted by nangar at 1:10 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by nangar at 1:10 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
This conspiratorial PAC support nonsense against Warren really gets my goat. Sanders has received support from PACs and dark money groups too, for years.
Wait, what? Is this the 7 "dark money" groups that Buttigeig said? I'm curious about this.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:11 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Wait, what? Is this the 7 "dark money" groups that Buttigeig said? I'm curious about this.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:11 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Shadow group provides Sanders super PAC support he scorns
posted by all about eevee at 1:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by all about eevee at 1:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is obtuse. We are imagining a scenario where Sanders has beaten Trump and come into office on a universal healthcare agenda. He would have authority of this victory, control of the DNC and all the levers of executive power.
And some of us are remembering what happened back in 2008 when Obama was elected and Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House. The whole country breathed a sigh of relief when he was elected, like finally good things would get done. Obama still had a really, really hard time getting anything remotely ambitious passed, including a public option as part of the ACA. Why should a public still reeling from that, even before being traumatized by the Trump presidency, think it would be any different if Sanders were elected, someone who we already know isn't supported by the existing establishment?
The problem holding Democrats back is we're still a multifaceted bunch, like most people are, whereas for some reason all elected Republicans are pretty much interchangeable at this point since they all vote for the same stuff. People can look at President Trump and say, legitimately, that he has been very effective in pushing forward his agenda. That is only because he has the unfaltering support of the entire GOP. The Democrats have struggled immensely to try to get to that point simply because there are so many shades of Democrat.
I know I'm not just speaking for myself when I say I voted for Warren today because I think she's better at getting things done. Sanders says a lot of things that I mostly agree with, things that I've thought for a long time and it's so refreshing to hear a mainstream politician say those things, but I think Warren would make a better president. I don't expect her to win the primary, but I still wanted to show my support because I think it still matters to vote for your preferred candidate in the primaries.
posted by wondermouse at 1:16 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
And some of us are remembering what happened back in 2008 when Obama was elected and Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House. The whole country breathed a sigh of relief when he was elected, like finally good things would get done. Obama still had a really, really hard time getting anything remotely ambitious passed, including a public option as part of the ACA. Why should a public still reeling from that, even before being traumatized by the Trump presidency, think it would be any different if Sanders were elected, someone who we already know isn't supported by the existing establishment?
The problem holding Democrats back is we're still a multifaceted bunch, like most people are, whereas for some reason all elected Republicans are pretty much interchangeable at this point since they all vote for the same stuff. People can look at President Trump and say, legitimately, that he has been very effective in pushing forward his agenda. That is only because he has the unfaltering support of the entire GOP. The Democrats have struggled immensely to try to get to that point simply because there are so many shades of Democrat.
I know I'm not just speaking for myself when I say I voted for Warren today because I think she's better at getting things done. Sanders says a lot of things that I mostly agree with, things that I've thought for a long time and it's so refreshing to hear a mainstream politician say those things, but I think Warren would make a better president. I don't expect her to win the primary, but I still wanted to show my support because I think it still matters to vote for your preferred candidate in the primaries.
posted by wondermouse at 1:16 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
In the mind of this Warren supporter, she IS the better candidate, and the lefty outlets trying to find purity tests for her policies to fail in order to promote Sanders are the ones "betraying" the movement. In any case, this concept of "betrayal" should have no place in a primary. No single candidate owns a movement.
I don't see Warren as betraying "the movement" because she's just not in the same one as Sanders (or me and my comrades). There is some commonality around policy, but there are also significant differences in terms of ideology and theories of change and power.
And how is Jacobin a "lefty" outlet as opposed to a leftist outlet?
posted by Ouverture at 1:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I don't see Warren as betraying "the movement" because she's just not in the same one as Sanders (or me and my comrades). There is some commonality around policy, but there are also significant differences in terms of ideology and theories of change and power.
And how is Jacobin a "lefty" outlet as opposed to a leftist outlet?
posted by Ouverture at 1:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
But we absolutely know the agenda of the wealthy anonymous donors behind PersistPAC
moorooka, is there any reason you don’t just spell out what this agenda is, and instead just keep dropping these unfalsifiable assertions day after day after day after day? It’s tedious at best, and at this point is looking both paranoid and in bad faith.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 1:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
moorooka, is there any reason you don’t just spell out what this agenda is, and instead just keep dropping these unfalsifiable assertions day after day after day after day? It’s tedious at best, and at this point is looking both paranoid and in bad faith.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 1:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
Warren repeatedly asked Bernie to disavow / drop Our Revolution; when it turned out that he wasn’t going to, she wasn’t getting any political credit for it, and she was running out of money, she decided to renege on her pledge and play the exact same game. I can understand being disappointed in that decision if you’re a Warren supporter, but I don’t think anyone from the Bernie camp really has a leg to stand on.
posted by rishabguha at 1:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by rishabguha at 1:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
We don’t know what might be the effect of having a President directing his supporters to personally target senators, donors, lobbyists and corporate executives standing in the way of his agenda.
I mean, we kind of do. Since Trump has tried it with mixed results. He got some (pretty much symbolic) gestures from business to bring jobs back to the US. I don't know if being the second president to do that will have as big of an effect.
And of course, this all depends on what the results of the election are and who's in the House and the Senate.
Another potential tool, one where the norm-breaking Trump presidency has already cracked open the Pandora's box of, is further politicizing the executive branch and agencies to enact the president's agenda. I think the next president could use the same executive branch levers to try to pressure and squeeze Red states/politicians, just like how Trump is doing now to Blue states.
But the only Democratic candidate I can imagine that would even come close to doing this is Sanders, and that's probably due to the popular perception of him as an outsider willing to push the envelope on getting things done.
posted by FJT at 1:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I mean, we kind of do. Since Trump has tried it with mixed results. He got some (pretty much symbolic) gestures from business to bring jobs back to the US. I don't know if being the second president to do that will have as big of an effect.
And of course, this all depends on what the results of the election are and who's in the House and the Senate.
Another potential tool, one where the norm-breaking Trump presidency has already cracked open the Pandora's box of, is further politicizing the executive branch and agencies to enact the president's agenda. I think the next president could use the same executive branch levers to try to pressure and squeeze Red states/politicians, just like how Trump is doing now to Blue states.
But the only Democratic candidate I can imagine that would even come close to doing this is Sanders, and that's probably due to the popular perception of him as an outsider willing to push the envelope on getting things done.
posted by FJT at 1:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
But the only Democratic candidate I can imagine that would even come close to doing this is Sanders, and that's probably due to the popular perception of him as an outsider willing to push the envelope on getting things done.
Joe Biden will do jack shit that would make Republicans uncomfortable if elected. For him, civility with Republicans is more important than justice and care of poor people.
*makes Ronald-Reagan/Tip-O'Neil wanking off motion*
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:25 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Joe Biden will do jack shit that would make Republicans uncomfortable if elected. For him, civility with Republicans is more important than justice and care of poor people.
*makes Ronald-Reagan/Tip-O'Neil wanking off motion*
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:25 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Joe Biden will do jack shit that would make Republicans uncomfortable if elected. For him, civility with Republicans is more important than justice and care of poor people.
As of last night, he's openly toying with the idea of having a Republican running mate, which, if a contested convention doesn't end the Democratic Party, would surely do the trick.
posted by Copronymus at 1:28 PM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
As of last night, he's openly toying with the idea of having a Republican running mate, which, if a contested convention doesn't end the Democratic Party, would surely do the trick.
posted by Copronymus at 1:28 PM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
But we absolutely know the agenda of the wealthy anonymous donors behind PersistPAC, whose money (which she used to say she’d never accept) has allowed her to stay in the race.
Perhaps you need to get your facts straight. She has not accepted any money from PersistPAC because it is flat illegal for a candidate to accept money from a superPAC. In fact, it is illegal for a candidate to even coordinate strategy with a superPAC.
posted by JackFlash at 1:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Perhaps you need to get your facts straight. She has not accepted any money from PersistPAC because it is flat illegal for a candidate to accept money from a superPAC. In fact, it is illegal for a candidate to even coordinate strategy with a superPAC.
posted by JackFlash at 1:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I am an enthusiastic Warren voter. Though technically I early voted in NC two weeks ago, I would still vote for Warren today. The heart wants what it wants. She's my candidate. I donated from early. I volunteered. She has been my #1 since the beginning.
That said, I quietly donated to $1 to Bernie's campaign this weekend every time a theoretical democrat has told me in person that Bernie is as bad/worse than Trump and that I known that Trump is awful, but I just don't think I can vote for Bernie the general Because he's dangerous! It's been a fascinating experiment and a way for me to exorcise the old Are you fucking kidding me? in a productive way that has the fringe benefit of making me more enthusiastic about voting Bernie in the general when/if it comes to that. It also has ended up being depressingly expensive ($43, at last count).
I told a friend about this and she was like, "So you're a Bernie supporter now?" and I was like, "Naw, I mean, I'm still pulling for Warren." And she was like, "Dude, you're literally supporting the Bernie campaign." And I was like, "Well, it seemed like a reasonably response to a bunch of people telling me that having an actual child-jailing, planet-killing fascist in the White House is somehow less dangerous than a noisy old idealist that really just wants to give you health care." And she was like, "Do you know what you sound like?"
So, uh, like, I guess I'm a Bernie supporter now.
(I would still love a miracle Warren bounceback, no matter how improbable. Will absolutely vote for whoever ends up on the Side D against Trump come November)
posted by thivaia at 1:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [23 favorites]
That said, I quietly donated to $1 to Bernie's campaign this weekend every time a theoretical democrat has told me in person that Bernie is as bad/worse than Trump and that I known that Trump is awful, but I just don't think I can vote for Bernie the general Because he's dangerous! It's been a fascinating experiment and a way for me to exorcise the old Are you fucking kidding me? in a productive way that has the fringe benefit of making me more enthusiastic about voting Bernie in the general when/if it comes to that. It also has ended up being depressingly expensive ($43, at last count).
I told a friend about this and she was like, "So you're a Bernie supporter now?" and I was like, "Naw, I mean, I'm still pulling for Warren." And she was like, "Dude, you're literally supporting the Bernie campaign." And I was like, "Well, it seemed like a reasonably response to a bunch of people telling me that having an actual child-jailing, planet-killing fascist in the White House is somehow less dangerous than a noisy old idealist that really just wants to give you health care." And she was like, "Do you know what you sound like?"
So, uh, like, I guess I'm a Bernie supporter now.
(I would still love a miracle Warren bounceback, no matter how improbable. Will absolutely vote for whoever ends up on the Side D against Trump come November)
posted by thivaia at 1:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [23 favorites]
I'm in favor of a Biden-Sanders ticket: if Biden agrees to step down after the inauguration.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:32 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:32 PM on March 3, 2020
Apologies, someone lost me upthread at Sanders having a perception of "willing to push the envelope on getting things done."
Jacobin, like many publications, is broken. They unfortunately revealed they care less about promoting and discussing 'leftist' ideas than pushing the propaganda of pro-Sanders 'lefties.'
Bernie is still my 2nd choice. But if you keep wielding purity tests like scalpels designed to excise all other candidates but your own, you'll only know you've gone to far when you start bleeding the support of your closest allies. Hopefully you'll still have enough functional tissue left to keep the movement viable.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 1:36 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Jacobin, like many publications, is broken. They unfortunately revealed they care less about promoting and discussing 'leftist' ideas than pushing the propaganda of pro-Sanders 'lefties.'
Bernie is still my 2nd choice. But if you keep wielding purity tests like scalpels designed to excise all other candidates but your own, you'll only know you've gone to far when you start bleeding the support of your closest allies. Hopefully you'll still have enough functional tissue left to keep the movement viable.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 1:36 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
No one is owed your vote until they earn it, and no one is obligated to vote for anyone because "it's our only choice to beat X." I would personally choose that choice, but I can't shame or scorn others for a different one.
Echoing this. My responsibility as a voter is to vote for the candidate(s) whom I think are best for the job(s) they’re applying for. All this strategy and game theorizing is not a concern of the vast majority of individual voters, nor should it be, and to hold an individual voter responsible for the aggregate outcome seems to me a version of victim blaming. I don’t run campaigns, or devise strategy, and am not a political science expert. I’m just a voter, and I’ll vote for the person I think best for the job. What they can do with my vote, especially if elected, is on them.
Want my vote? Earn it. I will vote for the candidates I choose, not against anyone else, nor to play into anticipated possible large-scale outcomes. After work today (in CA) I’ll go and vote for none-of-your-fucking-business, and I don’t owe anyone any explanation or justification.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Echoing this. My responsibility as a voter is to vote for the candidate(s) whom I think are best for the job(s) they’re applying for. All this strategy and game theorizing is not a concern of the vast majority of individual voters, nor should it be, and to hold an individual voter responsible for the aggregate outcome seems to me a version of victim blaming. I don’t run campaigns, or devise strategy, and am not a political science expert. I’m just a voter, and I’ll vote for the person I think best for the job. What they can do with my vote, especially if elected, is on them.
Want my vote? Earn it. I will vote for the candidates I choose, not against anyone else, nor to play into anticipated possible large-scale outcomes. After work today (in CA) I’ll go and vote for none-of-your-fucking-business, and I don’t owe anyone any explanation or justification.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Bernie is still my 2nd choice. But if you keep wielding purity tests like scalpels designed to excise all other candidates but your own, you'll only know you've gone to far when you start bleeding the support of your closest allies. Hopefully you'll still have enough functional tissue left to keep the movement viable.
What are the purity test scalpels that are excising candidates? Who are the closest allies that leftists are losing?
And how has Sanders become so popular despite all these catastrophic incidents?
posted by Ouverture at 1:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
What are the purity test scalpels that are excising candidates? Who are the closest allies that leftists are losing?
And how has Sanders become so popular despite all these catastrophic incidents?
posted by Ouverture at 1:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
As of last night, he's openly toying with the idea of having a Republican running mate, which, if a contested convention doesn't end the Democratic Party, would surely do the trick.
Yeah it's pretty weird to see people decrying unreasonable purity tests when the presumed front-runner is actually considering choosing a Republican to help achieve his agenda. There are votes being cast right now in a Democratic primary for this.
posted by FakeFreyja at 1:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
Yeah it's pretty weird to see people decrying unreasonable purity tests when the presumed front-runner is actually considering choosing a Republican to help achieve his agenda. There are votes being cast right now in a Democratic primary for this.
posted by FakeFreyja at 1:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
And Bernie said he hated superdelegates until he decided he didn't hate them enough to reject them if it helped him. Your own guy doesn't pass your own purity tests.
My understanding of what transpired is ... in 2016 Bernie called for super delegates to support the winner of their state. That was it. Clinton won a state, she should get the super delegates. It was a call for more proportional representation. (Wasn't going to happen but it also wasn't "they need to all switch").
Sanders wanted to get rid of all super delegates and one of the agreements to try to do that was the unity reform commission. Sanders held a minority (8 votes), Clinton had the majority (It was 10 or 12 votes) and the DNC appointees (by Tom Perez) had 4 votes. After the reform commission finished their work they sent their recommendations to the Rules committee which is all DNC appointed to make a final ruling.
Having fewer super delegates and a vote in the second round was a compromise.
The compromise possibly allowed more candidates to get in the race this time, as there wasn't an automatic reported deficit of 600 delegate to zero before a single vote was cast.
posted by phoque at 1:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
My understanding of what transpired is ... in 2016 Bernie called for super delegates to support the winner of their state. That was it. Clinton won a state, she should get the super delegates. It was a call for more proportional representation. (Wasn't going to happen but it also wasn't "they need to all switch").
Sanders wanted to get rid of all super delegates and one of the agreements to try to do that was the unity reform commission. Sanders held a minority (8 votes), Clinton had the majority (It was 10 or 12 votes) and the DNC appointees (by Tom Perez) had 4 votes. After the reform commission finished their work they sent their recommendations to the Rules committee which is all DNC appointed to make a final ruling.
Having fewer super delegates and a vote in the second round was a compromise.
The compromise possibly allowed more candidates to get in the race this time, as there wasn't an automatic reported deficit of 600 delegate to zero before a single vote was cast.
posted by phoque at 1:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
But we absolutely know the agenda of the wealthy anonymous donors behind PersistPAC
If you know them and their agenda, please, please enlighten us. Otherwise, we can wait until March 20 when PersistPAC's first federal election report is issued, as is required for all superPACs. Then the names of all the "wealthy anonymous donors" will no longer be anonymous. The names and their donations will be right there where you can read them for yourself.
posted by JackFlash at 1:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
If you know them and their agenda, please, please enlighten us. Otherwise, we can wait until March 20 when PersistPAC's first federal election report is issued, as is required for all superPACs. Then the names of all the "wealthy anonymous donors" will no longer be anonymous. The names and their donations will be right there where you can read them for yourself.
posted by JackFlash at 1:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
> My understanding of what transpired is ... in 2016 Bernie called for super delegates to support the winner of their state. That was it. Clinton won a state, she should get the super delegates. It was a call for more proportional representation. (Wasn't going to happen but it also wasn't "they need to all switch").
Here, let me help you out.
Here, let me help you out.
"When they get to the convention," Weaver continued, "nobody has the delegates to win with pledged delegates. It's going to be the superdelegates who are going to have to decide this."posted by tonycpsu at 1:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Thanks for the link tonycpsu.
I had only ever seen Sanders speaking on the subject but this also supports your point.
"Now we can argue about the merits of having superdelegates," Weaver continued, "but we do have them. And if their role is just to rubber-stamp the pledged-delegate count then they really aren't needed. They're supposed to exercise independent judgment about who they think can lead the party forward to victory."
posted by phoque at 1:59 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I had only ever seen Sanders speaking on the subject but this also supports your point.
"Now we can argue about the merits of having superdelegates," Weaver continued, "but we do have them. And if their role is just to rubber-stamp the pledged-delegate count then they really aren't needed. They're supposed to exercise independent judgment about who they think can lead the party forward to victory."
posted by phoque at 1:59 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I’m not particularly interested in weighing in on the Sanders/Warren debate because I doubt any minds are going to change, but I just wanted to note that Our Revolution was founded by Sanders to help elect progressives nationwide. I wish there were more organizations like it. You also can donate to it if you want.
As for Biden, I will admit his mention of trains in the last debate stirred my cold Berniebro heart, but alas, a frothing at the mouth Berniebro I remain.
Biden and Obama actually tried to get national hide speed rail going in 2008, but the Republicans killed it with relish and glee at the state level. Mass transit projects are the first trophies Republicans bring to their voters when they win.
And that’s the story of Joe Biden. Any vaguely progressive shit he talks about is gonna be sacrificed on the alter of compromise with a Republican Party that knows it can destroy the Democrats in the 2022 midterms if it doesn’t win back the house outright in 2020 because everyone under 45 stays home on account of the fact that Biden can’t remember he isn’t supposed to brag about throwing pot smokers in jail anymore.
Biden can’t even run a primary campaign without the Democratic establishment walking him through it. He would represent the brainless head on the zombified body of a Democratic Party shambling forward without direction or purpose beyond being “not Republicans”, or even beyond that, not Trump. Once (if), Trump is gone, what is even the point of voting Democrat? Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson must be literally salivating right now.
Say what you will about the evil Bernie Sanders and his hoard of deplorable supporters, but Sanders created a campaign that managed to raise almost 200 million dollars and turn out volunteers willing to knock doors and make phone calls. The activist energy he brought unified disparate elements of a young left into a more coherent force than has existed since the 1960’s.
Biden and the forces coalescing around him represent a giant F-you to that. My fear is that without a candidate like Sanders it dissipates. Either way, you are left with apathy among a cohort of voters Democrats need to win because their concerns are not being addressed.
posted by eagles123 at 2:03 PM on March 3, 2020 [23 favorites]
As for Biden, I will admit his mention of trains in the last debate stirred my cold Berniebro heart, but alas, a frothing at the mouth Berniebro I remain.
Biden and Obama actually tried to get national hide speed rail going in 2008, but the Republicans killed it with relish and glee at the state level. Mass transit projects are the first trophies Republicans bring to their voters when they win.
And that’s the story of Joe Biden. Any vaguely progressive shit he talks about is gonna be sacrificed on the alter of compromise with a Republican Party that knows it can destroy the Democrats in the 2022 midterms if it doesn’t win back the house outright in 2020 because everyone under 45 stays home on account of the fact that Biden can’t remember he isn’t supposed to brag about throwing pot smokers in jail anymore.
Biden can’t even run a primary campaign without the Democratic establishment walking him through it. He would represent the brainless head on the zombified body of a Democratic Party shambling forward without direction or purpose beyond being “not Republicans”, or even beyond that, not Trump. Once (if), Trump is gone, what is even the point of voting Democrat? Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson must be literally salivating right now.
Say what you will about the evil Bernie Sanders and his hoard of deplorable supporters, but Sanders created a campaign that managed to raise almost 200 million dollars and turn out volunteers willing to knock doors and make phone calls. The activist energy he brought unified disparate elements of a young left into a more coherent force than has existed since the 1960’s.
Biden and the forces coalescing around him represent a giant F-you to that. My fear is that without a candidate like Sanders it dissipates. Either way, you are left with apathy among a cohort of voters Democrats need to win because their concerns are not being addressed.
posted by eagles123 at 2:03 PM on March 3, 2020 [23 favorites]
Texas closes hundreds of polling sites, making it harder for minorities to vote (The Guardian, March 2, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
The [Guardian] analysis finds that the 50 counties that gained the most Black and Latinx residents between 2012 and 2018 closed 542 polling sites, compared to just 34 closures in the 50 counties that have gained the fewest black and Latinx residents. This is despite the fact that the population in the former group of counties has risen by 2.5 million people, whereas in the latter category the total population has fallen by over 13,000.Closures are more cost-effective than previous voter disenfranchisement efforts.
Until 2013, hundreds of counties and nine states, including Texas, with a history of severe voter suppression had to submit any changes they wanted to make to their election systems to the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act. The department sought to ensure that the changes did not hurt minority voters. But seven years ago, a supreme court ruling gutted this law and allowed these jurisdictions to operate without oversight, and now the previously mandatory racial-impact analysis is no longer performed.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
PersistPAC is run by a former oil industry lobbyist, so it’s interesting that Warren would point to Sanders’ support by the ‘Dark Money’ Sunrise Movement etc as a reason for reversing her position on PAC money. They could release donor information now but are instead going to wait as long as legally possible, after as many states are contested as possible. The agenda is to stop Sanders by propping up a candidate that they think will split the progressive vote. Sorry to everyone who doesn’t find that too obvious to even warrant spelling out.
posted by moorooka at 2:11 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 2:11 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
After vowing not to attend the AIPAC meeting, Warren staffers met with 250 AIPAC lobbyists today. I know most people in the US don’t care about the US’s underwriting of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, but US presidents are at their most powerful when it comes to issues of foreign policy.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:14 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:14 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
After vowing not to attend the AIPAC meeting, Warren staffers met with 250 AIPAC lobbyists today. I know most people in the US don’t care about the US’s underwriting of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, but US presidents are at their most powerful when it comes to issues of foreign policy.
Yeah, this is incredibly disappointing and really underscores just how Warren and Sanders aren't in the same "movement".
posted by Ouverture at 2:15 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yeah, this is incredibly disappointing and really underscores just how Warren and Sanders aren't in the same "movement".
posted by Ouverture at 2:15 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Got a cite for that? Not seeing it on any of my feeds, and there's just been way too much misinformation casually shared here without any factual basis.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 2:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
The only stories I see on the subject say that Warren and Sanders both are skipping. Nothing about staffers.
posted by FakeFreyja at 2:23 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by FakeFreyja at 2:23 PM on March 3, 2020
Nevermind, did my own research because others can't be bothered to.
Source appears to be this heavily-screenshot-tweeted-by-breathless-Sanders-supporters tweet: Today is a *somewhat* busy day for our senior senator, @ewarren. All the more appreciative that @SenWarren’s office met with some 250 #AIPAC2020 constituents today on her behalf!
Later clarified here by the same poster:
Thanks for confirming that Sen. Sanders office also met with constituents who came to Hill as part of AIPAC lobby today. Which is exactly the same thing Warren’s Senate staff did.
More proof that the pattern of willful or at best careless sharing of thinly-sourced anti-anti-Sanders propaganda is out of control.
I say this as a 2016 Sanders primary voter and likely 2020 one, if it matters.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [30 favorites]
Source appears to be this heavily-screenshot-tweeted-by-breathless-Sanders-supporters tweet: Today is a *somewhat* busy day for our senior senator, @ewarren. All the more appreciative that @SenWarren’s office met with some 250 #AIPAC2020 constituents today on her behalf!
Later clarified here by the same poster:
Thanks for confirming that Sen. Sanders office also met with constituents who came to Hill as part of AIPAC lobby today. Which is exactly the same thing Warren’s Senate staff did.
More proof that the pattern of willful or at best careless sharing of thinly-sourced anti-anti-Sanders propaganda is out of control.
I say this as a 2016 Sanders primary voter and likely 2020 one, if it matters.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [30 favorites]
Yeah I voted for Sanders and Tammany today, but that was gross.
posted by FakeFreyja at 2:29 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by FakeFreyja at 2:29 PM on March 3, 2020
See why I lurk? I'm just exhausted of the half-assed smear jobs against Warren. Micro-targeted disinformation Trumpian politics is the new normal, and the people I respect, my own movement's people, don't even care to fight it.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 2:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [28 favorites]
posted by donttouchmymustache at 2:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [28 favorites]
This PSA comes a little late in the game, and I'm surprised there's not more info about this online, but Dem primary ballots ask you to vote for both a candidate and some number of their delegates to represent them at the convention (if they earn any). This is normally not very important since there's usually a presumptive nominee by the convention, but with a contested convention more likely the question of who the delegates are and what exactly they support is more salient. I'd take the time to Google them and see what info there is out there to give your vote a little more oomph.
For example, I can only pick three of five Warren delegates in my district, and I was able to find one of them is heavily anti-Sanders, which is a dealbreaker since he's my #2. If you're lucky there may be a questionnaire available for your state's delegates from a local party group (here's Alabama, for instance).
posted by Rhaomi at 2:33 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
For example, I can only pick three of five Warren delegates in my district, and I was able to find one of them is heavily anti-Sanders, which is a dealbreaker since he's my #2. If you're lucky there may be a questionnaire available for your state's delegates from a local party group (here's Alabama, for instance).
posted by Rhaomi at 2:33 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
PersistPAC is run by a former oil industry lobbyist
Does this "oil lobbyist" have a name ? We'll wait while you go down the tinfoil hat rabbit hole.
posted by JackFlash at 2:34 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Does this "oil lobbyist" have a name ? We'll wait while you go down the tinfoil hat rabbit hole.
posted by JackFlash at 2:34 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you favorited the above false news comment about Warren meeting with AIPAC constituents when Sanders wouldn't (they both did as tonypsu linked above), please try to cross-check and verify unsourced claims in the future. Our democracy is too valuable for thoughtful intelligent people on the same side to be reduced to fighting over fake smears.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 2:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by donttouchmymustache at 2:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
This PSA comes a little late in the game, and I'm surprised there's not more info about this online, but Dem primary ballots ask you to vote for both a candidate and some number of their delegates to represent them at the convention
This varies by state; in Tennessee we just picked a candidate name. (But you had to skip to page 2 to get to Warren.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:36 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
This varies by state; in Tennessee we just picked a candidate name. (But you had to skip to page 2 to get to Warren.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:36 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: I'm leaving the above stuff as an example. Please take meta conversation over to the Metatalk post about being more critical before reposting unsourced information that seems like a shocking gotcha of your dispreferred candidate.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:40 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:40 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
Does he have a name? I'm not playing twitter bullshit with you.
posted by JackFlash at 2:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 2:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Chris Koob
posted by moorooka at 2:50 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by moorooka at 2:50 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Indeed, the FEC filing lists "Christopher Koob".
But I'm not seeing any reputable sources stating that he is (or was) an oil lobbyist.
I assume this is him--a partner at MBA Consulting Group.
But I'm not seeing any reputable sources stating that he is (or was) an oil lobbyist.
I assume this is him--a partner at MBA Consulting Group.
Chris Koob is a political compliance professional with over 20 years of experience in campaigns and political committees at the federal, state, and local levels. After consulting for several campaigns in Connecticut, he worked on campaign compliance for then-Senator Joseph Lieberman; in 2000, when Sen. Lieberman was nominated by Al Gore to be the Vice Presidential Nominee, Chris joined the national presidential campaign. At the conclusion of that campaign, Chris stayed in Washington, D.C. for 11 years, working on various presidential campaigns and national party committees. In 2011, Chris moved to San Antonio, TX, and founded Capitol Compliance Associates (CCA). Chris left Capitol Compliance Associates and joined Mele Brengarth and Associates as a partner in January of 2016.posted by Ahmad Khani at 2:59 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Dem primary ballots ask you to vote for both a candidate and some number of their delegates to represent them at the convention (if they earn any)
This is local/regional.
Where I am (Virginia), the deadline for delegates to file is in mid-April, and that's also when the prospective delegate has to declare for a candidate. The delegates' caucus (where people vote for who gets to be a delegate) is a week after the filing deadline. Then the district convention is in May and the state convention is in June. The delegates for the national convention are voted on in the state convention. And then it's the big show in July!
The only thing on my ballot was the list of everyone running to be Democratic nominee, in no obvious order. Boy, there were a lot of them. I can't believe how close we're getting. *gulp*
posted by rue72 at 3:02 PM on March 3, 2020
This is local/regional.
Where I am (Virginia), the deadline for delegates to file is in mid-April, and that's also when the prospective delegate has to declare for a candidate. The delegates' caucus (where people vote for who gets to be a delegate) is a week after the filing deadline. Then the district convention is in May and the state convention is in June. The delegates for the national convention are voted on in the state convention. And then it's the big show in July!
The only thing on my ballot was the list of everyone running to be Democratic nominee, in no obvious order. Boy, there were a lot of them. I can't believe how close we're getting. *gulp*
posted by rue72 at 3:02 PM on March 3, 2020
The assistant treasurer on that form is a Lauren Lee, perhaps this director at MBA Consulting:
Lauren Lee joined MBA Consulting Group as a Compliance Director in 2015. With over 12 years of experience, Lauren possesses substantial compliance knowledge at the federal, state and local levels. Prior to MBA, Lauren worked as the Deputy Comptroller of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spanning 4 cycles of service. Additionally, she served as the chief in-house compliance specialist for Brian Moran’s gubernatorial campaign in Virginia and worked for Senator Mark Warner’s PAC, Forward Together. During her time with DDC Advocacy, a public affairs company, Lauren prepared campaign finance reports for the PACs of Fortune 500 companies.posted by Iris Gambol at 3:03 PM on March 3, 2020
Oh, Chris Koob. That's a laugh. Chris Koob is a campaign compliance consultant. He's not a lobbyist and has never been a lobbyist.
He's the most boring guy you could ever imagine. He's the guy wearing the green eyeshades who who you hire to do your books to make sure that you don't run afoul of the Federal Election Campaign reporting laws. He's a glorified accountant. That's all.
He's worked for Joe Lieberman when he was running as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate back in 1999. He worked for the DNC. He worked for John Kerry. He worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He worked for Julian Castro. In each case he was the campaign compliance officer for FEC reporting.
Oh, wait. Thirteen years ago, for seven months, he worked for an organization called SAFE, Securing America's Future Energy. He wasn't a lobbyist. He was the COO, bookkeeper. SAFE says they work to reduce America's dependence on oil. They say they do not take donations from oil companies.
Apparently this is the source of the slander that he is "an oil lobbyist" even though he took no money from oil companies and did no lobbying.
He's the treasurer for PersistPAC to ensure their compliance with FEC rules.
This conspiracy stuff is embarrassing and a discredit to Sanders supporters.
posted by JackFlash at 3:03 PM on March 3, 2020 [34 favorites]
He's the most boring guy you could ever imagine. He's the guy wearing the green eyeshades who who you hire to do your books to make sure that you don't run afoul of the Federal Election Campaign reporting laws. He's a glorified accountant. That's all.
He's worked for Joe Lieberman when he was running as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate back in 1999. He worked for the DNC. He worked for John Kerry. He worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He worked for Julian Castro. In each case he was the campaign compliance officer for FEC reporting.
Oh, wait. Thirteen years ago, for seven months, he worked for an organization called SAFE, Securing America's Future Energy. He wasn't a lobbyist. He was the COO, bookkeeper. SAFE says they work to reduce America's dependence on oil. They say they do not take donations from oil companies.
Apparently this is the source of the slander that he is "an oil lobbyist" even though he took no money from oil companies and did no lobbying.
He's the treasurer for PersistPAC to ensure their compliance with FEC rules.
This conspiracy stuff is embarrassing and a discredit to Sanders supporters.
posted by JackFlash at 3:03 PM on March 3, 2020 [34 favorites]
@david_turnbull
So, when I saw a tweet talking about Koob being affiliated with a “oil advocacy group,” I of course got concerned. So...I looked into it. And here’s what I’m seeing:posted by tonycpsu at 3:04 PM on March 3, 2020 [25 favorites]
Koob was COO for a short period of time some 12 years ago at a group called Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), what some might call a “centrist” nonprofit organization, focused on "energy security."
SAFE is an organization that I absolutely do not agree with on a substantial number of things. There’s no question about that. In fact, SAFE has many stances that @ewarren would not agree with either. I do not support SAFE and would personally not work for them.
But what SAFE is not is an oil industry front group. As far as I’m aware they do not receive any money from the oil industry (they do receive grants from at least one foundation focused on environmental causes). They would not register on the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge list.
While they do advocate for transportation electrification, they also advocate for increased domestic oil drilling for so-called security reasons. I fundamentally disagree with this and believe it to be entirely counter to our efforts to address the climate crisis. [...]
Do I like Super PACs? No. Do I wish there wasn’t one set up in support of @ewarren? Yeah. Do I wish all candidates had agreed to disavow Super PACs as @ewarren was challenging them to do? Absolutely. Did any of the candidates do so? Unfortunately not.
So what we are left with is this: @ewarren tried hard to avoid having any Super PACs set up in support of her campaign. She tried to encourage others to join in that. Both aspects of that effort failed, and one was set up by supporters of her candidacy.
A guy with specific expertise in campaign finance compliance was hired or otherwise engaged to serve as treasurer of this Super PAC supporting Warren. He once worked for a short period of time for a nonprofit organization that I disagree with.
That’s it. That’s the story. You can hate the system, the way our elections are flooded with money, the fact that this Super PAC exists. Sure. I’m right there with you.
But if you come at me saying that the administration of this Super PAC provides evidence that @ewarren is in bed with Big Oil, you’re just wrong and I will tell you so.
Maybe it just sounds worse in Australia.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:06 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:06 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Thank you all for the information. I hope people on east coast aren’t planning on staying up for the results tonight because I’ve heard California could take awhile due to early voting.
posted by eagles123 at 3:08 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 3:08 PM on March 3, 2020
And by a while you means "weeks"!
Yeah CA won't be done counting until April sometime in all likelihood.
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yeah CA won't be done counting until April sometime in all likelihood.
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
“The Iowa of the Pacific Time Zone”, as I just started calling it.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:14 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:14 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
If you would like to contemplate a different Twitter madness rune than the employment history of some random guy, here is what purports to be an exit poll out of American Samoa. Why is this coming from someone who, at best, writes for an Italian elections news site? How do you meaningfully conduct an exit poll of an event that had 237 participants last time? What is the difference between these numbers and completely random ones? I'm not here to say. In any case, if these have any relationship whatsoever to reality, I think that ends up being 2 delegates apiece for Biden, Sanders, and Bloomberg.
posted by Copronymus at 3:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 3:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Vote-by-mail ballots in California only have to be postmarked by today, and will be counted if they arrive by Friday.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:27 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:27 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
As long as I'm on the American Samoa beat, someone who does seem to be physically present for the caucusing there quotes this helpful guideline from the officials there: "Any candidate that receives 15% will receive at least one delegate, for every 15% they attain during the caucus process."
How does that break down if the split is 33%-25%-20% other than that anyone above 15% gets at least 1 and anyone above 30% gets at least 2? Your guess is almost certainly as good as mine.
posted by Copronymus at 3:29 PM on March 3, 2020
How does that break down if the split is 33%-25%-20% other than that anyone above 15% gets at least 1 and anyone above 30% gets at least 2? Your guess is almost certainly as good as mine.
posted by Copronymus at 3:29 PM on March 3, 2020
Honestly, a lot of the reason California takes so long is because of mechanisms that make it easier to vote, which is good. At least 2/3rds of the state votes by mail, and we'll count ballots that arrive through Friday as long as they were postmarked by today, because it's bad to throw out ballots because of postal delays (and a lot of voters waited until after SC to vote, which turned out to be a good decision). Nobody can count ballots that haven't even arrived yet. We also allow same-day registration at any polling place now, which leads to more provisional ballots that have to be checked before they're counted; this is, again, a good thing because it's bad to deny someone their vote if they have registration issues. And there's just a lot of us compared to the states that have voted so far.
posted by zachlipton at 3:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
Am I paranoid for thinking the Chris Koob thing is Russian disinformation? That seems like exactly the kind of rumor they spread to sow division. It's scary how effective that stuff is.
posted by heathkit at 3:31 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by heathkit at 3:31 PM on March 3, 2020
Am I paranoid for thinking the Chris Koob thing is Russian disinformation?
Good lord, conspiracy thinking is almost impossible to quash, isn't it? Debunk one, and the debunked theory itself becomes the subject of a new one. It's like cutting heads off the Hydra.
posted by biogeo at 3:38 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Good lord, conspiracy thinking is almost impossible to quash, isn't it? Debunk one, and the debunked theory itself becomes the subject of a new one. It's like cutting heads off the Hydra.
posted by biogeo at 3:38 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Lord deliver me from a country run by "consultants." If the consultant class would go extinct, would we be at any loss?
(This isn't a dig about Chris Koob in particular, but rather this idea that campaigns and governments keep on hiring these people that jump from ship to ship. They're so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable, but just like other members of the lanyard class, I can't wait for their removal from places of power.)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
(This isn't a dig about Chris Koob in particular, but rather this idea that campaigns and governments keep on hiring these people that jump from ship to ship. They're so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable, but just like other members of the lanyard class, I can't wait for their removal from places of power.)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Was anybody working on a Super Tuesday thread? This one (for Nevada!) is already crashing my tablet browser regularly and polls haven't even closed yet.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Rhaomi at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
So you'd rather hire someone as your compliance officer with no previous experience? Seems like exactly the kind of job where someone having done it for multiple campaigns is an obvious asset.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:56 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 3:56 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
I acknowledge that “Securing America’s Energy Future” is not exactly an “oil industry lobbying group” so I shouldn’t have said that and I apologise for bringing that type of conspiracy language into the thread.
And I’ll candidly admit that when I heard about the treasurer of PersistPAC being the former COO of an energy policy advocacy group, led by former military officials and corporate executives, that I assumed that his time at this group was much more recent that it was.
I am quite obviously biased and inclined automatically believe the worst about a SuperPAC of anonymous donors that suddenly materialized to rescue Warren’s campaign as soon as Sanders appeared as the front runner. I view this primary through the lens of Sanders on one side and everyone else on the other, and I believe that powerful capitalist interests do likewise.
I don’t trust a campaign staffed by traditional consultant class insiders, and the patent absurdity of Warren’s M4A “plan” makes me very disinclined to believe that she is sincere about opposing vested corporate interests once in office. I don’t think the people who started throwing PAC money at her campaign once Sanders started threatening to become the nominee are doing so because they want to enact a left-wing agenda. I fear that she’s persisting so as to deny Sanders the nomination at a brokered convention, which I think would be a disaster for the entire world.
I do hold out some hope that I am wrong about all of this, and that in fact Warren is actually remaining in the race in order to support Sanders against Biden at the convention. That’s not impossible.
posted by moorooka at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2020
And I’ll candidly admit that when I heard about the treasurer of PersistPAC being the former COO of an energy policy advocacy group, led by former military officials and corporate executives, that I assumed that his time at this group was much more recent that it was.
I am quite obviously biased and inclined automatically believe the worst about a SuperPAC of anonymous donors that suddenly materialized to rescue Warren’s campaign as soon as Sanders appeared as the front runner. I view this primary through the lens of Sanders on one side and everyone else on the other, and I believe that powerful capitalist interests do likewise.
I don’t trust a campaign staffed by traditional consultant class insiders, and the patent absurdity of Warren’s M4A “plan” makes me very disinclined to believe that she is sincere about opposing vested corporate interests once in office. I don’t think the people who started throwing PAC money at her campaign once Sanders started threatening to become the nominee are doing so because they want to enact a left-wing agenda. I fear that she’s persisting so as to deny Sanders the nomination at a brokered convention, which I think would be a disaster for the entire world.
I do hold out some hope that I am wrong about all of this, and that in fact Warren is actually remaining in the race in order to support Sanders against Biden at the convention. That’s not impossible.
posted by moorooka at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2020
Maybe she’s staying in the race because she wants to win the race.
posted by orange ball at 4:02 PM on March 3, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by orange ball at 4:02 PM on March 3, 2020 [24 favorites]
Warren repeatedly asked Bernie to disavow / drop Our Revolution; when it turned out that he wasn’t going to, she wasn’t getting any political credit for it, and she was running out of money, she decided to renege on her pledge and play the exact same game. I can understand being disappointed in that decision if you’re a Warren supporter, but I don’t think anyone from the Bernie camp really has a leg to stand on.
PersistPAC has spent $12 million this cycle, since it was formed.
Our Revolution has spent zero dollars.
Trying to draw a parallel here is laughable.
posted by kafziel at 4:04 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
PersistPAC has spent $12 million this cycle, since it was formed.
Our Revolution has spent zero dollars.
Trying to draw a parallel here is laughable.
posted by kafziel at 4:04 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I acknowledge that “Securing America’s Energy Future” is not exactly an “oil industry lobbying group
It's not, "not exactly", it's "not at all", and likewise Koob is not at all a lobbyist. You are embarrassing yourself here, your wild accusations and high level defensiveness is like all the cliches about Bernie Bros - and I say this as someone without a dog in this fight.
Emotions are high, this election especially feels like it really matters. But Bernie doesn't need your help on a metafilter thread; he'll be okay. I'd urge you to take a step back - I don't think copy-pasting aggro tweets is good for anyone's stress levels.
posted by smoke at 4:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
It's not, "not exactly", it's "not at all", and likewise Koob is not at all a lobbyist. You are embarrassing yourself here, your wild accusations and high level defensiveness is like all the cliches about Bernie Bros - and I say this as someone without a dog in this fight.
Emotions are high, this election especially feels like it really matters. But Bernie doesn't need your help on a metafilter thread; he'll be okay. I'd urge you to take a step back - I don't think copy-pasting aggro tweets is good for anyone's stress levels.
posted by smoke at 4:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
I fear that she’s persisting so as to deny Sanders the nomination at a brokered convention, which I think would be a disaster for the entire world.
Please. Stop.
Or at least share the crystal ball with us so we can all get on with it.
Trying to draw a parallel here is laughable.
This PAC conspiracy garbage would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening to see how this cult mindset has infected us, leaving us primed and ready for the disinformation machine of the GOP and other interested actors in the 2020 general election.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 4:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
Please. Stop.
Or at least share the crystal ball with us so we can all get on with it.
Trying to draw a parallel here is laughable.
This PAC conspiracy garbage would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening to see how this cult mindset has infected us, leaving us primed and ready for the disinformation machine of the GOP and other interested actors in the 2020 general election.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 4:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
Exits have the 18-29 vote share today at 13%. That is not good. Young people just don't vote. Ever. I don't know what to do about that but even Bernie doesn't seem to have found the answer.
posted by Justinian at 4:25 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:25 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
kafziel, you link to Vice about PersistPAC, but to a tweet for Our Revolution; Vice covered Our Revolution, too, and drew this parallel:
Our Revolution’s trajectory hints at Sanders’ ability (or lack thereof) to manage the creation of sustainable post-election structures. Despite objections from Our Revolution staff, Sanders appointed his former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, to run the organization. Weaver turned the group into a 501(c)(4), meaning it could collect large donations without disclosing its donors, and many top staffers quit in protest. In some ways, it was a mistake reminiscent of Obama—rewarding close campaign aides, at the cost of his political goals. (Obama Lost His Grassroots Army; Will Bernie Keep His? Vice.com, Feb. 27, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:27 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Our Revolution’s trajectory hints at Sanders’ ability (or lack thereof) to manage the creation of sustainable post-election structures. Despite objections from Our Revolution staff, Sanders appointed his former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, to run the organization. Weaver turned the group into a 501(c)(4), meaning it could collect large donations without disclosing its donors, and many top staffers quit in protest. In some ways, it was a mistake reminiscent of Obama—rewarding close campaign aides, at the cost of his political goals. (Obama Lost His Grassroots Army; Will Bernie Keep His? Vice.com, Feb. 27, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:27 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Ah, shockingly, that American Samoa "exit poll" was utter horseshit. Unofficial totals from someone present put Bloomberg at 49% and Gabbard at 29%, with no one else above 15%, so either 4/2 Bloomberg or a 3/3 split depending on how the obscure math for this stuff works.
Assuming this holds up, Tulsi getting delegates means she gets to keep coming to the debates, too.
posted by Copronymus at 4:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Assuming this holds up, Tulsi getting delegates means she gets to keep coming to the debates, too.
posted by Copronymus at 4:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I fear that she’s persisting so as to deny Sanders the nomination at a brokered convention, which I think would be a disaster for the entire world.
This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Please stop.
posted by tocts at 4:33 PM on March 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Please stop.
posted by tocts at 4:33 PM on March 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
the patent absurdity of Warren’s M4A “plan” makes me very disinclined to believe that she is sincere about opposing vested corporate interests once in office.
Has Bernie ever actually produced anything as tangibly anti-corporate-interests as the CFPB? I mean, not just talk or a (maybe soon to be successful) campaign, a real thing that exists in the world because of him. This belief some Bernie people have about Warren being a corporate shill is just deranged.
posted by Mavri at 4:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
Has Bernie ever actually produced anything as tangibly anti-corporate-interests as the CFPB? I mean, not just talk or a (maybe soon to be successful) campaign, a real thing that exists in the world because of him. This belief some Bernie people have about Warren being a corporate shill is just deranged.
posted by Mavri at 4:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
In 1988 there was a big thing going around about "What does (presidential candidate) Jesse Jackson want?" with pundits speculating he wanted to be THE spokesman for black America or Secretary of State , or to broker the Vice Presidential pick. Jesse Jackson kept answering, "I want to be President."
The question was racist as though being black that couldn't be the real answer.
The same thing with Elizabeth Warren, except it's misogyny.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [36 favorites]
The question was racist as though being black that couldn't be the real answer.
The same thing with Elizabeth Warren, except it's misogyny.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [36 favorites]
57% of Democratic voters in preliminary exit poll results from Texas have a favorable opinion of socialism.
posted by clawsoon at 4:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 4:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
factory123, I was wondering how the organization defines 'cycle.' A couple of weeks back I linked to these articles on Our Revolution: Watchdog files FEC complaint against pro-Sanders nonprofit (AP News, January 22, 2020), which has "The group has paid for some social media ads backing Sanders’ campaign and is working to turn out voters who will support the senator in the Democratic presidential primary. The group will not have to disclose its 2020 spending until after the election," & Shadow group provides Sanders super PAC support he scorns (AP News, January 7, 2020); this 1/7/20 article quotes an Our Revolution spokesperson directly:
Our Revolution spokesman Paco Fabian said the group did nothing wrong. He also differentiated its aim from conventional super PACs that spend large sums on TV ads supporting candidates, while adding that the vast majority of its money comes from small-dollar donors who gave on average about $20 per contribution in 2018.posted by Iris Gambol at 4:52 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
“We invest our money ... in things like organizing and phone banks and canvassing voters on issues that matter. We aren’t running ads or doing glossy mailers,” he said. [...]
Last weekend, Our Revolution touted its outreach in eastern Iowa counties that voted for both Barack Obama and President Donald Trump, announcing a goal of enlisting 5,000 volunteers to help tilt next month’s caucuses in Sanders’ favor. On social media, it has amplified Sanders’ speeches and campaign initiatives while attacking his rivals. It has also sent out a steady stream of fundraising emails, which explicitly advocate for Sanders’ election.
Sanders founded Our Revolution to further the political movement galvanized by his unsuccessful 2016 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination , though Our Revolution leaders say he hasn’t held a formal role since its first governing board was appointed in 2016. The group, which also includes scores of local affiliates across the U.S., initially backed a series of candidates in Sanders’ mold during the 2018 midterms. But after he entered the 2020 contest, its focus has shifted toward his candidacy.
Jessie Jackson came second in the 1988 primaries, won numerous states and was at times the leader in delegates. I don’t think that Warren’s campaign is comparable. Of course maybe things will change dramatically now that it’s a four-person race, even though she’s polling fourth. But the odds of her arriving at the convention with more delegates than anyone else are clearly remote.
posted by moorooka at 4:57 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by moorooka at 4:57 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
This belief some Bernie people have about Warren being a corporate shill is just deranged.
I voted for Bernie today. I agree that it is not reasonable to think that about Warren. She's a champion of us all.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
I voted for Bernie today. I agree that it is not reasonable to think that about Warren. She's a champion of us all.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
This conspiracy stuff is embarrassing and a discredit to Sanders supporters.
Speaks as much to the culture on MetaFilter and the tenor of these threads as it does Sanders supporters, but sure. Technically moreso, but whatever.
posted by avalonian at 5:09 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Speaks as much to the culture on MetaFilter and the tenor of these threads as it does Sanders supporters, but sure. Technically moreso, but whatever.
posted by avalonian at 5:09 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Exits have the 18-29 vote share today at 13%. That is not good. Young people just don't vote. Ever. I don't know what to do about that but even Bernie doesn't seem to have found the answer.
Only 16.5% of the American population is 18-29.
posted by scrowdid at 5:14 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Only 16.5% of the American population is 18-29.
posted by scrowdid at 5:14 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
You seem to think that means 13% isn't that bad a number. I see them grossly underperforming?
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on March 3, 2020
I'm disappointed in Warren results but TBH seeing what's coming out of the South it doesn't look like her dropping out would have helped.
posted by nakedmolerats at 5:27 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 5:27 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Are the states polled a representative sample of the average age of the country? Maybe today's Super Tuesday states only have 13% of the population between 18-29. I'd say that's not very likely but I'd need to see that information. Also would be interested to see if it's within the margin of error of the polls.
Given that youths are notorious for not voting, I'd say they're within a reasonable share of the vote given their share of the overall population. Maybe a little low, yes. I'd have to see more information before I'd call it in any way 'grossly underperforming'... like, specifically, what percent of the 18-29 age group turned out to vote... and then, compare that with previous years.
posted by scrowdid at 5:31 PM on March 3, 2020
Given that youths are notorious for not voting, I'd say they're within a reasonable share of the vote given their share of the overall population. Maybe a little low, yes. I'd have to see more information before I'd call it in any way 'grossly underperforming'... like, specifically, what percent of the 18-29 age group turned out to vote... and then, compare that with previous years.
posted by scrowdid at 5:31 PM on March 3, 2020
The story for the night will skew to the message coming from the southern states. (Biden). The real winner will be decided by California which will be a long time coming. (Sanders) Hell a generous third place finish in California will gather more than the Southern block by way of delegates.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:34 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:34 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Only 16.5% of the American population is 18-29.
Rescaling 13% of exit voters between 18-29 means that 79% of this specific demographic turned out to vote.
A rough estimate, to be sure, and one based on an equal distribution of youth in the voting regions in question, but let's just say we can take this as given for argument's sake.
By comparison, a (generous) average of 56% of US voters overall have turned out for the last four presidential elections.
Having 79% of young people voting seems to suggest they are coming out in large numbers, at least compared with the average overall turnout of 56%.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
Rescaling 13% of exit voters between 18-29 means that 79% of this specific demographic turned out to vote.
A rough estimate, to be sure, and one based on an equal distribution of youth in the voting regions in question, but let's just say we can take this as given for argument's sake.
By comparison, a (generous) average of 56% of US voters overall have turned out for the last four presidential elections.
Having 79% of young people voting seems to suggest they are coming out in large numbers, at least compared with the average overall turnout of 56%.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
heathkit: Am I paranoid for thinking the Chris Koob thing is Russian disinformation? That seems like exactly the kind of rumor they spread to sow division. It's scary how effective that stuff is.
And, strangely, for a place that has been talking about the disinformation attacks since before 11/2016 just bizarre how they are being thrown in here without being sourced. Seriously, the meta should be required reading.
moorooka: But the odds of her arriving at the convention with more delegates than anyone else are clearly remote.
Than anyone else or everyone else?
If it's the former (and you are only talking about those still running), she should have a "not even nearly remote" chance of beating Gabbard or Bloomberg. If it's the latter, as others have said, we only have 4% of votes in for the country. That's a pretty strong assertion, at this point.
Seriously, moorooka, you might want to take a break from this thread for a while.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:39 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
And, strangely, for a place that has been talking about the disinformation attacks since before 11/2016 just bizarre how they are being thrown in here without being sourced. Seriously, the meta should be required reading.
moorooka: But the odds of her arriving at the convention with more delegates than anyone else are clearly remote.
Than anyone else or everyone else?
If it's the former (and you are only talking about those still running), she should have a "not even nearly remote" chance of beating Gabbard or Bloomberg. If it's the latter, as others have said, we only have 4% of votes in for the country. That's a pretty strong assertion, at this point.
Seriously, moorooka, you might want to take a break from this thread for a while.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:39 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Also that age cut-off conveniently leaves out a ton of millennials, who are IMHO his primary voting bloc and generally what people mean when they say "young people" in regards to Bernie. Generally I see this defined as under 45. And assuming we're looking at the same polls, under 45 turnout is 36%. The 18-29 age bracket is particularly weird because it's a much smaller age range than any of the other brackets, so of course it's going to take up a smaller percent. It's really difficult to quantify "the youth vote" by these kinds of crude numbers.
And exit polls won't capture early or absentee voting. While I don't have data, there's at least a chance that younger voters are more likely to early/absentee vote for a variety of reasons (can't take off Tuesday, more technologically capable of finding information on how to do that, more conviction in who they'll vote for and not needing to wait for the last minute, whatever).
posted by brook horse at 5:42 PM on March 3, 2020
And exit polls won't capture early or absentee voting. While I don't have data, there's at least a chance that younger voters are more likely to early/absentee vote for a variety of reasons (can't take off Tuesday, more technologically capable of finding information on how to do that, more conviction in who they'll vote for and not needing to wait for the last minute, whatever).
posted by brook horse at 5:42 PM on March 3, 2020
Rescaling 13% of exit voters between 18-29 means that 79% of this specific demographic turned out to vote.
Er, no... that's only true if 100% of the country voted.
posted by Justinian at 5:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Er, no... that's only true if 100% of the country voted.
posted by Justinian at 5:44 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
> Rescaling 13% of exit voters between 18-29 means that 79% of this specific demographic turned out to vote.
No, the math doesn't work like that. 13% of Democratic primary voters were in the 18–29 age bracket. If the total turnout for the Democratic primary was, say, 25% of the total population of the Super Tuesday states, then this would mean that 13% of that 25% were in the 18–29% age bracket, which would be only about 1.9% of the total population, or 12% of all 18–29-year-olds.
(Also, total turnout is usually reported as percentage of voting age population, not total population.)
posted by mbrubeck at 5:45 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
No, the math doesn't work like that. 13% of Democratic primary voters were in the 18–29 age bracket. If the total turnout for the Democratic primary was, say, 25% of the total population of the Super Tuesday states, then this would mean that 13% of that 25% were in the 18–29% age bracket, which would be only about 1.9% of the total population, or 12% of all 18–29-year-olds.
(Also, total turnout is usually reported as percentage of voting age population, not total population.)
posted by mbrubeck at 5:45 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Let me rephrase that since it sorta doesn't make sense the way I already phrased it:
You're comparing two different numbers incorrectly. You can't calculate youth turnout based on the share of the electorate they made up when you don't know what the overall turnout was. (or what mbrubreck said)
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
You're comparing two different numbers incorrectly. You can't calculate youth turnout based on the share of the electorate they made up when you don't know what the overall turnout was. (or what mbrubreck said)
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes a non mouse a cow herd I meant the odds of Warren arriving at the convention with a plurality of delegates are very low. 538 puts them at about zero, same as Bloomberg’s. For her to be the nominee would either take an unprecedented miracle comeback or a contested convention decision to nominate her as a ‘compromise candidate’.
posted by moorooka at 5:49 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by moorooka at 5:49 PM on March 3, 2020
Another way to see why you can’t “scale” the numbers that way: 35% of voters in the exit polls are age 45–64. And 26% of the US population is age 45–64. Does this mean that turnout among this group was 130 percent?
posted by mbrubeck at 5:51 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by mbrubeck at 5:51 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
A (non-Twitter-based) comparison of two of the presidential hopefuls: Sen. Elizabeth Warren releases 2018 tax returns (CNN, April 10, 2019) Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday released her 2018 tax returns, laying bare a key financial record the Democratic Party has made a political issue since President Donald Trump took the unusual step of withholding his own tax returns. [...] Warren previously released 10 years of tax returns last August. [*]
The move to release her latest returns comes as questions continue to swirl about Trump's own returns and those belonging to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a fellow Democratic presidential candidate who has repeatedly promised to release the information "soon." Sanders, an independent who revealed Tuesday that his own book deals had made him a millionaire, is expected to release his returns on or before Monday, the tax filing deadline for 2018, according to his campaign manager, Faiz Shakir.
In a statement, Warren touted anti-corruption legislation she introduced last year that would require elected officials and candidates for federal office to make public more robust information about their taxes and other financial dealings. "There's a crisis of faith in government -- and that's because the American people think the government works for the wealthy and well-connected, not for them. And they're right. I've put out eleven years of my tax returns because no one should ever have to guess who their elected officials are working for. Doing this should be law," Warren said.
(Bolding mine. That legislation is the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, introduced Aug. 2018)
Sanders did release his tax returns later that week: Bernie Sanders releases 10 years of tax returns, showing how his 2016 presidential run vaulted him into wealth (CNN, April 15, 2019)
*You can view Warren's tax returns on her website here. Read the brief intro. Then head on over to Sanders' site, to view his tax returns, and read how "Sanders Releases 10 Years of Tax Returns, 9 Months Before Caucuses & Primaries Begin," "Voluntary disclosure follows nearly 30 years of annual financial disclosures; Vermont senator urges President Trump to follow suit" and the rest of the framing. Read Sanders saying, "“These tax returns show that our family has been fortunate. I am very grateful for that, as I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck and I know the stress of economic insecurity."
Here's his campaign manager again: “Bernie Sanders has been filing detailed financial disclosures for almost 30 years, and he is proud to voluntarily make these tax returns available many months before the election, “ said campaign manager Faiz Shakir. “Senator Sanders believes it is a privilege to live in the United States and he believes it is patriotic to pay the taxes that support our country. As a strong proponent of transparency, the senator hopes President Trump and all Democratic primary candidates will disclose their tax returns.”
"hopes... all Democratic primary candidates will disclose their tax returns," save for Senator Warren, presumably, who was disclosing reams of this financial information, without any f***ing cajoling or delaying, or apology for that matter, beginning August 2018. The formal announcement of her presidential bid: February 9, 2019
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:51 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
The move to release her latest returns comes as questions continue to swirl about Trump's own returns and those belonging to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a fellow Democratic presidential candidate who has repeatedly promised to release the information "soon." Sanders, an independent who revealed Tuesday that his own book deals had made him a millionaire, is expected to release his returns on or before Monday, the tax filing deadline for 2018, according to his campaign manager, Faiz Shakir.
In a statement, Warren touted anti-corruption legislation she introduced last year that would require elected officials and candidates for federal office to make public more robust information about their taxes and other financial dealings. "There's a crisis of faith in government -- and that's because the American people think the government works for the wealthy and well-connected, not for them. And they're right. I've put out eleven years of my tax returns because no one should ever have to guess who their elected officials are working for. Doing this should be law," Warren said.
(Bolding mine. That legislation is the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, introduced Aug. 2018)
Sanders did release his tax returns later that week: Bernie Sanders releases 10 years of tax returns, showing how his 2016 presidential run vaulted him into wealth (CNN, April 15, 2019)
*You can view Warren's tax returns on her website here. Read the brief intro. Then head on over to Sanders' site, to view his tax returns, and read how "Sanders Releases 10 Years of Tax Returns, 9 Months Before Caucuses & Primaries Begin," "Voluntary disclosure follows nearly 30 years of annual financial disclosures; Vermont senator urges President Trump to follow suit" and the rest of the framing. Read Sanders saying, "“These tax returns show that our family has been fortunate. I am very grateful for that, as I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck and I know the stress of economic insecurity."
Here's his campaign manager again: “Bernie Sanders has been filing detailed financial disclosures for almost 30 years, and he is proud to voluntarily make these tax returns available many months before the election, “ said campaign manager Faiz Shakir. “Senator Sanders believes it is a privilege to live in the United States and he believes it is patriotic to pay the taxes that support our country. As a strong proponent of transparency, the senator hopes President Trump and all Democratic primary candidates will disclose their tax returns.”
"hopes... all Democratic primary candidates will disclose their tax returns," save for Senator Warren, presumably, who was disclosing reams of this financial information, without any f***ing cajoling or delaying, or apology for that matter, beginning August 2018. The formal announcement of her presidential bid: February 9, 2019
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:51 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
You're comparing two different numbers incorrectly. You can't calculate youth turnout based on the share of the electorate they made up when you don't know what the overall turnout was. (or what mbrubreck said)
Which means we can't interpret the 13% as an indication of whether or not Bernie "got out the youth vote" or not, right? Because if another age group also saw a surge, we would see those "underperforming" numbers even if there's been a significant increase in young voters in terms of numbers if not percent. We won't know until we know overall turnout.
Plus polls haven't closed yet and different groups vote at different times of day. That poll was conducted at 5pm eastern, which may have skewed towards retirees/those who can take off from work.
This is why I've been trying (sometimes failing) to avoid obsessively tracking the numbers. We won't know anything for sure until the dust settles.
posted by brook horse at 5:52 PM on March 3, 2020
Which means we can't interpret the 13% as an indication of whether or not Bernie "got out the youth vote" or not, right? Because if another age group also saw a surge, we would see those "underperforming" numbers even if there's been a significant increase in young voters in terms of numbers if not percent. We won't know until we know overall turnout.
Plus polls haven't closed yet and different groups vote at different times of day. That poll was conducted at 5pm eastern, which may have skewed towards retirees/those who can take off from work.
This is why I've been trying (sometimes failing) to avoid obsessively tracking the numbers. We won't know anything for sure until the dust settles.
posted by brook horse at 5:52 PM on March 3, 2020
Warren's presence in this process has been, and continues to be, important; if that changes, she'll realize it and respond appropriately. That's what she does. She admits mistakes and failures, learns, and adapts -- while staying idealistic, optimistic, and inspirational to enough people (right here in River City) that she's an excellent candidate for this position. Stop attributing the worst motives to her actions, just because your guy hasn't been crowned. Warren is terrific on actual plans, finer details, and straight-up accountability.
And every candidate is ultimately a 'compromise candidate' btw.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:53 PM on March 3, 2020 [19 favorites]
And every candidate is ultimately a 'compromise candidate' btw.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:53 PM on March 3, 2020 [19 favorites]
No, I mean ‘compromise candidate’ in the specific sense of being chosen as a compromise between two sides of a contested convention, while individually having fewer delegates than either side.
posted by moorooka at 5:57 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by moorooka at 5:57 PM on March 3, 2020
Which means we can't interpret the 13% as an indication of whether or not Bernie "got out the youth vote" or not, right?
Yes we can, we just can't use it to determine if overall turnout was good or bad.
We know that people 18-29 turned out at significantly lower numbers compared to their share of the electorate. A youth surge would see them turning out at numbers higher than their share of the electorate, or jesus at least equal to it.
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on March 3, 2020
Yes we can, we just can't use it to determine if overall turnout was good or bad.
We know that people 18-29 turned out at significantly lower numbers compared to their share of the electorate. A youth surge would see them turning out at numbers higher than their share of the electorate, or jesus at least equal to it.
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on March 3, 2020
Your point that early exit polls could understate youth turnout is right, though. It's too early to draw definitive conclusions. It's just an indicator and if it changes then good for young people! I hope it does.
posted by Justinian at 5:59 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by Justinian at 5:59 PM on March 3, 2020
My understanding is that likelihood to vote is a function of age and wealth. The older and wealthier you are, the more likely it is that you vote. I am sure there are a lot reasons for that. In my view, the key voting age for Democrats starts with people who came of age during the Bush years. First, that cohort is less white than previous cohorts (but not synonymous with older cohorts of nonwhite voters who vote Democrat). Second that cohort’s memory starts with Republican failures in Iraq and ends with the financial crisis. That cohort also began to experience the combination of skyrocketing higher education costs, flat wages, precarious short term jobs, rising rents, and rising health care costs. The experience of that cohort during the Obama years was much different than that of cohorts that came of age during the 80’s and 90’s. Democrats need to do well with these voters over the long term to counterbalance the conservatism of older white voters, who have disproportionate influence owing to where they live.
posted by eagles123 at 6:02 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 6:02 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Do we have a source on the 18-29 poll? After a cursory search I am unable to find it. Thanks in advance.
And here's hoping it's merely undercounting the youth %, as apparently exit polls traditionally do.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:04 PM on March 3, 2020
And here's hoping it's merely undercounting the youth %, as apparently exit polls traditionally do.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:04 PM on March 3, 2020
We know that people 18-29 turned out at significantly lower numbers compared to their share of the electorate. A youth surge would see them turning out at numbers higher than their share of the electorate, or jesus at least equal to it.
No, because youth are known for having low turnout. To reach a share of the vote equal to their share of the electorate, they'd have to match the average turnout of every other age group and we know they just don't do that.
For them to beat their share of the electorate, they'd have to turn out at rates higher than at least one of the other age groups, and even in the middle of a youth surge I wouldn't necessarily expect that.
You can have a significant increase in youth turnout without needing to see them turn out at rates higher than other demographics.
posted by scrowdid at 6:04 PM on March 3, 2020
No, because youth are known for having low turnout. To reach a share of the vote equal to their share of the electorate, they'd have to match the average turnout of every other age group and we know they just don't do that.
For them to beat their share of the electorate, they'd have to turn out at rates higher than at least one of the other age groups, and even in the middle of a youth surge I wouldn't necessarily expect that.
You can have a significant increase in youth turnout without needing to see them turn out at rates higher than other demographics.
posted by scrowdid at 6:04 PM on March 3, 2020
A youth surge would see them turning out at numbers higher than their share of the electorate, or jesus at least equal to it.
But that would be assuming everyone in that age group is Democrat, wouldn't it? You have to take out the percent that are Republican, and then the percent that are independent and can't vote in closed primaries (not sure if there are any in Super Tuesday states, but you still would want to account for those who ID independent but lean Republican). I'm too tired to do the math, but maybe someone else can.
I mean maybe I'm wrong. Percentages are my mathematical weakness. But I feel like that's not taking a lot of things into account.
Do we have a source on the 18-29 poll? After a cursory search I am unable to find it. Thanks in advance.
Not positive this is what Justinian was referring to but this is what I found.
posted by brook horse at 6:08 PM on March 3, 2020
But that would be assuming everyone in that age group is Democrat, wouldn't it? You have to take out the percent that are Republican, and then the percent that are independent and can't vote in closed primaries (not sure if there are any in Super Tuesday states, but you still would want to account for those who ID independent but lean Republican). I'm too tired to do the math, but maybe someone else can.
I mean maybe I'm wrong. Percentages are my mathematical weakness. But I feel like that's not taking a lot of things into account.
Do we have a source on the 18-29 poll? After a cursory search I am unable to find it. Thanks in advance.
Not positive this is what Justinian was referring to but this is what I found.
posted by brook horse at 6:08 PM on March 3, 2020
Ryan StruykSo yeah. Those numbers are unbelievable for Biden.
@ryanstruyk
Black voters in Virginia via preliminary @CNN exit polls:
Biden 63% (!)
Sanders 18%
Bloomberg 10%
Warren 7%
Klobuchar 1%
Steyer 1%
Black voters in North Carolina via preliminary @CNN exit polls:
Biden 63% (!)
Sanders 16%
Bloomberg 10%
Warren 5%
No preference 4%
Black voters in Alabama via preliminary @CNN exit polls:
Biden 72% (!)
Sanders 12%
Bloomberg 9%
Warren 4%
Uncommitted 2%
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:18 PM on March 3, 2020
My sense was that more young people tended to vote in person vs. by mail, but I looked it up and apparently I was wrong?
posted by en forme de poire at 6:22 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by en forme de poire at 6:22 PM on March 3, 2020
My sense was that more young people tended to vote in person vs. by mail, but I looked it up and apparently I was wrong?
As a certified Young Voter, the only reason I vote in person is because no one turns out for primaries in my area and the polling station is always dead empty. If I had to wait in line for more than like... 10 minutes, I wouldn't do it. I'll probably vote by mail for the general because who has time to stand around like that? Not me. My sense is this is the case of a lot of young people, who are quite time-poor.
posted by brook horse at 6:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
As a certified Young Voter, the only reason I vote in person is because no one turns out for primaries in my area and the polling station is always dead empty. If I had to wait in line for more than like... 10 minutes, I wouldn't do it. I'll probably vote by mail for the general because who has time to stand around like that? Not me. My sense is this is the case of a lot of young people, who are quite time-poor.
posted by brook horse at 6:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Young people probably vote absentee a lot or may be more likely to live in states where vote by mail and early voting are allowed?
posted by eagles123 at 6:39 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 6:39 PM on March 3, 2020
brook horse, my sense is that young people are very pressed for time -- but also change addresses fairly often, a barrier to vote-by-mail where available?
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:40 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:40 PM on March 3, 2020
Can everyone get their eyes off the topline and take a moment to celebrate Bloomberg turning into homunculus? (So far, that is.)
posted by argybarg at 6:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 6:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
500 million spent to win American Samoa. Best performance art of 2020, thus far.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:47 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:47 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
I’m a highly educated white person, and most of my friends and acquaintances are also highly educated white people. Elizabeth Warren is very popular with people like us.
The reality is that there aren’t that many people like us
posted by moorooka at 6:52 PM on March 3, 2020 [20 favorites]
The reality is that there aren’t that many people like us
posted by moorooka at 6:52 PM on March 3, 2020 [20 favorites]
The link I described was kind of a "natural experiment" within a single state, so it's not that young people live in states where mail-voting is more available. My experience is actually the same as brook horse's: it takes me almost no time to vote in person here but that's pretty unusual. If I lived somewhere with giant lines or where the polling place was really far out of my way, I'd definitely vote by mail.
I totally agree that younger people are time-poor; I just wondered whether the extra organizational effort required to get everything squared away in time might end up favoring e.g. older retirees, but it doesn't look like that's the case.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:54 PM on March 3, 2020
I totally agree that younger people are time-poor; I just wondered whether the extra organizational effort required to get everything squared away in time might end up favoring e.g. older retirees, but it doesn't look like that's the case.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:54 PM on March 3, 2020
brook horse, my sense is that young people are very pressed for time -- but also change addresses fairly often, a barrier to vote-by-mail where available?
You can update your address and request an absentee ballot online in my state (WI, so not even a super voter friendly state), it's pretty simple actually. You can also just mail proof of residence with the absentee ballot. You'd need to update your address anyway to vote in person. So while it's a hassle, it doesn't really make it any more of a hassle than voting in person.
You do have to make sure you do it in time. But if you do it when you move while you're updating all the other things that ask for your address, you're set.
posted by brook horse at 7:06 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
You can update your address and request an absentee ballot online in my state (WI, so not even a super voter friendly state), it's pretty simple actually. You can also just mail proof of residence with the absentee ballot. You'd need to update your address anyway to vote in person. So while it's a hassle, it doesn't really make it any more of a hassle than voting in person.
You do have to make sure you do it in time. But if you do it when you move while you're updating all the other things that ask for your address, you're set.
posted by brook horse at 7:06 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sanders won Vermont tonight with a commanding 51% in his home state, so he's got that going for him.
posted by octothorpe at 7:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 7:08 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
There is a squirrelly part of me that says I don't care who gets the nomination, just promise me that you'll beat Trump and select fourteen year old liberals to the Supreme Court.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:23 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:23 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
If you're feeling pessimistic, hug bot is there for you
posted by benzenedream at 7:25 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by benzenedream at 7:25 PM on March 3, 2020
Sanders won Vermont tonight with a commanding 51% in his home state, so he's got that going for him.
I live in a smallish town in Vermont and am a poll-worker and tweeted out our results .Was surprised how poorly Warren fared (I assumed she'd be second, Biden was) and how well Trump did (even though I know he has many supporters here)
posted by jessamyn at 7:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I live in a smallish town in Vermont and am a poll-worker and tweeted out our results .Was surprised how poorly Warren fared (I assumed she'd be second, Biden was) and how well Trump did (even though I know he has many supporters here)
posted by jessamyn at 7:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I don't feel like there was a great candidate in this race. Everyone seems to have a major asterisk next to them. I've felt that before and it has usually meant a general headwind — that the ground was wrong for a Dem victory. But what the hell do I know.
posted by argybarg at 7:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 7:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
and select fourteen year old liberals to the Supreme Court
But one-year olds can't even read! And fourteen of them would be a daycare nightmare!
[ba-dum tsssh]
posted by clawsoon at 7:28 PM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
But one-year olds can't even read! And fourteen of them would be a daycare nightmare!
[ba-dum tsssh]
posted by clawsoon at 7:28 PM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
Bloomberg, 500 million spent to win American Samoa.
Isn't that just about enough to buy American Somoa?
posted by JackFlash at 7:29 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Isn't that just about enough to buy American Somoa?
posted by JackFlash at 7:29 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Indeed.
Sanders and Warren are the two 'greatest' candidates I've seen in my lifetime.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 7:29 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
Sanders and Warren are the two 'greatest' candidates I've seen in my lifetime.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 7:29 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
Per the current rules, Tulsi qualifies to attend upcoming debates with her two delegates from American Samoa. However, soon after this news broke, DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa indicated that this threshold will be increased, likely disqualifying only Tulsi of the five remaining candidates.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 7:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 7:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I really thought that both Bernie and Warren would pick up much more of Buttigieg and Klobuchar’s support than they did. It’s all going Biden’s way. Seems that having competition drop out and endorse can give a real boost.
posted by moorooka at 7:32 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by moorooka at 7:32 PM on March 3, 2020
That Biden won Minnesota without a single permanent staff member on the ground there speaks well of his potential to win a presidential campaign in a country under national quarantine.
A reply: "I like that this tweet works read both sarcastically and with complete sincerity."
posted by clawsoon at 7:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
A reply: "I like that this tweet works read both sarcastically and with complete sincerity."
posted by clawsoon at 7:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [11 favorites]
I don't feel like there was a great candidate in this race.
Even though I have candidates I like, I've actually been saying this for a while. Bernie has the best message and policy I've ever seen reach the mainstream (for my politics) but it still feels a little risky asking everyone to put that much faith in a guy his age with some known health issues. Everybody else just also has things that make me worry about them just as much in a general election.
posted by atoxyl at 7:39 PM on March 3, 2020
Even though I have candidates I like, I've actually been saying this for a while. Bernie has the best message and policy I've ever seen reach the mainstream (for my politics) but it still feels a little risky asking everyone to put that much faith in a guy his age with some known health issues. Everybody else just also has things that make me worry about them just as much in a general election.
posted by atoxyl at 7:39 PM on March 3, 2020
I don't feel like there was a great candidate in this race.
I thought that Warren is/was an amazing candidate but it looks like we're still not ready.
posted by octothorpe at 7:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [39 favorites]
I thought that Warren is/was an amazing candidate but it looks like we're still not ready.
posted by octothorpe at 7:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [39 favorites]
Bloomberg deserves every ounce of embarrassment that manages to penetrate his giant ego for thinking he could buy the Presidency.
posted by sallybrown at 7:58 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:58 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
I don't feel like there was a great candidate in this race. Everyone seems to have a major asterisk next to them.
Every time I feel the way you do, I look at our current president. It's funny, because I remember when this campaign season began, there was a lot of optimism and excitement around this group of candidates.
It took so little to destroy each of the candidates in the eyes of the public. It seems too easy to do that now.
We were never going to have a perfect saint to run against Trump. And I look at Trump and all the horrible things he's done throughout his life, and how much of that came out during his 2016 campaign and how none of that prevented him from being elected and having the full support of his party. The Democrats, in contrast, are being held to an impossibly high standard. Some of these candidates actually have been pretty great.
posted by wondermouse at 8:00 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
Every time I feel the way you do, I look at our current president. It's funny, because I remember when this campaign season began, there was a lot of optimism and excitement around this group of candidates.
It took so little to destroy each of the candidates in the eyes of the public. It seems too easy to do that now.
We were never going to have a perfect saint to run against Trump. And I look at Trump and all the horrible things he's done throughout his life, and how much of that came out during his 2016 campaign and how none of that prevented him from being elected and having the full support of his party. The Democrats, in contrast, are being held to an impossibly high standard. Some of these candidates actually have been pretty great.
posted by wondermouse at 8:00 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
I don't feel like there was a great candidate in this race.
Depends on how you define "great"? If your idea of a great candidate is "a charismatic politician who can win over voters through force of personality" then I don't know that those kinds of candidates have been especially great presidents once elected. Of the ones who were "great candidates" I can think of, there's Obama (who was frankly something of a disappointment; yes, the ACA passed, yes, same-sex marriage was legalised, but he also left a legacy of deportations, drone strikes, and enthusiastic fracking, so); Clinton (who I regard as the Democratic Calvin Coolidge; he gets more credit than he deserves for an economic boom that would've happened anyway, but his policies made the inevitable crash worse; also, "triangulation", "welfare reform", Ricky Ray Rector, and he's probably a sexual predator); JFK (the ultimate triumph of style over substance; the best thing that happened to his legacy was getting assassinated, and like Clinton, also probably a sexual predator). Sanders and Warren are both great candidates in terms of policy; the rest of the field, not so much (no-one has Obama or JFK level charisma, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing?)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 8:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Depends on how you define "great"? If your idea of a great candidate is "a charismatic politician who can win over voters through force of personality" then I don't know that those kinds of candidates have been especially great presidents once elected. Of the ones who were "great candidates" I can think of, there's Obama (who was frankly something of a disappointment; yes, the ACA passed, yes, same-sex marriage was legalised, but he also left a legacy of deportations, drone strikes, and enthusiastic fracking, so); Clinton (who I regard as the Democratic Calvin Coolidge; he gets more credit than he deserves for an economic boom that would've happened anyway, but his policies made the inevitable crash worse; also, "triangulation", "welfare reform", Ricky Ray Rector, and he's probably a sexual predator); JFK (the ultimate triumph of style over substance; the best thing that happened to his legacy was getting assassinated, and like Clinton, also probably a sexual predator). Sanders and Warren are both great candidates in terms of policy; the rest of the field, not so much (no-one has Obama or JFK level charisma, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing?)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 8:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I really wanted a cranky working class Jew that didn't play golf and didn't even pretend to assimilate to the manners and customs of the rich and elite.
I wanted a proletarian-cultured president.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [25 favorites]
I wanted a proletarian-cultured president.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [25 favorites]
Warren was my choice, too, but for whatever reason just wasn’t able to grow her audience beyond the Trader Joe’s parking lot.
It’s gonna be a challenge to get excited about Biden; I’m going to start looking at localish down ballot races to follow/support.
posted by notyou at 8:04 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
It’s gonna be a challenge to get excited about Biden; I’m going to start looking at localish down ballot races to follow/support.
posted by notyou at 8:04 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I don't see what people are in Biden. Even that part of me who is a reali as a that Sanders or Warren are not getting 90% of their agenda realized short of a broad majority in the Senate, Biden doesn't have any oomph. Maybe it's his lack of appeal that is his appeal. Like dad jokes.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:08 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:08 PM on March 3, 2020
Hey now, dad jokes are great.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:10 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:10 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I guess you got to respect a guy who got arrested trying to visit Mandela in jail
posted by moorooka at 8:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 8:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
Sanders is probably going to win Texas and California so he should still have a delegate lead, but not by a lot. Biden has really turned this into a two person race.
The interesting thing is what Warren and Bloomberg do after this. It makes sense for Warren to support Sanders and Bloomberg to pack his ego and support Biden.
posted by JackFlash at 8:14 PM on March 3, 2020
The interesting thing is what Warren and Bloomberg do after this. It makes sense for Warren to support Sanders and Bloomberg to pack his ego and support Biden.
posted by JackFlash at 8:14 PM on March 3, 2020
I don't see what people are in Biden. Even that part of me who is a reali as a that Sanders or Warren are not getting 90% of their agenda realized short of a broad majority in the Senate, Biden doesn't have any oomph. Maybe it's his lack of appeal that is his appeal. Like dad jokes.
I don't think anyone is excited about him, he's just become the default option and hasn't screwed up so badly yet that he would lose that spot. I'm not sure what anyone would even be excited about, since he hasn't bothered to sell himself to anyone outside of a handful of other Democratic politicians. His entire campaign has been "Remember me? You don't hate me, right?"
posted by Copronymus at 8:16 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
I don't think anyone is excited about him, he's just become the default option and hasn't screwed up so badly yet that he would lose that spot. I'm not sure what anyone would even be excited about, since he hasn't bothered to sell himself to anyone outside of a handful of other Democratic politicians. His entire campaign has been "Remember me? You don't hate me, right?"
posted by Copronymus at 8:16 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Yikes, Warren lost Massachusetts?
posted by asra at 8:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by asra at 8:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
One theory floating around is that Biden represents a breather. No big ideas, no big fights, no big crowds yelling, just people quietly going about their business and not having to think about the President every minute of the day.
There's plenty to criticize in that worldview, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's something to the idea that many people are attracted to it.
posted by clawsoon at 8:18 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
There's plenty to criticize in that worldview, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's something to the idea that many people are attracted to it.
posted by clawsoon at 8:18 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
Things are falling apart pretty much everywhere you look and if you buy into a radical-change candidate, you have to also buy into that being the situation because it's a big part of what justifies the necessity for radical action in the first place. An alternative is to turn to someone comfortable who wants to perfect the status quo because that allows you to maintain your denial of the realities of inequality, racism, misogyny, climate change, etc. Biden's basic proposition that radical change may not be necessary, let's just return to the Obama years resonates strongly in this chord, regardless of feasibility. This deeply ingrained impulse is why I can't say I'm surprised to see the predicted Sanders sweep fail to emerge. Boy does this feel pretty foreboding, though.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Highly recommend Richard Ben Cramer’s What It Takes to get an idea of Biden’s appeal (inextricably connected to his flaws). It’s very long but you can just read the Biden parts.
posted by sallybrown at 8:19 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by sallybrown at 8:19 PM on March 3, 2020
feloniousmonk, but Biden has broad support from poc and women. It's rather unlikely that denial is the reason for his support.
posted by asra at 8:22 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by asra at 8:22 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Ilhan Omar @IlhanMNposted by Rust Moranis at 8:22 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Imagine if the progressives consolidated last night like the moderates consolidated, who would have won?
That’s what we should be analyzing. I feel confident a united progressive movement would have allowed for us to #BuildTogether and win MN and other states we narrowly lost.
Things are falling apart pretty much everywhere you look
Same in 2008, but folks back then chose the perceived riskier candidate. But then again, the Republicans really drove the country into the ditch, so I think it was also just really people deciding it can't get any worse and let's give this new person a chance.
I think my own fear this time is enough people are insulated from all the shit Trump has done that they'll conclude he wasn't as bad as the Democrats said he was going to be, and then go and vote for him again.
posted by FJT at 8:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Same in 2008, but folks back then chose the perceived riskier candidate. But then again, the Republicans really drove the country into the ditch, so I think it was also just really people deciding it can't get any worse and let's give this new person a chance.
I think my own fear this time is enough people are insulated from all the shit Trump has done that they'll conclude he wasn't as bad as the Democrats said he was going to be, and then go and vote for him again.
posted by FJT at 8:26 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
An alternative is to turn to someone comfortable who wants to perfect the status quo because that allows you to maintain your denial of the realities of inequality, racism, misogyny, climate change, etc.
African Americans and African American women in particular might have some opinions on those subjects and they are going 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 for Biden. I don't think you should be dismissing their opinions. They may have a different view of the world than you do.
posted by JackFlash at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
African Americans and African American women in particular might have some opinions on those subjects and they are going 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 for Biden. I don't think you should be dismissing their opinions. They may have a different view of the world than you do.
posted by JackFlash at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
I don't think it's denial in the sense that a person might say climate change is a hoax, but it seems that supporting Biden has to implicitly go hand in hand with the notion that none of the problems we face are significant enough to justify the scope of changes the other candidates offer. His policies are essentially the status quo with less overt cruelty, more competence. As much as I'd love to revisit the Obama years, I don't think it's possible to go back.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
I don't see what people are in Biden. Even that part of me who is a reali as a that Sanders or Warren are not getting 90% of their agenda realized short of a broad majority in the Senate, Biden doesn't have any oomph. Maybe it's his lack of appeal that is his appeal. Like dad jokes.
I think people are scared shitless and think Biden might be able to give them a week without having to think about politics, Trump or Trumpism. So, I get it. I think he's probably the weakest of the field of candidates aside from like, Bloomberg or Gabbard, and could easily lose, though.
People see him as basically a reset button to 2016. But 2016 is why we have Trump.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think people are scared shitless and think Biden might be able to give them a week without having to think about politics, Trump or Trumpism. So, I get it. I think he's probably the weakest of the field of candidates aside from like, Bloomberg or Gabbard, and could easily lose, though.
People see him as basically a reset button to 2016. But 2016 is why we have Trump.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Warren is wonky, which appeals to some people but doesn't win elections. Simple, clear, memorable messaging that's catchy enough to get under people's skin gets it done. Bernie has simple, clear, memorable messaging but in favor of views that are too far outside the mainstream. Lots of us here want a big systemic overturn, but there are not enough of us to win the Democratic primaries outright, let alone the general.
That's my general impression of how they fare with the broader panel of voters, could be wrong.
posted by argybarg at 8:32 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
That's my general impression of how they fare with the broader panel of voters, could be wrong.
posted by argybarg at 8:32 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'd also be interested to find out, if possible, what the effect of the Coronavirus panic has had on people wanting something reliable and familiar.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Warren coming in third in her home state -- that's grim. That has to be a message. I really don't know what went wrong with her campaign, but it just doesn't seem to be working out, which is sad.
posted by JackFlash at 8:41 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by JackFlash at 8:41 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think there are a lot more centrists in the party than some bubbles think and progressives are gonna have to figure out how to get those votes without yelling about world burning and centrist lapdogs.
posted by nakedmolerats at 8:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 8:42 PM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
I understand Omar and other Sanders supporters are looking for somewhere to cast blame, but if you add the Sanders and Warren totals in many states it would still look bleak. And from my interactions with other volunteers, I think somewhere around half of Warren supporters would go to Biden making it a wash.
I think this election will likely be remembered for a frantic fear-driven search for the spectre of "electability" by a demoralized, risk-averse Democratic electorate. Having canvassed and spoken with hundreds of voters this year, I get the sense that many view the Biden vote as at least several things: An attempt to 'erase' Trump as an aberration so we might be able to reset and more importantly 'forget' this president ever happened, the default vote of the risk-averse who are frightened to death of making a "wrong" choice in the primary only to lose the general election (bad memories of Clinton in '16), and also a vote against perceived riskier candidates (the 'socialist', the woman, the gay mayor, etc.) because of the risk their distinguishing feature might be exploited by the GOP in the general election is too high.
When beating Trump is the only criterion, people readily compromise their hopes in order to get behind what they perceive as the closest to a 'sure thing'. That, and the internet is media bubbles all the way down.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 8:43 PM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
I think this election will likely be remembered for a frantic fear-driven search for the spectre of "electability" by a demoralized, risk-averse Democratic electorate. Having canvassed and spoken with hundreds of voters this year, I get the sense that many view the Biden vote as at least several things: An attempt to 'erase' Trump as an aberration so we might be able to reset and more importantly 'forget' this president ever happened, the default vote of the risk-averse who are frightened to death of making a "wrong" choice in the primary only to lose the general election (bad memories of Clinton in '16), and also a vote against perceived riskier candidates (the 'socialist', the woman, the gay mayor, etc.) because of the risk their distinguishing feature might be exploited by the GOP in the general election is too high.
When beating Trump is the only criterion, people readily compromise their hopes in order to get behind what they perceive as the closest to a 'sure thing'. That, and the internet is media bubbles all the way down.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 8:43 PM on March 3, 2020 [17 favorites]
The grimmest result is how many contests Bloomberg is beating Warren in - 10 of 15 tonight so far, if I'm counting correctly. That's nothing but depressing.
posted by clawsoon at 8:45 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 8:45 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Or perhaps the progressive lane is just one portion of the Democratic party, and not large enough to own it outright.
posted by argybarg at 8:45 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 8:45 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Also from my own interactions, the centrist-progressive divide isn't as big as people imagine it. Centrists happily back progressives and progressives sacrifice their ideals and back centrists all the time. Candidate selection is a much more complex and emotional thing.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 8:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by donttouchmymustache at 8:46 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
That I agree with. It's amazing how much more bitter and overpowering these "battles" become over Twitter or the internet generally.
posted by argybarg at 8:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 8:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I suspect for a lot of voters it’s as simple as “this guy was Vice President for eight years and did fine in an administration I liked. I know his face, name, and voice well and they remind me of better times.”
posted by sallybrown at 8:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [18 favorites]
progressives are gonna have to figure out how to get those votes without yelling about world burning
An entire continent burned two months ago. Shall we whisper about it instead?
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [38 favorites]
An entire continent burned two months ago. Shall we whisper about it instead?
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:49 PM on March 3, 2020 [38 favorites]
Is it possible some people are voting Biden as a) a show of support, given the way the Biden family has been targeted by the Trump administration and b) to anger Trump, as Biden's the only candidate he seems to have really clocked (and therefore, because it's Trump, felt threatened by)?
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:51 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:51 PM on March 3, 2020
I wasn't expecting great results for Warren but I'm still bummed out about the results. I thought she was the best candidate but other people clearly didn't feel the same. Ultimately the main thing that matters is getting Trump out of office so that he doesn't corrupt the government further. I'm looking forward to support whoever is the eventual nominee (and incredibly relieved that Bloomberg didn't have a surprising showing).
posted by No One Ever Does at 8:53 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by No One Ever Does at 8:53 PM on March 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
I suspect for a lot of voters it’s as simple as “this guy was Vice President for eight years and did fine in an administration I liked. I know his face, name, and voice well and they remind me of better times.”
Yes, it is clear that it isn't just conservatives who vote against their interests time and time again.
posted by Ouverture at 8:59 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Yes, it is clear that it isn't just conservatives who vote against their interests time and time again.
posted by Ouverture at 8:59 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Joe Biden sure got a lot of free positive advertising out of his win in South Carolina.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:00 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:00 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
Imagine if the progressives consolidated last night like the moderates consolidated, who would have won? That’s what we should be analyzing. That’s what we should be analyzing. I feel confident a united progressive movement would have allowed for us to #BuildTogether and win MN and other states we narrowly lost.
@zachdcarter: I understand why Sanders backers are mad at Warren, but it is in no way clear from the polling that Warren dropping out would have helped him. And it's hard to argue Warren was his problem tonight -- esp w/ results like Massachusetts.
biettetimmons: look, I get it! It's a simple, clean argument to say that Warren "cost" Sanders a state by staying in. but polling data has consistently showed that many Warren supporters' second choices were moderates. (This was Quinnipiac at the end of January.). most voters are not ideological the way the media expects them to be/the way pundits are. Read @ryangrim and @rmc031 on this
The polls I've seen have Sanders as the 2nd choice of around 30-40% of Warren supporters. Maybe that changes a bit with more candidates out of the race, but even if you ignore the fact the moderates haven't consolidated (Bloomberg), I haven't seen evidence that even a majority, let alone an overwhelming majority, of Warren voters would have gone to Sanders if she dropped out.
posted by zachlipton at 9:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
@zachdcarter: I understand why Sanders backers are mad at Warren, but it is in no way clear from the polling that Warren dropping out would have helped him. And it's hard to argue Warren was his problem tonight -- esp w/ results like Massachusetts.
biettetimmons: look, I get it! It's a simple, clean argument to say that Warren "cost" Sanders a state by staying in. but polling data has consistently showed that many Warren supporters' second choices were moderates. (This was Quinnipiac at the end of January.). most voters are not ideological the way the media expects them to be/the way pundits are. Read @ryangrim and @rmc031 on this
The polls I've seen have Sanders as the 2nd choice of around 30-40% of Warren supporters. Maybe that changes a bit with more candidates out of the race, but even if you ignore the fact the moderates haven't consolidated (Bloomberg), I haven't seen evidence that even a majority, let alone an overwhelming majority, of Warren voters would have gone to Sanders if she dropped out.
posted by zachlipton at 9:01 PM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
These results shouldn't be too surprising. Biden has been the national poll leader by far -- a year ago, 6 months ago, 3 months ago, 1 month ago. It has only been the last couple of weeks of February after New Hampshire where Sanders has drawn even with Biden. And then South Carolina, happened and Biden is back on top right where he has been for a year -- same as it ever was.
posted by JackFlash at 9:07 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 9:07 PM on March 3, 2020 [4 favorites]
When beating Trump is the only criterion, people readily compromise their hopes in order to get behind what they perceive as the closest to a 'sure thing'.
What happens when he doesn't beat Trump? I've honestly been super skeptical, what with so much about his campaign and his very presence being in disarray. But I dunno, maybe he really does just need to stand there and be generally personable (which is his strength) and not be Trump.
posted by atoxyl at 9:08 PM on March 3, 2020
What happens when he doesn't beat Trump? I've honestly been super skeptical, what with so much about his campaign and his very presence being in disarray. But I dunno, maybe he really does just need to stand there and be generally personable (which is his strength) and not be Trump.
posted by atoxyl at 9:08 PM on March 3, 2020
I suspect lower than expected youth turnout will be a major factor.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 9:09 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by donttouchmymustache at 9:09 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
stand there and be generally personable... and not be Trump
Somebody needs to write this on a cue card for him.
posted by clawsoon at 9:11 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Somebody needs to write this on a cue card for him.
posted by clawsoon at 9:11 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
African Americans and African American women in particular might have some opinions on those subjects and they are going 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 for Biden. I don't think you should be dismissing their opinions. They may have a different view of the world than you do.
People of color are not a monolith (nor are they immune to the sway of name recognition). If you look at how young black people (and young people of color in general) vote compared to older black folks and people of color, you can also see another entirely different view of the world.
It should be no surprise that the people who will live long enough to face the cataclysmic horrors of climate change feel a much greater sense of urgency about fighting it than the people who won't live long enough to see a blue ocean event. Or have to make the decision to fight in yet another bipartisan forever war/drone strike campaign in order to afford college.
posted by Ouverture at 9:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [15 favorites]
People of color are not a monolith (nor are they immune to the sway of name recognition). If you look at how young black people (and young people of color in general) vote compared to older black folks and people of color, you can also see another entirely different view of the world.
It should be no surprise that the people who will live long enough to face the cataclysmic horrors of climate change feel a much greater sense of urgency about fighting it than the people who won't live long enough to see a blue ocean event. Or have to make the decision to fight in yet another bipartisan forever war/drone strike campaign in order to afford college.
posted by Ouverture at 9:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [15 favorites]
I understand why Sanders backers are mad at Warren, but it is in no way clear from the polling that Warren dropping out would have helped him. And it's hard to argue Warren was his problem tonight -- esp w/ results like Massachusetts.
The MA vote totals could easily be interpreted as Sanders and Warren splitting the vote. Guessing too much about second choices is just generally kind of bogus, though, because I'm not sure it captures that much about the decisions that actually happen. On the other hand I'll say when people say Warren should ally with Sanders they are usually implying "drop out and endorse" which certainly worked well for Joe Biden. There might be more bad blood between the Sanders and Warren campaigns right now than between Joe and anybody though, partly because Joe Biden was so invisible in the first couple states.
posted by atoxyl at 9:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
The MA vote totals could easily be interpreted as Sanders and Warren splitting the vote. Guessing too much about second choices is just generally kind of bogus, though, because I'm not sure it captures that much about the decisions that actually happen. On the other hand I'll say when people say Warren should ally with Sanders they are usually implying "drop out and endorse" which certainly worked well for Joe Biden. There might be more bad blood between the Sanders and Warren campaigns right now than between Joe and anybody though, partly because Joe Biden was so invisible in the first couple states.
posted by atoxyl at 9:20 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Something that showed in 2016 and that Biden is showing this year is that, while I think instinctively Americans like to think that votes are earned and that going out and kissing babies and making speeches to VFW halls is the way to win an election, it turns out that it's even more important to be someone a lot of people know from TV. It's obviously not an option available to most politicians, but once you're there, the ingrained image of you people have from years of seeing your face and hearing your voice is worth a million canvassers.
posted by Copronymus at 9:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 9:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
Anybody know which way votes for Bloomberg would've gone if he hadn't been in the race? He definitely seems to be playing some sort of spoiler today, getting in just over the 15% threshold in a bunch of states. I assume they would've gone to Biden, but is there any solid evidence that that's true?
posted by clawsoon at 9:26 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by clawsoon at 9:26 PM on March 3, 2020
Bloomberg considering dropping out after Biden rout
Mike Bloomberg is weighing dropping out as early as Wednesday after losing a string of Super Tuesday states where he invested a fortune in advertising, according to several people familiar with his plans.posted by kirkaracha at 9:35 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
While the multi-billionaire former New York City mayor was on track to win delegates, he was roundly beaten by Joe Biden, on whose collapse Bloomberg had been counting.
Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Biden. Electable elder statesmen promising a continuation or return to normalcy.
posted by chortly at 9:37 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by chortly at 9:37 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
Kornacki’s 2019 guide to the historical power of the black democratic vote.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:45 PM on March 3, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 9:45 PM on March 3, 2020
I campaigned for Kerry and will campaign for Biden if he is the frontrunner. We are going up against an actual Manchurian candidate in full fascist bloom, we will need all the allies we can get. At this point I don't think anyone can guess what will or won't work against Trump.
posted by benzenedream at 9:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 9:48 PM on March 3, 2020 [19 favorites]
I would like to stop hearing that people vote for Biden, or for moderates in general, because they don't care if the world burns. Perhaps some people feel more urgent about an electable candidate precisely because they are terrified about climate change, and fear that going all-or-nothing on a maximalist approach is a risky idea.
Perhaps you think that calculation is wrong. But that's a far cry from "old people vote for Biden because they don't care if their grandchildren die horribly," which is just lazy analysis.
posted by argybarg at 9:52 PM on March 3, 2020 [30 favorites]
Perhaps you think that calculation is wrong. But that's a far cry from "old people vote for Biden because they don't care if their grandchildren die horribly," which is just lazy analysis.
posted by argybarg at 9:52 PM on March 3, 2020 [30 favorites]
People are suggesting that Bloomberg could do the most for Democrats by building on his victory and working for American Samoa statehood.
posted by JackFlash at 10:03 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 10:03 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
Do we have a source on the 18-29 poll?
WaPo: "Exit polls showed only about 1 in 8 voters were between the ages of 18 and 29 years old. [...] nearly two-thirds were 45 or older, and about 3 in 10 were 65 or older."
posted by katra at 10:06 PM on March 3, 2020
WaPo: "Exit polls showed only about 1 in 8 voters were between the ages of 18 and 29 years old. [...] nearly two-thirds were 45 or older, and about 3 in 10 were 65 or older."
posted by katra at 10:06 PM on March 3, 2020
It probably means something for the American political system that Biden won multiple primary contests without even having campaigns in those states, like Trump did in 2016. That's weird and new.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Hillary Clinton was sharp, lucid and knowledgeable. If Biden can be considered more ‘electable’ than her then might as well just go ahead and nominate an actual penis.
posted by moorooka at 10:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 10:19 PM on March 3, 2020 [22 favorites]
There is an entire spectrum between whispering and yelling and yeah, these results do come across to me as "more people than we thought prefer the middle", however I personally feel about that.
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
As you may recall, many folks aren’t happy about the less than democratic nature of caucuses. They take a long time and turnout is limited to those who can get to a site and be there for a few hours without having to worry about other things that demand their time, like work. Well, now we’ve got some data points. Colorado had caucuses in 2016. They got about 125,000 voters to turn out. Tonight, there’s still a lot of votes to count in CO and over 700,000 votes have been counted so far. In Utah, they had 79,000 voters at the 2016 caucuses. Still votes to count there but they’ve already counted 163,000. Minnesota had about 205,000 at the 2016 caucuses. They’ve had 740,000 votes counted tonight. Maine had a few thousand in 2016. 181,000:votes have been counted there tonight.
We’ve seen enough. Dump the damn caucuses.
posted by azpenguin at 10:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [26 favorites]
We’ve seen enough. Dump the damn caucuses.
posted by azpenguin at 10:21 PM on March 3, 2020 [26 favorites]
Seems like ranked ballots would be especially good for the early-voting and vote-by-mail states, where lots of people voted for candidates who are no longer in the race.
posted by clawsoon at 10:24 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 10:24 PM on March 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Biden. Electable elder statesmen promising a continuation or return to normalcy.
I wish we had better options, too. But I became a US citizen partly to vote for Kerry, to fight back against the right-wing fascism that took hold after 9/11, even though the man was clearly unfit to run. We still have to all fight together against Trump, even if history suggests the odds are worsened.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:38 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I wish we had better options, too. But I became a US citizen partly to vote for Kerry, to fight back against the right-wing fascism that took hold after 9/11, even though the man was clearly unfit to run. We still have to all fight together against Trump, even if history suggests the odds are worsened.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:38 PM on March 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I think Warren would be a better candidate than Biden. But she came in third in her own state and lost by double digits. She should quit the race.
Sanders probably won California. But California is going to vote Democrat. Biden won swing states like Virginia and North Carolina by huge margins, and has won many more delegates. Sanders should quit the race. (He won’t.)
This is such a trouncing that it’s hard to sincerely dispute the results. The electorate needs to get used to the idea that we need to get Donald Trump out of office, and Biden is how we get there. Hopefully he will select a good VP candidate.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:57 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Sanders probably won California. But California is going to vote Democrat. Biden won swing states like Virginia and North Carolina by huge margins, and has won many more delegates. Sanders should quit the race. (He won’t.)
This is such a trouncing that it’s hard to sincerely dispute the results. The electorate needs to get used to the idea that we need to get Donald Trump out of office, and Biden is how we get there. Hopefully he will select a good VP candidate.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:57 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Tonight was a disaster for the country. I’m trying to imagine in my head Biden leading the Democratic Party for eight years. I just don’t see it. I was fucking wrong to think that the guy not having a campaign in any of the Super Tuesday states would matter. TV is a hell of a drug. Maybe I’m wrong about Biden’s chances too. I’ll be around to vote for him in November even though I am in a deep blue state so my vote doesn’t matter that much. It’s time for me to disengage from politics though because this feels like a middle finger aimed right at me from the party I am supposed to for.
posted by eagles123 at 11:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 11:13 PM on March 3, 2020 [12 favorites]
It's interesting that the narrative is that Biden "took" Texas, but in reality, Sanders has also done very well; at 91% count he is only behind Biden by 4%, and they each are currently awarded 20 delegates.
It reminds me of Rotten Tomatoes ratings. If each is merely > 50% in favor of your movie, you'll still appear as 100%, or something.
I wanted to compare with California but it's not done yet.
posted by polymodus at 11:15 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
It reminds me of Rotten Tomatoes ratings. If each is merely > 50% in favor of your movie, you'll still appear as 100%, or something.
I wanted to compare with California but it's not done yet.
posted by polymodus at 11:15 PM on March 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Suburban Surge That Helped Save Joe Biden: "In South Carolina, suburban voters ― many of them former Republicans disgusted by Trump ― turned to Biden. And on the most important night of the Democratic primary so far, at the urging of Klobuchar and Buttigieg, their suburban cousins around the country ratified their decision, helping Biden to neutralize or even surpass Sen. Bernie Sanders."
On the plus side, suburban voters tend to swing elections. On the minus side, suburban voters lead to suburban policies.
posted by clawsoon at 11:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
On the plus side, suburban voters tend to swing elections. On the minus side, suburban voters lead to suburban policies.
posted by clawsoon at 11:17 PM on March 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
Hervis Rogers is the very last person in line to vote at Texas Southern University. He's been here almost five hours. It's almost midnight.
Something about the Texas GOP reducing the number of polling places in minority districts?
posted by clawsoon at 11:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
Something about the Texas GOP reducing the number of polling places in minority districts?
posted by clawsoon at 11:30 PM on March 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
The suburbanites Clinton tried to win in 2016 coming through for Biden. Flipping the PA suburbs helped the Dems take back Congress in 2018. We’ll see if they help Biden flip PA this year. Primary turnout does not equal general election turnout though. It’s not exactly a coalition that I feel has my best interests at heart or wants the same things I do.
posted by eagles123 at 11:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 11:31 PM on March 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is such a trouncing that it’s hard to sincerely dispute the results.
Whatever else it is, it's not a trouncing. It's likely that by the time California is fully tallied, Biden and Sanders will be within a hundred delegates of each other, which is not exactly a lot when there are nearly 4000 total. They've essentially tied in Texas, Minnesota, Maine and Massachusetts, and both racked up big totals from the regions everyone predicted they'd do well in. Biden still has Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida; Sanders still has Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and New Mexico. I suspect the deciding factor is likely to be the remaining large states in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Michigan and Missouri are up next week, and then Illinois and Ohio the week after that. Those will likely determine whether this is a narrow Sanders victory, a strong Biden victory, or a contested convention. Cutting the democratic process short at this point by having the entire field resign would, if anything, lend credence to Trump's inclination to call the whole thing rigged for Biden's benefit.
posted by Copronymus at 12:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Whatever else it is, it's not a trouncing. It's likely that by the time California is fully tallied, Biden and Sanders will be within a hundred delegates of each other, which is not exactly a lot when there are nearly 4000 total. They've essentially tied in Texas, Minnesota, Maine and Massachusetts, and both racked up big totals from the regions everyone predicted they'd do well in. Biden still has Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida; Sanders still has Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and New Mexico. I suspect the deciding factor is likely to be the remaining large states in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Michigan and Missouri are up next week, and then Illinois and Ohio the week after that. Those will likely determine whether this is a narrow Sanders victory, a strong Biden victory, or a contested convention. Cutting the democratic process short at this point by having the entire field resign would, if anything, lend credence to Trump's inclination to call the whole thing rigged for Biden's benefit.
posted by Copronymus at 12:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Something about the Texas GOP reducing the number of polling places in minority districts? Texas closes hundreds of polling sites, making it harder for minorities to vote (The Guardian, March 2, 2020), posted upthread.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:05 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:05 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Sanders probably won California. But California is going to vote Democrat.
Your point about watching the swing states isn't wrong but isn't the above statement a little like saying "South Carolina is going to vote Republican?"
posted by atoxyl at 1:23 AM on March 4, 2020
Your point about watching the swing states isn't wrong but isn't the above statement a little like saying "South Carolina is going to vote Republican?"
posted by atoxyl at 1:23 AM on March 4, 2020
After vowing not to attend the AIPAC meeting, Warren staffers met with 250 AIPAC lobbyists today.
AIPAC doesn't employ any lobbyists, as far as I know. The people she would have met were probably her own constituents, advised and coordinated by AIPAC, because that's what AIPAC does: it mobilises individual voters to meet with politicians. I suppose politicians may occasionally be justified in refusing to meet representatives of organisations that hold particular views, but it would be weird and improper for them to refuse to meet individuals for the same reason.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:11 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
AIPAC doesn't employ any lobbyists, as far as I know. The people she would have met were probably her own constituents, advised and coordinated by AIPAC, because that's what AIPAC does: it mobilises individual voters to meet with politicians. I suppose politicians may occasionally be justified in refusing to meet representatives of organisations that hold particular views, but it would be weird and improper for them to refuse to meet individuals for the same reason.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:11 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Biden. Electable elder statesmen promising a continuation or return to normalcy.
Pessimist. I prefer to think this could be the inverse of the 1980 election. An unpopular president who is seen as almost a caricature; the embodiment of the worst elements of his party's ideals, matched to a nominee with a broad popular mandate. Think of Biden as The Great Miscommunicator and it all starts to fall into place. Now I'm gonna hope for eight years of the Democratic Machine running the office while the president makes occasional appearances talking tough with bizarrely skewed recollections.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Pessimist. I prefer to think this could be the inverse of the 1980 election. An unpopular president who is seen as almost a caricature; the embodiment of the worst elements of his party's ideals, matched to a nominee with a broad popular mandate. Think of Biden as The Great Miscommunicator and it all starts to fall into place. Now I'm gonna hope for eight years of the Democratic Machine running the office while the president makes occasional appearances talking tough with bizarrely skewed recollections.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Biden 77
Sanders 78
Bloomberg 78
Warren 70
Combined age 303
Trump 73
We'll have another boomer president.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:24 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sanders 78
Bloomberg 78
Warren 70
Combined age 303
Trump 73
We'll have another boomer president.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:24 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Once again, my neighbors disappoint me. I was hoping either Sanders or Warren would take MA, but noooo - it went to Biden. Because MA allows anyone to vote in the Dem primary, regardless of party declaration, I suspect a bunch of Republicans took the Dem ballot and voted for the defeatable Biden.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:30 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:30 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
We'll have another boomer president.
Warren is the only Boomer on your list.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:31 AM on March 4, 2020
Warren is the only Boomer on your list.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:31 AM on March 4, 2020
You're partly right. Trump is a boomer.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:36 AM on March 4, 2020
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:36 AM on March 4, 2020
Since it’s now definitely going to be Biden or Sanders, this is going to be the most important VP pick in modern US history. I doubt either of them would serve two terms. They are both in their late 70s, Sanders has a heart attack, and Biden’s mind clearly isn’t what it used to be. I hope Biden likcks a VP that throws a bone to the left.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Biden is not in the same category as Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and Mondale. You won’t find them confusing their sisters for the wives, or forgetting what office they’re running for. I know it’s bad manners to point it out, but he is pretty much the only person that the Democrats could put up to make Trump seem mentally fit by comparison. It’s appalling.
posted by moorooka at 3:44 AM on March 4, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 3:44 AM on March 4, 2020 [24 favorites]
MisantropicPainforest I don't think the center right faction in the Democratic Party feels even slightly conciliatory towards the left. Just like in 2016 they'll see a narrow victory for Biden as a mandate to go full bore right wing. He'll probably pick Buttigieg or Bloomberg.
posted by sotonohito at 3:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 3:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
I suspect a bunch of Republicans took the Dem ballot and voted for the defeatable Biden.
There was a similar claim directed against Bernie because of Trump’s stupid encouragement to do this (which pundit Hugh Hewitt actually followed through on in Virginia), called “Operation Chaos.” It wasn’t true then either.
It’s hard to believe when you’re surrounded by people who vote differently, but this was real turn out and much of it was people of color. It wasn’t rigged or faked.
I’m really curious to see if the Warren and Sanders campaigns were expecting turnout or demographics that didn’t show up, whether those people showed up but flipped to Biden, or whether everyone thought we’d end up at a contested convention. I don’t think Biden was expecting this either!
posted by sallybrown at 4:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
There was a similar claim directed against Bernie because of Trump’s stupid encouragement to do this (which pundit Hugh Hewitt actually followed through on in Virginia), called “Operation Chaos.” It wasn’t true then either.
It’s hard to believe when you’re surrounded by people who vote differently, but this was real turn out and much of it was people of color. It wasn’t rigged or faked.
I’m really curious to see if the Warren and Sanders campaigns were expecting turnout or demographics that didn’t show up, whether those people showed up but flipped to Biden, or whether everyone thought we’d end up at a contested convention. I don’t think Biden was expecting this either!
posted by sallybrown at 4:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
It's not like the left wing is going to feel conciliatory towards the center either if Bernie takes the nomination. Bernie's supporters can't have been any clearer that many would rather it all burn down if he isn't the candidate, making any kind of coalition pretty unlikely.
posted by tocts at 4:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by tocts at 4:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
There’s only one obvious choice for Biden’s veep: Tim Kaine
posted by moorooka at 4:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 4:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
It wasn’t true then either.
You have no more evidence for your claim that it absolutely didn't happen than I do for my suspicion that it did. I live here, and it's well-known that Republicans do this. Where are you?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:07 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
You have no more evidence for your claim that it absolutely didn't happen than I do for my suspicion that it did. I live here, and it's well-known that Republicans do this. Where are you?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:07 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
But then, my prognostication powers are as pathetic as always. I earlier predicted that Bloomberg would be winning most of the states Biden just took. So clearly I'm a failure as an oracle.
It does show that we need to reevaluate how polling works, because dang. Bloomberg was polling well above Biden in most of the states where Biden won. WTF is up with that?
tocts I think Sanders would have felt intense pressure to give concessions to the right, and probably would have picked some center right person approved by the DNC as his running mate.
posted by sotonohito at 4:08 AM on March 4, 2020
It does show that we need to reevaluate how polling works, because dang. Bloomberg was polling well above Biden in most of the states where Biden won. WTF is up with that?
tocts I think Sanders would have felt intense pressure to give concessions to the right, and probably would have picked some center right person approved by the DNC as his running mate.
posted by sotonohito at 4:08 AM on March 4, 2020
We may see some pundits claim that Sanders lack of African American support shows that he only appeals to whites people. This is of course racist erasure. It’s really interesting that two elderly white dudes both have strong appeal to different minority demographics: Sanders does great with latinx, Biden does great with African Americans.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sanders also won LGBTQ voters 40% to Warren’s 22% and Biden’s 19%. That piece said LGBTQ voters were a “disproportionately high” 9% of the vote so those voters turned out higher than expected.
posted by sallybrown at 4:18 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 4:18 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Bloomberg brought Biden down by probably an equal amount as Warren lowering Sanders.
I was a Sanders person through last night. I thought she really had a chance, and would have if she outperformed the polls to an equal degree that Biden surprised the polls. She wasn't hanging around as a spoiler yesterday, but as a candidate. Going on, she may well be the spoiler. This "return to normalcy*" is killing her and Sanders. (*A phrase originally used to elect Harding, our second worst president.)
So, I'll throw my support to Bernie. The Puerto Rico primary is March 29.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I was a Sanders person through last night. I thought she really had a chance, and would have if she outperformed the polls to an equal degree that Biden surprised the polls. She wasn't hanging around as a spoiler yesterday, but as a candidate. Going on, she may well be the spoiler. This "return to normalcy*" is killing her and Sanders. (*A phrase originally used to elect Harding, our second worst president.)
So, I'll throw my support to Bernie. The Puerto Rico primary is March 29.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I hate that the 2020’s are already starting out like the 1920’s. I mean, I guess they were cool in a way, as long as you don’t consider what came after ....
posted by eagles123 at 4:57 AM on March 4, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 4:57 AM on March 4, 2020
I'm a 50 yo white lady living in the DC suburbs. Let me defend the "Biden represents a breather" position for a sec.
Much of my social circle is the deep state - the people who keep the government servers running, or edit government web sites, or audit nonprofits' tax returns, or compile adverse drug reaction reports for the FDA. Over the last several years lots of folks have left government work or taken early retirement because the current administration is terrible.
The government is actually full of people as smart as Elizabeth Warren or as passionate as Bernie Sanders, you just don't know their names. And some of them aren't there any more.
It's going to take time to build up the capacity that we've lost. Biden knows a lot of people. If he takes office there is going to be a wave of hiring and a lot of those people are going to have views that align much more closely with metafilter's views than Biden himself does.
posted by selfmedicating at 5:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [41 favorites]
Much of my social circle is the deep state - the people who keep the government servers running, or edit government web sites, or audit nonprofits' tax returns, or compile adverse drug reaction reports for the FDA. Over the last several years lots of folks have left government work or taken early retirement because the current administration is terrible.
The government is actually full of people as smart as Elizabeth Warren or as passionate as Bernie Sanders, you just don't know their names. And some of them aren't there any more.
It's going to take time to build up the capacity that we've lost. Biden knows a lot of people. If he takes office there is going to be a wave of hiring and a lot of those people are going to have views that align much more closely with metafilter's views than Biden himself does.
posted by selfmedicating at 5:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [41 favorites]
There’s only one obvious choice for Biden’s veep: Tim Kaine
I'm calling it now that the Dem ticket will be Biden/Klobuchar. She's a lot younger than he is, midwestern, and will be rewarded for her party loyalty.
posted by anastasiav at 5:40 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
I'm calling it now that the Dem ticket will be Biden/Klobuchar. She's a lot younger than he is, midwestern, and will be rewarded for her party loyalty.
posted by anastasiav at 5:40 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
To selfmedicating’s point—turnout in Virginia doubled from the 2016 primary. Lots of Virginians were directly impacted by the government shutdown.
posted by sallybrown at 5:44 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:44 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
From the Kornacki article posted by Harry Caul above: "Could Joe Biden’s decades of relationship-building with black party leaders, along with memories of his partnership with Obama, translate into endorsements and grassroots support?"
Total anecdata, but I work a regular jazz gig in East Cleveland (a suburb that's something like 93% African-American) where the audience is almost entirely middle-aged and older, and judging from conversations both direct and overhead, yeah, I think Biden has been running a largely invisible ground game amongst the existing black Democratic organizations.
posted by soundguy99 at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
Total anecdata, but I work a regular jazz gig in East Cleveland (a suburb that's something like 93% African-American) where the audience is almost entirely middle-aged and older, and judging from conversations both direct and overhead, yeah, I think Biden has been running a largely invisible ground game amongst the existing black Democratic organizations.
posted by soundguy99 at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
In terms of Super Tuesday takeaways I think the biggest one I would like to see is explanations for why black voters went overwhelmingly for Biden. Not in a "why not Sanders" way, just in the sense that I don't know what they see in Biden, whereas I know what supporters generally see in Sanders. Stuff like this helps put the pieces together:
From the Kornacki article posted by Harry Caul above: "Could Joe Biden’s decades of relationship-building with black party leaders, along with memories of his partnership with Obama, translate into endorsements and grassroots support?"
Total anecdata, but I work a regular jazz gig in East Cleveland (a suburb that's something like 93% African-American) where the audience is almost entirely middle-aged and older, and judging from conversations both direct and overhead, yeah, I think Biden has been running a largely invisible ground game amongst the existing black Democratic organizations.
I'd love to see more about this, though, to help understand the shift in dynamics.
posted by chrominance at 6:12 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
From the Kornacki article posted by Harry Caul above: "Could Joe Biden’s decades of relationship-building with black party leaders, along with memories of his partnership with Obama, translate into endorsements and grassroots support?"
Total anecdata, but I work a regular jazz gig in East Cleveland (a suburb that's something like 93% African-American) where the audience is almost entirely middle-aged and older, and judging from conversations both direct and overhead, yeah, I think Biden has been running a largely invisible ground game amongst the existing black Democratic organizations.
I'd love to see more about this, though, to help understand the shift in dynamics.
posted by chrominance at 6:12 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I see Sanders supporters blaming Warren as a spoiler. Adding Warren’s votes to Sanders, he still loses NC by 9 points and VA by 19 points. It’s not Warren’s fault that Sanders once again has limited support among African-Americans.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:20 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:20 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
In the next debate, with a smaller pool of candidates and more time and focus on Biden, I doubt he's going to come out looking good, or even coherent. Unfortunately, that debate isn't until after the next primaries, so he's going to be able to cruise on the narrative that he won Super Tuesday.
There's only one factor I could see changing this narrative back to one that favors Bernie, and that's Warren dropping out and endorsing him. I really hope that happens, but given the way she's been running her campaign lately I think it's more likely that she either stays in or drops out without endorsing anyone.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
There's only one factor I could see changing this narrative back to one that favors Bernie, and that's Warren dropping out and endorsing him. I really hope that happens, but given the way she's been running her campaign lately I think it's more likely that she either stays in or drops out without endorsing anyone.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yesterday was incredibly disappointing. If you look at the age breakdown, Biden was carried by a gray wave while anyone who has an appreciable number of years at stake flocked to Sanders. Never underestimate an American's ability to pull the ladder up and yell FUGM no matter their party affiliation.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boomer patronizingly explaining why corporate profits are more important than healthcare for citizens, forever.
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boomer patronizingly explaining why corporate profits are more important than healthcare for citizens, forever.
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
Or perhaps the progressive lane is just one portion of the Democratic party, and not large enough to own it outright.
I'm not sure this is true. More Democrats had a positive view of socialism than capitalism in Texas. In exit polls across the country, more Democrats wanted Medicare for All than any of the other options.
So, the anticapitalist progressive chunk of the voters is huge, but that doesn't reflect in the elected leadership at all. The office-holders are lagging way behind the people.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure this is true. More Democrats had a positive view of socialism than capitalism in Texas. In exit polls across the country, more Democrats wanted Medicare for All than any of the other options.
So, the anticapitalist progressive chunk of the voters is huge, but that doesn't reflect in the elected leadership at all. The office-holders are lagging way behind the people.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
I'd love to see more about this, though, to help understand the shift in dynamics.
Buzzfeed News: Why Did Joe Biden Do So Well On Super Tuesday? These Voters Explain.
Two takeaway quotes -
"On Sunday, Karen Badon filled out a ballot to vote early for Elizabeth Warren, after deciding that she agreed more with Warren’s platform than anyone else’s.
She didn’t send it in. On the night of Super Tuesday, she stood in line at the Baldwin Hills Recreation Center in Los Angeles with a Biden for President sign in hand, indicating the candidate she’d ended up voting for instead.
"I saw all these people dropping out and they were all endorsing Biden, and I thought, Biden is the one who can be elected," said Badon, 57. "So I did not mail in my ballot. I went to vote today, tore up my ballot, and voted for Biden.""
"Debbie Mars, 63, said she’s been behind Biden since he announced, because of his “kindness and civility.”
Mars, who is black, said Biden was the candidate who came across as the most genuinely invested in black communities, a view that helped Biden to a blowout win in South Carolina this past weekend.
“As a very proud African American, many of us are very offended at being the flavor of the week. Many of the candidates are bubbling up, ‘We need the black vote; we need the black vote.’ And it makes us feel very much token. This is a very organic thing with Joe,” she said."
posted by soundguy99 at 6:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Buzzfeed News: Why Did Joe Biden Do So Well On Super Tuesday? These Voters Explain.
Two takeaway quotes -
"On Sunday, Karen Badon filled out a ballot to vote early for Elizabeth Warren, after deciding that she agreed more with Warren’s platform than anyone else’s.
She didn’t send it in. On the night of Super Tuesday, she stood in line at the Baldwin Hills Recreation Center in Los Angeles with a Biden for President sign in hand, indicating the candidate she’d ended up voting for instead.
"I saw all these people dropping out and they were all endorsing Biden, and I thought, Biden is the one who can be elected," said Badon, 57. "So I did not mail in my ballot. I went to vote today, tore up my ballot, and voted for Biden.""
"Debbie Mars, 63, said she’s been behind Biden since he announced, because of his “kindness and civility.”
Mars, who is black, said Biden was the candidate who came across as the most genuinely invested in black communities, a view that helped Biden to a blowout win in South Carolina this past weekend.
“As a very proud African American, many of us are very offended at being the flavor of the week. Many of the candidates are bubbling up, ‘We need the black vote; we need the black vote.’ And it makes us feel very much token. This is a very organic thing with Joe,” she said."
posted by soundguy99 at 6:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
It will be nail-biting and interesting to see in 10-15 days where the California delegate count ends up when they finish counting.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:33 AM on March 4, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 6:33 AM on March 4, 2020
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boomer patronizingly explaining why corporate profits are more important than healthcare for citizens, forever.
This actually has been the experience of my last few recent days.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:36 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
This actually has been the experience of my last few recent days.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:36 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
I will grudgingly say that Biden's success on Super Tuesday was impressive, especially considering none of his supporters were bused to any polling places.
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
African Americans and African American women in particular might have some opinions on those subjects and they are going 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 for Biden. I don't think you should be dismissing their opinions.
Indeed, one could argue that having their opinions consistently dismissed by supposed progressives is precisely why they're breaking so hard for Biden.
It's the same stupid fucking mistake Bernie made in 2016. Like, this is exactly the same thing that happened to him back then. He did nothing to correct that mistake, he just doubled down on the same strategy that failed for him last time. It's like he learned absolutely nothing.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:38 AM on March 4, 2020 [19 favorites]
Indeed, one could argue that having their opinions consistently dismissed by supposed progressives is precisely why they're breaking so hard for Biden.
It's the same stupid fucking mistake Bernie made in 2016. Like, this is exactly the same thing that happened to him back then. He did nothing to correct that mistake, he just doubled down on the same strategy that failed for him last time. It's like he learned absolutely nothing.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:38 AM on March 4, 2020 [19 favorites]
In terms of Super Tuesday takeaways I think the biggest one I would like to see is explanations for why black voters went overwhelmingly for Biden.
I would encourage you to follow Bree Newsome Bass on Twitter. She provided a lot of running commentary last night and this morning about this.
posted by mikepop at 6:39 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
I would encourage you to follow Bree Newsome Bass on Twitter. She provided a lot of running commentary last night and this morning about this.
posted by mikepop at 6:39 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Why do black voters seem to like Biden? One possible answer is suggested by a Tweet from Antonio French, African-American former St. Louis alderman: "Biden actually has the best, most clearly stated policy pitch: a return to Obama policies. You may not like that, but millions of people understand it immediately and do like it. It’s the best elevator pitch of any other candidate."
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 6:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 6:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
If you look at the age breakdown, Biden was carried by a gray wave while anyone who has an appreciable number of years at stake flocked to Sanders. Never underestimate an American's ability to pull the ladder up and yell FUGM no matter their party affiliation.
I feel like this view point (which I'm seeing a lot on Twitter and other places) does an enormous disservice to the views of the voters from communities of color who came out in force for Biden yesterday. Maybe take some time to listen to them and hear why they voted they way they did, rather than dismissing a huge block of people as "the olds" outright.
This kind of bitter "you're with us or you're out to get us" rhetoric is, frankly, what drives a lot of people away from the Sanders campaign.
posted by anastasiav at 6:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
I feel like this view point (which I'm seeing a lot on Twitter and other places) does an enormous disservice to the views of the voters from communities of color who came out in force for Biden yesterday. Maybe take some time to listen to them and hear why they voted they way they did, rather than dismissing a huge block of people as "the olds" outright.
This kind of bitter "you're with us or you're out to get us" rhetoric is, frankly, what drives a lot of people away from the Sanders campaign.
posted by anastasiav at 6:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
I feel like this view point (which I'm seeing a lot on Twitter and other places) does an enormous disservice to the views of the voters from Hispanic communities who came out in force for Sanders yesterday. Maybe take some time to listen to them and hear why they voted they way they did, rather than dismissing them outright.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Why do black voters seem to like Biden? One possible answer is suggested by a Tweet from Antonio French, African-American former St. Louis alderman: "Biden actually has the best, most clearly stated policy pitch: a return to Obama policies. You may not like that, but millions of people understand it immediately and do like it. It’s the best elevator pitch of any other candidate."
The "return to Obama policies" where war crimes are forgiven, black and brown kids are put in cages here and killed by drones abroad, and class inequality continues to grow more and more certainly seems like a depressing pitch, but i assume that's not what these voters were thinking about when they look back on Obama.
It is immensely saddening and frustrating to see name recognition and selective nostalgia doom current and future generations to a collapsing world.
posted by Ouverture at 6:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
The "return to Obama policies" where war crimes are forgiven, black and brown kids are put in cages here and killed by drones abroad, and class inequality continues to grow more and more certainly seems like a depressing pitch, but i assume that's not what these voters were thinking about when they look back on Obama.
It is immensely saddening and frustrating to see name recognition and selective nostalgia doom current and future generations to a collapsing world.
posted by Ouverture at 6:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Democrats Rallying Around Joe Biden Could Alienate Generations of the Party's Youth Support (Lucy Diavolo, Teen Vogue OpEd)
'In this op-ed, Lucy Diavolo reacts to the onslaught of endorsements for 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden, expressing concerns about what it might mean for Democrats’ youth support.'posted by ZeusHumms at 6:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
[…] behind the scenes, there are some subtle details that voters are just now starting to trickle out. Like the quiet role former president Barack Obama may have played in fostering this recent consolidation around Biden. Sources close to the former president (a cryptic phrase) reportedly told NBC News that Obama had sent out a signal that it was time to rally behind his former VP. And an unnamed Democratic official told the New York Times that Obama and Biden spoke to Buttigieg on Sunday night to make the case for what his endorsement would mean.
[…] On Friday, FiveThirtyEight broke down how the rejection of voters under 45 has been the biggest obstacle to Biden’s ascendence from presumed nominee to actual front-runner.
[…]
Democrats, in their hasty coronation of Biden as the party’s fail-safe against a Sanders nomination, have put themselves in grave danger of alienating large swaths of millennials and zoomers, groups data indicates are more diverse than older generations, more politically progressive, and poised to become massive voting blocs if they can be convinced that there’s any reason to even engage in electoral politics, especially at the national level.
[…]
It doesn’t seem like a stretch of the imagination to think that if Democrats make Joe Biden their 2020 nominee, it will amplify millennials’ post-Obama disillusionment and make Gen Z’s first presidential election a harsh lesson in the crushing power of political machines. This isn’t just about Sanders; it’s about the Democrat Party actively putting itself at odds with so many of the young people whose votes they’ll be so eager for come November.
I don’t find it dismissive of Bernie supporters (or Biden supporters, or Warren supporters) to push back on the assertion that “anyone who has an appreciable number of years at stake flocked to Sanders.” It’s flatly untrue.
posted by sallybrown at 6:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
I find this piece to be a great reminder that winning a category a voters is not the same thing as garnering unified support from that entire category: Don’t Fall for the Mythic ‘Black Voter’ Analysis After South Carolina.
In election analysis there’s a tendency to confuse the effect of the vote (especially in winner-take-all situations like the general) with the intent of the voters on the ground. Biden winning middle aged and older voters doesn’t mean there are no gray-haired Sanders fans. Sanders sweeping the youth vote doesn’t mean people with time left on earth uniformly reject Biden. The fact that majorities in a bunch of states firmly support Medicare for All says more about the policy than what candidate they align with, apparently. Which to me is a damn good thing, it means you can built coalitions regardless of who’s acting as the face of the policy!
posted by sallybrown at 7:05 AM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
In election analysis there’s a tendency to confuse the effect of the vote (especially in winner-take-all situations like the general) with the intent of the voters on the ground. Biden winning middle aged and older voters doesn’t mean there are no gray-haired Sanders fans. Sanders sweeping the youth vote doesn’t mean people with time left on earth uniformly reject Biden. The fact that majorities in a bunch of states firmly support Medicare for All says more about the policy than what candidate they align with, apparently. Which to me is a damn good thing, it means you can built coalitions regardless of who’s acting as the face of the policy!
posted by sallybrown at 7:05 AM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
You'd better be right sallybrown, because this dream people keep expressing of one portion of the coalition wiping out all the others is actually a nightmare.
posted by argybarg at 7:07 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 7:07 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
The fact that majorities in a bunch of states firmly support Medicare for All says more about the policy than what candidate they align with, apparently.
Yes, from everything noted, Biden's voters are to the left of him politically. Do not take his wins last night as proof that the Democratic Party rejected social democracy and socialism.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Yes, from everything noted, Biden's voters are to the left of him politically. Do not take his wins last night as proof that the Democratic Party rejected social democracy and socialism.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
They've essentially tied in Texas, Minnesota, Maine and Massachusetts
Biden won Maine by one point (33.9% - 32.9%), Massachusetts by 6.7 points (33.1% - 26.4%), Minnesota by 8.7 points (38.6% - 29.9%), and Texas by 3.8 points (33.7% - 29.9%).
posted by kirkaracha at 7:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Biden won Maine by one point (33.9% - 32.9%), Massachusetts by 6.7 points (33.1% - 26.4%), Minnesota by 8.7 points (38.6% - 29.9%), and Texas by 3.8 points (33.7% - 29.9%).
posted by kirkaracha at 7:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
To be on the record, "go back, strengthen Obamacare, build a firewall around it, and add a public option" is a pretty good policy stance. If we put all our weight behind it and campaigned our asses off for it it could happen, although it would be a hell of a fight. If it happened it would make a lot of people's lives better.
M4A just sounds politically impossible in any near-term future I can imagine. Am I crazy for believing that?
posted by argybarg at 7:15 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
M4A just sounds politically impossible in any near-term future I can imagine. Am I crazy for believing that?
posted by argybarg at 7:15 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Bye Bye Bloomberg: Michael Bloomberg to suspend presidential campaign. Politics may be infected with the influence of money, but part of the Democratic immune system still remains unbought and unbossed.
posted by sallybrown at 7:16 AM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:16 AM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
I see Sanders supporters blaming Warren as a spoiler. Adding Warren’s votes to Sanders, he still loses NC by 9 points and VA by 19 points.
That may be true in raw numbers, but she may have had significant additional effects if she had endorsed Bernie Monday night to counter the momentum of Amy's and Pete's endorsements. She may have been able to throw TX to Bernie - as well as ME, MA, and MN - and progressive policies would be in a much more competitive position.
posted by scrowdid at 7:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
That may be true in raw numbers, but she may have had significant additional effects if she had endorsed Bernie Monday night to counter the momentum of Amy's and Pete's endorsements. She may have been able to throw TX to Bernie - as well as ME, MA, and MN - and progressive policies would be in a much more competitive position.
posted by scrowdid at 7:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
> Politics may be infected with the influence of money, but part of the Democratic immune system still remains unbought and unbossed.
Eh, it's proven that people won't buy something they already hate, but let's wait to see what happens when he opens his Scrooge McDuck up to Biden, a product people have a more neutral opinion of. I refuse to believe he will sit on the sidelines.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:20 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Eh, it's proven that people won't buy something they already hate, but let's wait to see what happens when he opens his Scrooge McDuck up to Biden, a product people have a more neutral opinion of. I refuse to believe he will sit on the sidelines.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:20 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
For those who think a Biden presidency would mean no progress on anything useful, how about putting some pressure downballot? Presidents may be primary motivators of legislation, but laws are written in Congress. Want real action on global warming, on public medical care, on minimum wage? Vote for progressive congresspeople, and keep on kicking the ones who aren't. Enthusiasm for change doesn't have to end with presidential votes.
posted by jackbishop at 7:22 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by jackbishop at 7:22 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
ZeusHumms: Democrats Rallying Around Joe Biden Could Alienate Generations of the Party's Youth Support
Democrats failing to oust Trump could further ruin the U.S. and the world at large. I would hope that the Dems being clearly Team Not Trump would be enough to muster some youth support. But then again, the youth vote was only in the low 30 percent range in the 1960s, dropping lowest in 1998, then popping up a bit to 20% in 2006 and 2010 (Wikipedia graph with Census data).
Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964-2012 (Census 2014 publication) has a different graph on page 2 of this PDF, copied here for easy reference), which shows that ALL cohorts had the highest percentage turn-out in 1964, declining to 1988 before popping up in 1992, then cratering in 1996 and 2000. For the youth vote, 2008 came back up to 1992 levels, but dropped to 38% in 2012.
Statista reports 45% in 2012, then 2016 in 2016, but because they don't publish their source (you have to pay to see that), and it doesn't match the Census publication, I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt.
This is a long way of saying youth vote could be a boost over-all, but hasn't been strong for a while.
sallybrown: Michael Bloomberg to suspend presidential campaign
... and backs Biden. Not really a surprise, but that's the 3rd former candidate to voice their support, following Klobuchar and Buttigieg (USA Today, March 2, 2020).
posted by filthy light thief at 7:22 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Democrats failing to oust Trump could further ruin the U.S. and the world at large. I would hope that the Dems being clearly Team Not Trump would be enough to muster some youth support. But then again, the youth vote was only in the low 30 percent range in the 1960s, dropping lowest in 1998, then popping up a bit to 20% in 2006 and 2010 (Wikipedia graph with Census data).
Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964-2012 (Census 2014 publication) has a different graph on page 2 of this PDF, copied here for easy reference), which shows that ALL cohorts had the highest percentage turn-out in 1964, declining to 1988 before popping up in 1992, then cratering in 1996 and 2000. For the youth vote, 2008 came back up to 1992 levels, but dropped to 38% in 2012.
Statista reports 45% in 2012, then 2016 in 2016, but because they don't publish their source (you have to pay to see that), and it doesn't match the Census publication, I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt.
This is a long way of saying youth vote could be a boost over-all, but hasn't been strong for a while.
sallybrown: Michael Bloomberg to suspend presidential campaign
... and backs Biden. Not really a surprise, but that's the 3rd former candidate to voice their support, following Klobuchar and Buttigieg (USA Today, March 2, 2020).
posted by filthy light thief at 7:22 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
M4A just sounds politically impossible in any near-term future I can imagine. Am I crazy for believing that?
It depends. How skilled is the candidate in coalition building? Obamacare was a massive exercise in that very activity. Nancy, Harry, and Obama called in every favor, leveraged every relationship, twisted every arm, pleaded to every representative, and basically convinced Democrats that Obamacare was the hill to die on. If you had a candidate that could do that again with a Democratic trifecta it's entirely possible. The stakes would be larger (i.e. blowing up the filibuster) but it would be possible.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
It depends. How skilled is the candidate in coalition building? Obamacare was a massive exercise in that very activity. Nancy, Harry, and Obama called in every favor, leveraged every relationship, twisted every arm, pleaded to every representative, and basically convinced Democrats that Obamacare was the hill to die on. If you had a candidate that could do that again with a Democratic trifecta it's entirely possible. The stakes would be larger (i.e. blowing up the filibuster) but it would be possible.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
I mean, I don’t think it’s all that weird, it’s just the usual misogyny
posted by schadenfrau at 7:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by schadenfrau at 7:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
Mod note: Couple deleted; let's do this without the probably-tartly-sarcastic? sideways accusation that individual people in the conversation don't care about racism? Putting it that way creates confusion and then individual "but i personally do care" reactions where neither are really the point.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:30 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:30 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Speaking of bussing people to polling places, I think in Texas you can vote at any polling station? So it would be great to organize some way to bus people who had their closest polling stations closed by the GOP. Having to wait in line until 1 am is fucking obscene
posted by schadenfrau at 7:30 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by schadenfrau at 7:30 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Many young voters sat out Super Tuesday, contributing to Bernie Sanders' losses (Ledyard King, USA TODAY)
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:32 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Not misogyny at all, and not that weird. Just noting that after the momentum-building double endorsements consolidating support for Biden as the centrist option, it sure looked to me like Warren's endorsement could have given her a lot more power to further promote progressive ideals by consolidating behind Bernie than she could have done on her own with her polling numbers the way they were looking Monday.
Warren had been my first choice. In 2016 and 2020.
posted by scrowdid at 7:34 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Warren had been my first choice. In 2016 and 2020.
posted by scrowdid at 7:34 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
There's a certain weirdness to talking about what Warren should or shouldn't do or have done w/r/t Bernie's campaign without talking about his need to campaign and build a coalition.
I’m not sure I’d say weird so much as sad predictability that someone would find a woman to blame for his poor planning.
posted by adamsc at 7:34 AM on March 4, 2020 [18 favorites]
The other way to look at it is that all the arm-twisting in the world, with a much bluer (and filibuster-proof) Senate and a then-popular president, still got you only Obamacare and not a public option.
The theory is that if Obama had aimed higher, for full public health care, it would have passed. I think that's not true, or at least enough of an unproven hypothesis to make a poor foundation for a strategic planning.
FDR had the supermajority of a god in the Congress in 1936, more fundamental Democratic support than any president will ever have, and public health care died right away. It's a chronically tough fight in American politics, a game of inches.
posted by argybarg at 7:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
The theory is that if Obama had aimed higher, for full public health care, it would have passed. I think that's not true, or at least enough of an unproven hypothesis to make a poor foundation for a strategic planning.
FDR had the supermajority of a god in the Congress in 1936, more fundamental Democratic support than any president will ever have, and public health care died right away. It's a chronically tough fight in American politics, a game of inches.
posted by argybarg at 7:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
But to prevent a derail, I want to throw out this possibility and see if people think it is ridiculous:
People like me, who think health care is a long grind of one gain after another, do not care less about the welfare of their fellow citizens than the people who think it should be resolved in one grand plan.
Is that at least a plausible statement?
posted by argybarg at 7:39 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
People like me, who think health care is a long grind of one gain after another, do not care less about the welfare of their fellow citizens than the people who think it should be resolved in one grand plan.
Is that at least a plausible statement?
posted by argybarg at 7:39 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
It’s definitely not true, and has been talked about over and over in these threads. Joe Lieberman single handedly killed the public option in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi, who Susan Sarandon is not looking to keep around (good luck Sue), got it done in the House, and Obama would have signed it.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by schadenfrau at 7:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Many young voters sat out Super Tuesday, contributing to Bernie Sanders' losses (Ledyard King, USA TODAY)
Man...those stats are incredibly disappointing. Not just a flat turnout but a significant decline from 2016!
posted by sallybrown at 7:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Man...those stats are incredibly disappointing. Not just a flat turnout but a significant decline from 2016!
posted by sallybrown at 7:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Biden won Maine by one point (33.9% - 32.9%), Massachusetts by 6.7 points (33.1% - 26.4%), Minnesota by 8.7 points (38.6% - 29.9%), and Texas by 3.8 points (33.7% - 29.9%).
Right, and in Maine they're tied in delegates, in Massachusetts it's 34-26, Minnesota is 38-26, and for Texas I'm seeing 56-50. Combined they're less than what Biden picked up versus Sanders in South Carolina or Virginia. Marginal wins like these do not move the needle significantly in the thing that actually determines the outcome of this particular electoral process, and wins like in Maine in particular are useless. I probably overshot with Minnesota, but at this stage of the process, I'm comfortable calling the other three still virtual ties considering that the fact that 4 candidates were above viability in Colorado is going to have a bigger impact on the final delegate totals.
posted by Copronymus at 7:45 AM on March 4, 2020
Right, and in Maine they're tied in delegates, in Massachusetts it's 34-26, Minnesota is 38-26, and for Texas I'm seeing 56-50. Combined they're less than what Biden picked up versus Sanders in South Carolina or Virginia. Marginal wins like these do not move the needle significantly in the thing that actually determines the outcome of this particular electoral process, and wins like in Maine in particular are useless. I probably overshot with Minnesota, but at this stage of the process, I'm comfortable calling the other three still virtual ties considering that the fact that 4 candidates were above viability in Colorado is going to have a bigger impact on the final delegate totals.
posted by Copronymus at 7:45 AM on March 4, 2020
People like me, who think health care is a long grind of one gain after another, do not care less about the welfare of their fellow citizens than the people who think it should be resolved in one grand plan.
Is that at least a plausible statement?
It is, but I can see why the people who face impending death or destitution along the way may not find it comforting. You may not care less, but as a disabled person it's hard for me to give this perspective much credit or thanks when I and people like me will continue to suffer and possibly die in the years it will take. So that's the other side of it.
Many young voters sat out Super Tuesday, contributing to Bernie Sanders' losses (Ledyard King, USA TODAY
Are we ever going to have stats on this that aren't exit polls? Because given millions of people voted early or by mail, I can't see how we can take exit polls as definitive? But I also don't know if we do any sort of stats on early/mail-in voting either, so we may never know.
posted by brook horse at 7:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
Is that at least a plausible statement?
It is, but I can see why the people who face impending death or destitution along the way may not find it comforting. You may not care less, but as a disabled person it's hard for me to give this perspective much credit or thanks when I and people like me will continue to suffer and possibly die in the years it will take. So that's the other side of it.
Many young voters sat out Super Tuesday, contributing to Bernie Sanders' losses (Ledyard King, USA TODAY
Are we ever going to have stats on this that aren't exit polls? Because given millions of people voted early or by mail, I can't see how we can take exit polls as definitive? But I also don't know if we do any sort of stats on early/mail-in voting either, so we may never know.
posted by brook horse at 7:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
People like me, who think health care is a long grind of one gain after another, do not care less about the welfare of their fellow citizens than the people who think it should be resolved in one grand plan.
Is that at least a plausible statement?
I just want to point out how demoralizing it is to even have to make this argument. It is the same dysfunctional pattern you fall into when you’re just trying to convince someone who is determined not to engage in good faith, over and over again, of your basic humanity.
In other news, it turns out you don’t need a CDL in Texas for vehicles with 15 or less people (including the driver) and under 26,000 lbs.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Is that at least a plausible statement?
I just want to point out how demoralizing it is to even have to make this argument. It is the same dysfunctional pattern you fall into when you’re just trying to convince someone who is determined not to engage in good faith, over and over again, of your basic humanity.
In other news, it turns out you don’t need a CDL in Texas for vehicles with 15 or less people (including the driver) and under 26,000 lbs.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
This kind of bitter "you're with us or you're out to get us" rhetoric is, frankly, what drives a lot of people away from the Sanders campaign.
It's bad organizing. You can't shame or harangue or harass people into supporting your candidate. You have to listen to them (actually listen, not just wait for them to stop talking so you can bring the wisdom), hear what they value, and try to relate that positively to your candidate. Some Bernie supporters want to be right more than they want to win elections.
Maybe take some time to listen to [Hispanic communities] and hear why they voted they way they did, rather than dismissing them outright.
Listening to older black voters doesn't mean dismissing younger latinx voters, but thanks for providing a quick example of "you're with us or against us" rhetoric.
posted by Mavri at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2020 [18 favorites]
It's bad organizing. You can't shame or harangue or harass people into supporting your candidate. You have to listen to them (actually listen, not just wait for them to stop talking so you can bring the wisdom), hear what they value, and try to relate that positively to your candidate. Some Bernie supporters want to be right more than they want to win elections.
Maybe take some time to listen to [Hispanic communities] and hear why they voted they way they did, rather than dismissing them outright.
Listening to older black voters doesn't mean dismissing younger latinx voters, but thanks for providing a quick example of "you're with us or against us" rhetoric.
posted by Mavri at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2020 [18 favorites]
it sure looked to me like Warren's endorsement could have given her a lot more power to further promote progressive ideals by consolidating behind Bernie than she could have done on her own with her polling numbers the way they were looking Monday
Unfortunately, this amounts to Wednesday-morning quarterbacking. Warren could have just as reasonably concluded that her best chance to have influence on getting things she thinks are important done was to gain enough delegates to get Bernie to have to actually come to the table, talk with her, etc.
I also think that there's a level of ... honestly, naivete, about how Biden getting various endorsements came about. Talking about it as if those just "happened" (vs. being at least partly a result of Biden and/or surrogates spending time and effort to signal that they would be willing to build a coalition / address the concerns of those candidates / etc) is not really accurate to reality.
For any amount that a person can claim it was Warren's "fault" for not just dropping everything and pledging to Bernie, it is easily as much Bernie's "fault" for not doing a good job at cultivating that kind of coalition (and based on how his supporters talk about other candidates, this is not a surprise).
posted by tocts at 7:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
Unfortunately, this amounts to Wednesday-morning quarterbacking. Warren could have just as reasonably concluded that her best chance to have influence on getting things she thinks are important done was to gain enough delegates to get Bernie to have to actually come to the table, talk with her, etc.
I also think that there's a level of ... honestly, naivete, about how Biden getting various endorsements came about. Talking about it as if those just "happened" (vs. being at least partly a result of Biden and/or surrogates spending time and effort to signal that they would be willing to build a coalition / address the concerns of those candidates / etc) is not really accurate to reality.
For any amount that a person can claim it was Warren's "fault" for not just dropping everything and pledging to Bernie, it is easily as much Bernie's "fault" for not doing a good job at cultivating that kind of coalition (and based on how his supporters talk about other candidates, this is not a surprise).
posted by tocts at 7:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
Are there examples of places where the youth turnout was better than average, where the campaigns (or some other factor?) did a good job motivating/organizing/informing etc?
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sanders supporters: I don't owe my vote to anyone -- it's the candidate's job to earn it.
Also Sanders supporters: Warren should have stepped aside so that her votes could go to Bernie.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [24 favorites]
Also Sanders supporters: Warren should have stepped aside so that her votes could go to Bernie.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [24 favorites]
I am delighted to see that there is now a strong chance that, rather than at least one candidate being enthusiastic about bringing economic reform to the table on the campaign trail, we may now see an election runup laser-focused on (a) comparing degrees of evidence of cognitive senescence and (b) Burisma.
posted by delfin at 7:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by delfin at 7:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
The good news is that scientists increasingly believe we are just years away from a comprehensive treatment for Burisma
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
You may not care less, but as a disabled person it's hard for me to give this perspective much credit or thanks when I and people like me will continue to suffer and possibly die along the way. So that's the other side of it.
You’re not the only disabled person in these threads, you’re not the only person in these threads who’s life and future life expectancy is greatly affected by access to health care, and yours in not the only perspective for people in that situation.
This is one of the things that frustrate me the most. I’d love to be able to flip a switch and have things be exactly as I need them to be, too, but that is not how things have ever, ever happened in this country, and the insistence that it can at the expense of all other approaches is both completely ahistorical and actively harmful to the actual progress you want to see. Progress in general is a slow, painful grind. If you insist on treating incremental progress as evil, you’re dooming us all.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
You’re not the only disabled person in these threads, you’re not the only person in these threads who’s life and future life expectancy is greatly affected by access to health care, and yours in not the only perspective for people in that situation.
This is one of the things that frustrate me the most. I’d love to be able to flip a switch and have things be exactly as I need them to be, too, but that is not how things have ever, ever happened in this country, and the insistence that it can at the expense of all other approaches is both completely ahistorical and actively harmful to the actual progress you want to see. Progress in general is a slow, painful grind. If you insist on treating incremental progress as evil, you’re dooming us all.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
Sanders supporters: I don't owe my vote to anyone -- it's the candidate's job to earn it.
Also Sanders supporters: Warren should have stepped aside so that her votes could go to Bernie.
I'm not sure how helpful these generalizations are. As a Sanders supporter, if the positions were switched, I would have wanted Sanders to step aside and rally for Warren. For me, a reformist progressive is far from the best option, but it is still a far better option than a third way neocon/neolib who thinks all we need is a little bipartisanship.
At the same time, as mentioned above, it's not clear that Warren's supporters would automatically funnel to Sanders because she is a reformist progressive, not an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist leftist.
posted by Ouverture at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Also Sanders supporters: Warren should have stepped aside so that her votes could go to Bernie.
I'm not sure how helpful these generalizations are. As a Sanders supporter, if the positions were switched, I would have wanted Sanders to step aside and rally for Warren. For me, a reformist progressive is far from the best option, but it is still a far better option than a third way neocon/neolib who thinks all we need is a little bipartisanship.
At the same time, as mentioned above, it's not clear that Warren's supporters would automatically funnel to Sanders because she is a reformist progressive, not an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist leftist.
posted by Ouverture at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
People like me, who think health care is a long grind of one gain after another, do not care less about the welfare of their fellow citizens than the people who think it should be resolved in one grand plan.
There are also a lot of us who think it should be resolved in one grand plan, but can't be in the fucked up political climate we currently live in, and so you have to work on the grind. I support Medicare for All, but I've never seen a plausible explanation of how to get there in the near future. I understand that some people think Bernie can, but doubting him is not the same as not caring if people suffer and die.
I think Biden is a disaster and a terrible candidate, but refusing to engage in good faith with why people support him is a mistake that the Sanders campaign makes over and over again. It's so frustrating.
posted by Mavri at 7:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
There are also a lot of us who think it should be resolved in one grand plan, but can't be in the fucked up political climate we currently live in, and so you have to work on the grind. I support Medicare for All, but I've never seen a plausible explanation of how to get there in the near future. I understand that some people think Bernie can, but doubting him is not the same as not caring if people suffer and die.
I think Biden is a disaster and a terrible candidate, but refusing to engage in good faith with why people support him is a mistake that the Sanders campaign makes over and over again. It's so frustrating.
posted by Mavri at 7:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
The theory is that if Obama had aimed higher, for full public health care, it would have passed. I think that's not true, or at least enough of an unproven hypothesis to make a poor foundation for a strategic planning.
Lieberman, the 60th (!) vote for breaking the filibuster, was firmly against any sort of government run insurance plan.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Lieberman, the 60th (!) vote for breaking the filibuster, was firmly against any sort of government run insurance plan.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
This is, admittedly, just the work of some random person on the Internet as far as I know, but it's a person who's paying attention to all the congressional-district delegates, etc. Anyway, a plausible current delegate estimate is Biden 675, Sanders 641, for an indication of how close this still is. Bloomberg dropping below viability in Texas and California helps out Sanders a ton, as does Sanders having significant regional strength in some districts of Texas versus Biden being stronger statewide.
posted by Copronymus at 7:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Copronymus at 7:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think in Texas you can vote at any polling station - schadenfrau
In Texas you can vote at any polling station? We need a coordinated effort to bus minorities to Trump-dominated areas. They will be able to vote more quickly (than eight hours) and the Trumpists will have to wait for ?? hours. And they will freak out Trumpists.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
In Texas you can vote at any polling station? We need a coordinated effort to bus minorities to Trump-dominated areas. They will be able to vote more quickly (than eight hours) and the Trumpists will have to wait for ?? hours. And they will freak out Trumpists.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
"Having to present bona fides and toe the line with 100% consistency in order to be taken as anything less than a total monster" is a horrendous standard for participation in a coalition.
posted by argybarg at 8:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 8:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
But I also don't know if we do any sort of stats on early/mail-in voting either, so we may never know.
In about a month, you should be able to request voter rolls with up-to-date information on them. Voter rolls (name, party affiliation, birth year, whether or not you voted in a specific election) are public information. I'm certain someone is doing this work, at least at the party level, even if it isn't public. More information on voter roll access here.
posted by anastasiav at 8:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
In about a month, you should be able to request voter rolls with up-to-date information on them. Voter rolls (name, party affiliation, birth year, whether or not you voted in a specific election) are public information. I'm certain someone is doing this work, at least at the party level, even if it isn't public. More information on voter roll access here.
posted by anastasiav at 8:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Lieberman, the 60th (!) vote for breaking the filibuster, was firmly against any sort of government run insurance plan.
This symbolizes such an important point. It probably wouldn't matter if Obama was replaced by Sanders or by Lenin's Brain in a Jar. He needed 60 votes. It's vastly more relevant whether we have Democratic Butts in Seats than whether those seats are filled with Milquetoasts or Firebrands. (Lieberman was an unreliable Independent.) What we need is someone to defeat Trump and to defeat a lot of down-ballot Republican candidates with him. That's how incremental change happens, and it's also how major change happens. The effective strategy is the same.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:03 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
This symbolizes such an important point. It probably wouldn't matter if Obama was replaced by Sanders or by Lenin's Brain in a Jar. He needed 60 votes. It's vastly more relevant whether we have Democratic Butts in Seats than whether those seats are filled with Milquetoasts or Firebrands. (Lieberman was an unreliable Independent.) What we need is someone to defeat Trump and to defeat a lot of down-ballot Republican candidates with him. That's how incremental change happens, and it's also how major change happens. The effective strategy is the same.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:03 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Thanks schadenfrau, never said any of that and specifically used and "may" and "me" not to imply everyone feels that way. Also didn't say anything about it being evil, specifically said people who feel like this don't care less than others, just said it's hard for me to give any credit to people who run on that policy. You believe that's the only way it'll happen and I don't. That doesn't mean I think you or Biden are evil. Just that I can't praise someone for a policy that I believe I have a higher chance of dying under.
posted by brook horse at 8:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 8:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
It's hard to imagine getting 60 democratic senators anytime in the foreseeable future.
posted by octothorpe at 8:05 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:05 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
IDK, I feel surprised that people are willing to say that they vote based on on who annoys them or whose supporters annoy them.
What if they were really, really annoying tho
posted by grouse at 8:06 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
What if they were really, really annoying tho
posted by grouse at 8:06 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
it's hard for me to give this perspective much credit or thanks when I and people like me will continue to suffer and possibly die along the way
So what am I supposed to say? That Medicare For All is politically viable in a time frame that will help you? If I believed that to begin with, I would support it. I'm trying to choose (for my own tiny part) the practical course that will do the most good.
posted by argybarg at 8:06 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
So what am I supposed to say? That Medicare For All is politically viable in a time frame that will help you? If I believed that to begin with, I would support it. I'm trying to choose (for my own tiny part) the practical course that will do the most good.
posted by argybarg at 8:06 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
People like me, who think health care is a long grind of one gain after another, do not care less about the welfare of their fellow citizens than the people who think it should be resolved in one grand plan.
It's not like we're talking about colonizing Mars here. This problems has been solved many times over and happily implemented all over the world. The numbers show it will save massive amounts of money and tens of thousands of lives will be saved. Probably more since preventative healthcare won't be priced out of most folks' budgets.
The hemming and hawing about plausibility from politicians is fake. Everyone knows single-payer, universal, tax-funded healthcare could easily be implemented in America. The only casualty would be the insurance industry, for-profit hospital systems, and (most importantly) healthcare investments. I suspect that the biggest opposition comes from the potential collapse of a derivative market backed by medical debt.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [18 favorites]
It's not like we're talking about colonizing Mars here. This problems has been solved many times over and happily implemented all over the world. The numbers show it will save massive amounts of money and tens of thousands of lives will be saved. Probably more since preventative healthcare won't be priced out of most folks' budgets.
The hemming and hawing about plausibility from politicians is fake. Everyone knows single-payer, universal, tax-funded healthcare could easily be implemented in America. The only casualty would be the insurance industry, for-profit hospital systems, and (most importantly) healthcare investments. I suspect that the biggest opposition comes from the potential collapse of a derivative market backed by medical debt.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [18 favorites]
It's hard to imagine getting 60 democratic senators anytime in the foreseeable future.
It's even harder to imagine 60 that would be fully committed to public health care and the abolition of health insurance. You would have to get to 60 without Doug Jones or Joe Manchin or whatever the hell Sinema is.
posted by argybarg at 8:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
It's even harder to imagine 60 that would be fully committed to public health care and the abolition of health insurance. You would have to get to 60 without Doug Jones or Joe Manchin or whatever the hell Sinema is.
posted by argybarg at 8:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
The way to work on the long, slow grind is not to start with weak proposals. Anyone who's ever negotiated knows that you don't start in the middle. Especially against proven bad-faith negotiators. That Overton window is hung waaaay to the right, and if you want to move it an inch you have to demand two yards.
Bernie knows how to move that window. You have to start from positions like "Medicare For All" and "Fight for $15" if you want to end up with "better ACA with a public option" and "Amazon shamed into paying $15". If you start from compromised positions, they will just get more compromised as Democrats capitulate either reluctantly or willingly.
posted by scrowdid at 8:09 AM on March 4, 2020 [28 favorites]
Bernie knows how to move that window. You have to start from positions like "Medicare For All" and "Fight for $15" if you want to end up with "better ACA with a public option" and "Amazon shamed into paying $15". If you start from compromised positions, they will just get more compromised as Democrats capitulate either reluctantly or willingly.
posted by scrowdid at 8:09 AM on March 4, 2020 [28 favorites]
For any amount that a person can claim it was Warren's "fault" for not just dropping everything and pledging to Bernie, it is easily as much Bernie's "fault" for not doing a good job at cultivating that kind of coalition (and based on how his supporters talk about other candidates, this is not a surprise).
Bernie Sanders represents something that the Democratic establishment is happy to declare that they do not: radical shifts in policy. Fairly fundamental shifts in the way that Americans look at jobs, money, health care and wealth. The upheaval of political applecarts.
Given the power and influence of said establishment, it is not stunning that when pressured, card-carrying moderates back the establishment that empowers them rather than the insurgent that threatens it. To back Sanders is to endorse to some degree the notion that status quo liberalism does not work for the voters that Sanders is targeting. If you have built your career on the ideas that it does work, that it is the best quasi-left philosophy to stand by, that is not a small concession.
What we just saw, both publicly and behind the scenes, was the flexing of that muscle. This is not a small investment that Democratic centrists have in these ideas; it is the core of one of the two political organizations that steers this country. It is a consolidation behind the idea that economic power drives elections, and that representing haves rather than have-nots is the way to win those elections.
posted by delfin at 8:09 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Bernie Sanders represents something that the Democratic establishment is happy to declare that they do not: radical shifts in policy. Fairly fundamental shifts in the way that Americans look at jobs, money, health care and wealth. The upheaval of political applecarts.
Given the power and influence of said establishment, it is not stunning that when pressured, card-carrying moderates back the establishment that empowers them rather than the insurgent that threatens it. To back Sanders is to endorse to some degree the notion that status quo liberalism does not work for the voters that Sanders is targeting. If you have built your career on the ideas that it does work, that it is the best quasi-left philosophy to stand by, that is not a small concession.
What we just saw, both publicly and behind the scenes, was the flexing of that muscle. This is not a small investment that Democratic centrists have in these ideas; it is the core of one of the two political organizations that steers this country. It is a consolidation behind the idea that economic power drives elections, and that representing haves rather than have-nots is the way to win those elections.
posted by delfin at 8:09 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
In Texas you can vote at any polling station?
Well, sort of. From a texas gov site I accidentally closed and will have to find again:
So overall: maybe it’s possible to bus people who have been screwed by the Texas GOP, but more research is probably required.
posted by schadenfrau at 8:09 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well, sort of. From a texas gov site I accidentally closed and will have to find again:
On Election day, if your county participates in the Countywide Polling Place Program (CWPP), you can vote at any location in your county of registration. If your county does not participate in the CWPP, you can only vote at the voting precinct assigned to you.And then here is a confusing list of counties from the Texas SOS.
So overall: maybe it’s possible to bus people who have been screwed by the Texas GOP, but more research is probably required.
posted by schadenfrau at 8:09 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
FakeFreyja:
I'm not arguing about whether a functional universal healthcare system could be devised and operated. I believe it could. The colonizing-Mars part is getting it past Congress and challenges to the Supreme Court. We've been trying since 1936.
posted by argybarg at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
I'm not arguing about whether a functional universal healthcare system could be devised and operated. I believe it could. The colonizing-Mars part is getting it past Congress and challenges to the Supreme Court. We've been trying since 1936.
posted by argybarg at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
> The hemming and hawing about plausibility from politicians is fake.
You don't get to tell other members of the community that their opinions are "fake". You can disagree, but acknowledging that, unlike all the other countries that have implemented this, the US has a high number of counter-majoritarian veto points is not in any way "hemming and hawing", but rather a necessary consideration of very real limitations that countries like the UK, Germany, Denmark, Australia, and Singapore do not have.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:13 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
You don't get to tell other members of the community that their opinions are "fake". You can disagree, but acknowledging that, unlike all the other countries that have implemented this, the US has a high number of counter-majoritarian veto points is not in any way "hemming and hawing", but rather a necessary consideration of very real limitations that countries like the UK, Germany, Denmark, Australia, and Singapore do not have.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:13 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
So what am I supposed to say? That Medicare For All is politically viable in a time frame that will help you? If I believed that to begin with, I would support it. I'm trying to choose (for my own tiny part) the practical course that will do the most good. .
I don't need you to say anything. You can continue to believe and fight for what you believe is politically viable. I believe you care. You're just not going to get much if any credit from me for that effort because I believe I have a higher likelihood of dying under your plan. I don't give people points based on how much they care. I support candidates based on what they're doing to make things better.
That's not saying you're evil or don't care. It's saying I don't think it's the right solution and it's hard to praise people for something that may get me killed even in the event that it works.
posted by brook horse at 8:15 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
I don't need you to say anything. You can continue to believe and fight for what you believe is politically viable. I believe you care. You're just not going to get much if any credit from me for that effort because I believe I have a higher likelihood of dying under your plan. I don't give people points based on how much they care. I support candidates based on what they're doing to make things better.
That's not saying you're evil or don't care. It's saying I don't think it's the right solution and it's hard to praise people for something that may get me killed even in the event that it works.
posted by brook horse at 8:15 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
scrowdid:
Your stance may be correct: Start from the maximalist position and know that it will turn into incrementalism naturally. But that stance is far from agreed-upon. For one thing, "full public option and no private insurance" alienates a lot of voters, not just industry execs. So does excoriating all other plans.
But let's say you're right, that only "start big and negotiate down" is the right stance. It's still terrible coalition-building, and terrible behavior, to treat people who take other stances as acting in bad faith; as not caring about the welfare of others; as industry shills and amoral monsters, etc.
Why can't this just be a debate about means? Why does it have to be a pitched battle between good and evil down to the last detail?
posted by argybarg at 8:16 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Your stance may be correct: Start from the maximalist position and know that it will turn into incrementalism naturally. But that stance is far from agreed-upon. For one thing, "full public option and no private insurance" alienates a lot of voters, not just industry execs. So does excoriating all other plans.
But let's say you're right, that only "start big and negotiate down" is the right stance. It's still terrible coalition-building, and terrible behavior, to treat people who take other stances as acting in bad faith; as not caring about the welfare of others; as industry shills and amoral monsters, etc.
Why can't this just be a debate about means? Why does it have to be a pitched battle between good and evil down to the last detail?
posted by argybarg at 8:16 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
IDK, I feel surprised that people are willing to say that they vote based on on who annoys them or whose supporters annoy them.
I have vivid memories of being verbally harassed in the hallway by Sanders supporters as we all waited in the endless line at the Maine Dem caucus in 2016, because we were there to support Clinton. I'm pretty sure some people left the caucus because of it, before voting. In the time since, I've been subjected to quite a lot of the same kind of abuse in online spaces for the horrible crime of supporting Elizabeth Warren.
So, yeah, forgive me if I want nothing to do with the Sanders campaign. As near as I can tell, it is full of people who hate me and don't want my vote.
posted by anastasiav at 8:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
I have vivid memories of being verbally harassed in the hallway by Sanders supporters as we all waited in the endless line at the Maine Dem caucus in 2016, because we were there to support Clinton. I'm pretty sure some people left the caucus because of it, before voting. In the time since, I've been subjected to quite a lot of the same kind of abuse in online spaces for the horrible crime of supporting Elizabeth Warren.
So, yeah, forgive me if I want nothing to do with the Sanders campaign. As near as I can tell, it is full of people who hate me and don't want my vote.
posted by anastasiav at 8:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
A lot of shit happens because of freakish coincidences in history. I mean, I see a plausible scenario where coronavirus leads to Medicare for All. The sheer amount of illness could leave voters wanting a feeling of capable familiarity and calm—even voters who have no ethics and only care about the DOW might thus reject Trump, while even voters who strongly support Medicare for All might think Sanders or Warren is a gamble somehow. At the same time, the widespread nature of the illness means we will be flooded with stories about financial consequences for a huge percentage of Americans who are usually insulated by privilege. You could end up with a pretty moderate set of politicians who are still feeling squeezed by an electorate radicalized on this one issue.
posted by sallybrown at 8:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Couple deleted; when this becomes a dogged reply-to-every-sentence thing is the time to just take half a step back and consider people are here because they want to be talking to other people here, nobody has a crystal ball, etc. Once you've made your point a few times it's better to just let it be for a while.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
I know there's a lot of serious post-Super Tuesday discussion going on right now, but I would just like to say that based on yesterday's results, we now know for certain that old Joe was simply biden his time.
(You have no idea how long I've been holding on to that. Finally glad to be rid of it!)
posted by FJT at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [28 favorites]
(You have no idea how long I've been holding on to that. Finally glad to be rid of it!)
posted by FJT at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2020 [28 favorites]
One key is to structure coalitions around policy initiatives rather than specific leaders. Having Sanders and Warren both push for Medicare for All (and having “Medicare for All” be an easy and catchy name, to such an extent that even Mayor Pete tried to borrow some of its appeal with “Medicare for All Who Want It”) is a good sign that this policy ides won’t be subsumed by a single politician and will keep rolling beyond this Presidential race.
posted by sallybrown at 8:27 AM on March 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:27 AM on March 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
So, yeah, forgive me if I want nothing to do with the Sanders campaign. As near as I can tell, it is full of people who hate me and don't want my vote.
I don't blame you for thinking that way. Forgive me too, because at this point I feel that way about the entire Democratic party.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:35 AM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
I don't blame you for thinking that way. Forgive me too, because at this point I feel that way about the entire Democratic party.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:35 AM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
Any time that a minority seeks radical change, there are those who will tell that minority that it is impossible to simply snap fingers and make it happen. That it needs to be worked for incrementally, that it cannot happen overnight, that now is not the time to go full-throated for what they want. That they will simply have to wait. That the reality is that the backing for it simply isn't there.
Any time that a minority hears that, they are justified in pointing to the significance of what they want, to the inherent rightness of such, and asking the question: why SHOULD we have to wait? If this is what is needed at this place and this time, and facts are on our side, why should we stand at the back of the line and suffer because it's somehow never our turn to be heard?
T'was ever thus. Racial/ethnic-based, gender-based, economic-based, sexual preference-based, policy-based, just-about-anything-else-based issues have all seen this. It can be life-and-death for those affected and those not affected often simply shrug.
And it is sometimes difficult to tell either side that they are completely wrong.
posted by delfin at 8:35 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
Any time that a minority hears that, they are justified in pointing to the significance of what they want, to the inherent rightness of such, and asking the question: why SHOULD we have to wait? If this is what is needed at this place and this time, and facts are on our side, why should we stand at the back of the line and suffer because it's somehow never our turn to be heard?
T'was ever thus. Racial/ethnic-based, gender-based, economic-based, sexual preference-based, policy-based, just-about-anything-else-based issues have all seen this. It can be life-and-death for those affected and those not affected often simply shrug.
And it is sometimes difficult to tell either side that they are completely wrong.
posted by delfin at 8:35 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
argybarg you seem to take it as a given that Biden is good at or cares about coalition building. I see no evidence of that.
He seems dead set on alienating everyone to his left in the most contemptuous manner possible. Remember his "give me a break" line before he went well out of his way to deride and mock people suffering under crushing school loans?
That doesn't seem like a coalition builder to me.
posted by sotonohito at 8:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
He seems dead set on alienating everyone to his left in the most contemptuous manner possible. Remember his "give me a break" line before he went well out of his way to deride and mock people suffering under crushing school loans?
That doesn't seem like a coalition builder to me.
posted by sotonohito at 8:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
That doesn't seem like a coalition builder to me.
Well, he's certainly building a coalition and "nothing will fundamentally change" was the love letter to that coalition.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:40 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Well, he's certainly building a coalition and "nothing will fundamentally change" was the love letter to that coalition.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:40 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted. Please stop the "supporters of x are bad" comments, whether that's about how supporters of x are boomers, or overly jerky to non-supporters, or whatever. We've been over the very same points many many times, the points remain the same, they draw the same responses; if you want to review those same dance moves, go do it somewhere else.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
There's divisive rhetoric from both the left and right flank of the party, and it's very tiresome to constantly get admonished about it.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Remember his "give me a break" line
*busing
**anita hill
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [24 favorites]
The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break. Because here’s the deal guys, we decided we were gonna change the world. And we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement in the first stage*. The women’s movement came to be.** So my message is, get involved. There’s no place to hide. [...] And so, there's an old expression my philosophy professor would always use from Plato, 'The penalty people face for not being involved in politics is being governed by people worse than themselves.' It's wide open. Go out and change it."If you want change, try to stop me!" We're trying, Joe.
*busing
**anita hill
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [24 favorites]
Granted that it will take a lot of difficult work to achieve a healthcare system that doesn't exterminate the poor en masse and permanently immiserate a huge proportion of the people it comes into contact with, what is Joe Biden doing toward that goal? What is Chuck Schumer doing about it? What's the status of this incremental, careful plan that will slowly get Republicans and the Supreme Court on board? Hell, what's the status of defense of the gains that have already been made like Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare?
One of the most enervating thing about these discussions is that as soon as the difficulty of the project comes up, everything hits a brick wall. We end up endlessly re-hashing the same conversation about Joe Lieberman instead of talking about anything that's happened in the last 10 years or any vision of what could happen in the next 10 years. The meta-conversation about the near-impossibility of achieving anything at all replaces any useful or even novel conversation, and the result is that no plans, incremental or otherwise are put forward and nothing beyond the grotesque status quo is on offer.
posted by Copronymus at 8:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
One of the most enervating thing about these discussions is that as soon as the difficulty of the project comes up, everything hits a brick wall. We end up endlessly re-hashing the same conversation about Joe Lieberman instead of talking about anything that's happened in the last 10 years or any vision of what could happen in the next 10 years. The meta-conversation about the near-impossibility of achieving anything at all replaces any useful or even novel conversation, and the result is that no plans, incremental or otherwise are put forward and nothing beyond the grotesque status quo is on offer.
posted by Copronymus at 8:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
One particular thing struck me listening to coverage yesterday on NPR: Biden put all his chips on South Carolina and still won states where he had little or no ground operation working to get out the vote. On one hand, winning without making an effort might look like a good thing. On the other, it reminded me of the catastrophic organizational mistakes made by the last D presidential campaign, which outright ignored some swing states. This, in turn, lead to Trump getting elected. If it has to be Biden, I just hope that they don't make the same mistake, twice.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:54 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:54 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
One of the most enervating thing about these discussions is that as soon as the difficulty of the project comes up, everything hits a brick wall. We end up endlessly re-hashing the same conversation about Joe Lieberman instead of talking about anything that's happened in the last 10 years or any vision of what could happen in the next 10 years. The meta-conversation about the near-impossibility of achieving anything at all replaces any useful or even novel conversation, and the result is that no plans, incremental or otherwise are put forward and nothing beyond the grotesque status quo is on offer.
The slow cancellation of the future has been accompanied by a deflation of expectations
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
The slow cancellation of the future has been accompanied by a deflation of expectations
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:56 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Watching this, it really does feel like a replay of 2016 to me. It's clear at this point that the Democratic Party doesn't want me or people like me. They're happy to take my vote, though. Whoever the Dem nominee is, I'll vote for them, especially since I live in Pennsylvania, but I'm doubling down on being involved in local politics. I can't do anything about the dumpster fire that is national politics, and I have no hope that it will be fixed in my lifetime. But I can effect some small positive change in my local community. That'll have to be enough.
posted by Automocar at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
One particular thing struck me listening to coverage yesterday on NPR: Biden put all his chips on South Carolina and still won states where he had little or no ground operation working to get out the vote.
Winning South Carolina won him a news cycle or two as did the late endorsements; both amounted to a lot of free advertising via news coverage.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Winning South Carolina won him a news cycle or two as did the late endorsements; both amounted to a lot of free advertising via news coverage.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Whoever the Dem nominee is, I'll vote for them, especially since I live in Pennsylvania, but I'm doubling down on being involved in local politics. I can't do anything about the dumpster fire that is national politics
Getting involved in local politics is doing something about national politics. Let's do whatever we can to elect a progressive Congress.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
Getting involved in local politics is doing something about national politics. Let's do whatever we can to elect a progressive Congress.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:00 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
...it's the candidate's job to earn it.
I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular but this kind of framing rubs me the wrong way. It seems...idk...selfish maybe?
Assuming Biden ends up as the nominee in November everyone eligible to vote can make choices that either help Biden/hurt Trump or help Trump/hurt Biden. They will be different at the very least in that with one of them I'm very confident that we'll have an election in 2024 that's reasonably fair and free. If you'd pick Biden over Trump then if Biden doesn't earn your vote and you stay home, you've chosen to help Trump and hurt Biden. If Trump goes on to win and especially if the GOP wins a lot of the down-ballot races too then the choice to stay home has also hurt all of the people harmed by his policies.
Voting isn't just about the candidates, it's about all the people affected by those candidate's policies. No one has the option to just stay away from politics because everything is political. You don't get to just sit it out because the candidate didn't do enough to "earn" your vote, they're not the only ones counting on your vote.
Which isn't to say that Biden's policies won't cause harm, they will, and if I vote for him in November I'll need to own that (but that's also true if I just stay home). It makes me want to have better candidates. Candidates that I can get excited about. So I do what I can do try to get better candidates too.
posted by VTX at 9:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular but this kind of framing rubs me the wrong way. It seems...idk...selfish maybe?
Assuming Biden ends up as the nominee in November everyone eligible to vote can make choices that either help Biden/hurt Trump or help Trump/hurt Biden. They will be different at the very least in that with one of them I'm very confident that we'll have an election in 2024 that's reasonably fair and free. If you'd pick Biden over Trump then if Biden doesn't earn your vote and you stay home, you've chosen to help Trump and hurt Biden. If Trump goes on to win and especially if the GOP wins a lot of the down-ballot races too then the choice to stay home has also hurt all of the people harmed by his policies.
Voting isn't just about the candidates, it's about all the people affected by those candidate's policies. No one has the option to just stay away from politics because everything is political. You don't get to just sit it out because the candidate didn't do enough to "earn" your vote, they're not the only ones counting on your vote.
Which isn't to say that Biden's policies won't cause harm, they will, and if I vote for him in November I'll need to own that (but that's also true if I just stay home). It makes me want to have better candidates. Candidates that I can get excited about. So I do what I can do try to get better candidates too.
posted by VTX at 9:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Getting involved in local politics is doing something about national politics. Let's do whatever we can to elect a progressive Congress.
Remember when Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Green New Deal as "the green dream or whatever"? Imagine having an AOC firebrand as Speaker of the House who isn't afraid of hurt feelings in order to save our world. We need to push out all the calcified apparatchiks and install working-class activists that will change the leadership.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Remember when Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Green New Deal as "the green dream or whatever"? Imagine having an AOC firebrand as Speaker of the House who isn't afraid of hurt feelings in order to save our world. We need to push out all the calcified apparatchiks and install working-class activists that will change the leadership.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Greg Sargent / WaPo:
Sanders won among voters aged 17 to 29 in every state on Tuesday, sometimes by extremely lopsided margins, and he prevailed in most states among voters aged 30 to 44.posted by katra at 9:09 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Saddest laugh I've had all day.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
*busing
**anita hill
*** "Telling immigration activists to vote for a fascist if they don't like his particular brand of cultural genocide
posted by avalonian at 9:11 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
**anita hill
*** "Telling immigration activists to vote for a fascist if they don't like his particular brand of cultural genocide
posted by avalonian at 9:11 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
It really bothers me to see the coalescing of a "Biden is basically a Republican, so why bother?" and "Biden just thinks better things aren't possible" groupthink on the left. Biden is currently running on:
- A carbon tax
- An assault weapons ban
- A $15 minimum wage
- Card check for workplace unionization
- Public matching funds for small-dollar donations
- Free community college / post-secondary vocational training
- Decriminalization of marijuana, and the expungement of marijuana convictions
- Ending cash bail and the death penalty
- A public option for healthcare, which will be free for the Medicaid-eligible, and have income-based subsidies and capped premiums for the middle class
- Price controls on pharmaceuticals
- Universal Pre-K
- Statehood for Washington D.C.
If Biden gets the nomination---and, to be clear, I will be personally disappointed if that happens---it'll be on us to fight like hell to hold him to these promises. But I don't see how you can call yourself a progressive and not think they represent a world worth fighting for.
posted by rishabguha at 9:28 AM on March 4, 2020 [39 favorites]
- A carbon tax
- An assault weapons ban
- A $15 minimum wage
- Card check for workplace unionization
- Public matching funds for small-dollar donations
- Free community college / post-secondary vocational training
- Decriminalization of marijuana, and the expungement of marijuana convictions
- Ending cash bail and the death penalty
- A public option for healthcare, which will be free for the Medicaid-eligible, and have income-based subsidies and capped premiums for the middle class
- Price controls on pharmaceuticals
- Universal Pre-K
- Statehood for Washington D.C.
If Biden gets the nomination---and, to be clear, I will be personally disappointed if that happens---it'll be on us to fight like hell to hold him to these promises. But I don't see how you can call yourself a progressive and not think they represent a world worth fighting for.
posted by rishabguha at 9:28 AM on March 4, 2020 [39 favorites]
The Bernie Sanders Youth Revolution Was Nowhere to Be Found on Super Tuesday
It may be time to admit that young people's support does not automatically translate to young people's votes.posted by octothorpe at 9:31 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
As we emerge from a gobsmacking Super Tuesday, 78-year-old Bernie Sanders continues to be the Youth Candidate. He won voters under 30 across the 14 states up for grabs on the Democratic primary's biggest night so far, often by outright majorities. But thus far, reports of a revolution have been greatly exaggerated. There is no evidence at this point that Sanders's core promise, that he will attract millions of new voters to the political process—particularly young and working-class people of color—to dramatically remake the Democratic coalition, will come to pass. It doesn't matter how much young people like you if they don't show up to vote. It's one of many reasons Joe Biden has risen from the dead.
In Virginia, where the first signs of Biden's Lazarus act popped on the screen, voter turnout nearly doubled from the 2016 Democratic primary. 1.3 million votes were cast. This sounds like good news for Sanders, who wants to expand the Democratic electorate. Except just 13 percent of Virginia voters were under 30, according to USA Today, down from 16 percent four years ago. Sanders won 57 percent of them—down from 69 percent in 2016. Granted, that was just a two-horse race, but the larger issue here is that it looks like the lion's share of these new participators came to participate on Biden's behalf. He won 130 of 133 localities, and by 30 points overall.
It's hyperbolic to say he's basically a Republican, but when he's out there saying he might appoint a Republican running mate and talking about cooperating with Republicans as if this is still the 1980s, well, people are going to draw their conclusions.
I welcome any and all of those policies, but I do not think Biden has the goods to deliver them. Trump, of course, is worse, so "why bother" is a petulant, self-defeating response that will do immense harm to real people. But he still kind of sucks.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [21 favorites]
I welcome any and all of those policies, but I do not think Biden has the goods to deliver them. Trump, of course, is worse, so "why bother" is a petulant, self-defeating response that will do immense harm to real people. But he still kind of sucks.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [21 favorites]
It's almost as if there are massive structural roadblocks that make it more difficult for younger people to vote.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
I mean, I see a plausible scenario where coronavirus leads to Medicare for All.
I don't know about that. I think COVID-19 has the potential to inject a lot of uncertainty into an already uncertain election season.
For example, a lot of the electioneering and politicking are reliant on people traveling or big groups of people gathering together (think rallies or the national convention). And those activities might be reduced, delayed, or entirely canceled if the COVID-19 situation worsens. And if that happens, that may mean mass media and social media will play an even greater role this time around. And it's kind of well known by now the Democratic Party is already playing catch up on the social media tech arms race.
One thing that certainly must be done soon is for all the candidates, especially Bloomberg, to start pooling their media talent and data together to help whoever the eventual nominee is.
posted by FJT at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
I don't know about that. I think COVID-19 has the potential to inject a lot of uncertainty into an already uncertain election season.
For example, a lot of the electioneering and politicking are reliant on people traveling or big groups of people gathering together (think rallies or the national convention). And those activities might be reduced, delayed, or entirely canceled if the COVID-19 situation worsens. And if that happens, that may mean mass media and social media will play an even greater role this time around. And it's kind of well known by now the Democratic Party is already playing catch up on the social media tech arms race.
One thing that certainly must be done soon is for all the candidates, especially Bloomberg, to start pooling their media talent and data together to help whoever the eventual nominee is.
posted by FJT at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
It's almost as if there are massive structural roadblocks that make it more difficult for younger people to vote.
Then basing your campaign on getting those votes seems like a pretty terrible strategy.
posted by octothorpe at 9:34 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Then basing your campaign on getting those votes seems like a pretty terrible strategy.
posted by octothorpe at 9:34 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
I guess he should have taken some strategic tips from the Warren campaign, eh?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:36 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:36 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Then basing your campaign on getting those votes seems like a pretty terrible strategy.
There are also massive structural roadblocks against black and hispanic people and poor people voting. Guess we should ditch them too.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
There are also massive structural roadblocks against black and hispanic people and poor people voting. Guess we should ditch them too.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
It's almost as if there are massive structural roadblocks that make it more difficult for younger people to vote.
Apathy and disillusionment? There are structural roadblocks that try to prevent some people from voting but they're not insurmountable. They just require persistence. If young people came out at the same rate as old people the Republicans would be reduced to a regional rump party.
Old white people will crawl over broken glass to vote. They will jump through whatever hoops are put in front of them because obedience to authority has trained them to do so. They swing elections because of it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:38 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Apathy and disillusionment? There are structural roadblocks that try to prevent some people from voting but they're not insurmountable. They just require persistence. If young people came out at the same rate as old people the Republicans would be reduced to a regional rump party.
Old white people will crawl over broken glass to vote. They will jump through whatever hoops are put in front of them because obedience to authority has trained them to do so. They swing elections because of it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:38 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Biden is currently running on:
- A carbon tax
- An assault weapons ban
- A $15 minimum wage
- Card check for workplace unionization
- Public matching funds for small-dollar donations
- Free community college / post-secondary vocational training
- Decriminalization of marijuana, and the expungement of marijuana convictions
- Ending cash bail and the death penalty
- A public option for healthcare, which will be free for the Medicaid-eligible, and have income-based subsidies and capped premiums for the middle class
- Price controls on pharmaceuticals
- Universal Pre-K
- Statehood for Washington D.C.
Wow, deja vu. Where have I seen those promises before?
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
- A carbon tax
- An assault weapons ban
- A $15 minimum wage
- Card check for workplace unionization
- Public matching funds for small-dollar donations
- Free community college / post-secondary vocational training
- Decriminalization of marijuana, and the expungement of marijuana convictions
- Ending cash bail and the death penalty
- A public option for healthcare, which will be free for the Medicaid-eligible, and have income-based subsidies and capped premiums for the middle class
- Price controls on pharmaceuticals
- Universal Pre-K
- Statehood for Washington D.C.
Wow, deja vu. Where have I seen those promises before?
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Biden is currently running on: (list of progressive policy ideas)...it'll be on us to fight like hell to hold him to these promises
This, so much. Electing a president is just the first step - necessary, but not sufficient - to achieving policy goals. The makeup of Congress matters a lot, and pressure from voters, opinion polls, and many other things factor in, too. It is possible to pass good legislation even with a sub-optimal president, but it takes a lot of work & coalition-building.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 9:40 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
This, so much. Electing a president is just the first step - necessary, but not sufficient - to achieving policy goals. The makeup of Congress matters a lot, and pressure from voters, opinion polls, and many other things factor in, too. It is possible to pass good legislation even with a sub-optimal president, but it takes a lot of work & coalition-building.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 9:40 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Wow, deja vu. Where have I seen those promises before?
Obama, who made millions of people’s lives better, or Hillary, who would have?
(snark aside, the current Biden 2020 platform is immeasurably more progressive than the 2008 platform)
posted by rishabguha at 9:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
Obama, who made millions of people’s lives better, or Hillary, who would have?
(snark aside, the current Biden 2020 platform is immeasurably more progressive than the 2008 platform)
posted by rishabguha at 9:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
Apathy and disillusionment? There are structural roadblocks that try to prevent some people from voting but they're not insurmountable.
It's more than apathy and disillusionment. My Florida vote-by-mail ballot while I was in college got tossed several elections in a row for extremely petty and unpredictable reasons. Younger people generally have less free time and are less able to get time off of work to vote. They are also less likely to have secure transportation to be able to get to polling stations. They move more often and it's more difficult to keep up-to-date on voter registration because of that.
Incidentally, a lot of these issues disenfranchise poorer voters too.
I think most MeFites fall into neither of those categories, hence why we see a lot of victim-blaming about it in these threads.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
It's more than apathy and disillusionment. My Florida vote-by-mail ballot while I was in college got tossed several elections in a row for extremely petty and unpredictable reasons. Younger people generally have less free time and are less able to get time off of work to vote. They are also less likely to have secure transportation to be able to get to polling stations. They move more often and it's more difficult to keep up-to-date on voter registration because of that.
Incidentally, a lot of these issues disenfranchise poorer voters too.
I think most MeFites fall into neither of those categories, hence why we see a lot of victim-blaming about it in these threads.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
My dad is 86 and voted for Biden. He is a die hard centrist to a fault. Any time we argue about politics and what young people want for the future, he comes back to "Well they should vote then." I can talk all I want about polling place closures, campus voting restrictions, etc. but he doesn't buy that there's some insurmountable mountain they can't climb. It's hard to argue with him about it.
posted by freecellwizard at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
I was very sad last night. But if this is a fairly straight Biden vs Bernie fight going forward. I feel better. Biden doesn't do well when required to speak and answer questions. He appears lost often. Slipping in and out of lucidity. Biden has the establishment and got a massive earned media boost but increased exposure may not benefit him as much as they might like. (Especially if his lies and boasts start getting challenged).
I watched a Trump rally to get a sense of the attacks. Against Biden it is all about his senility. The mocking is relentless. And Trump knows every gaffe. So the fight or narrative becomes about Biden's mental facilities. You need only watch a few rallies to see very different Bidens. Sometimes there is spark, old Joe is spinning the charm and then he disappears and a confused Biden is sputtering and stumbling and you feel uncomfortable watching a man struggle with his mind in such a public way. Biden was collapsing and revived but the revival feels like he was put in a wheelchair and is being pushed toward the finish line.
The way Trump attacks Bernie is "crazy ideas". He lists Bernie's policies and says they can't be paid for and will destroy the economy. Trump doesn't do as well arguing policy as mocking people. People can boo Medicare for All but Trump still lists the policy and all the "free stuff". Plus these are the same arguments corporate media is paid to advertise. It would be preferable if Trump needs to speak about policy (where he is ... word salad in a blender proficient) rather than personality (where he is laser focused). Bullies thrive on the personal attacks that get a rise. Bernie doesn't give a shit about personal attacks so it removes a lot of Trumps power. Biden responds to questions about his sharpness with rambling proof he is dulled.
posted by phoque at 9:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
I watched a Trump rally to get a sense of the attacks. Against Biden it is all about his senility. The mocking is relentless. And Trump knows every gaffe. So the fight or narrative becomes about Biden's mental facilities. You need only watch a few rallies to see very different Bidens. Sometimes there is spark, old Joe is spinning the charm and then he disappears and a confused Biden is sputtering and stumbling and you feel uncomfortable watching a man struggle with his mind in such a public way. Biden was collapsing and revived but the revival feels like he was put in a wheelchair and is being pushed toward the finish line.
The way Trump attacks Bernie is "crazy ideas". He lists Bernie's policies and says they can't be paid for and will destroy the economy. Trump doesn't do as well arguing policy as mocking people. People can boo Medicare for All but Trump still lists the policy and all the "free stuff". Plus these are the same arguments corporate media is paid to advertise. It would be preferable if Trump needs to speak about policy (where he is ... word salad in a blender proficient) rather than personality (where he is laser focused). Bullies thrive on the personal attacks that get a rise. Bernie doesn't give a shit about personal attacks so it removes a lot of Trumps power. Biden responds to questions about his sharpness with rambling proof he is dulled.
posted by phoque at 9:43 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
My main argument against Biden is that I don't think he's a very good candidate to beat Trump. There's a reason why he wasn't dominating the primaries up until yesterday, that's because every time people saw him in action, their intention to vote for him declined. And that's not because they disliked him -- his approval stayed high -- and not because they disliked his policies, but because those voters were primarily interested in beating Trump, and seeing an endless series of slips, mistakes, "my time is up," wandering sentences, etc, made it pretty clear that even a moronic bully like Trump would eat his lunch. So they flocked from Biden to O'Rourke to Buttigieg to Harris to Bloomberg, looking for someone who could beat Trump -- not because they disliked Biden, just because they were reminded by actually seeing him that he was a 78 year old man who, whether correctly or not, appeared to lack some of his marbles.
None of these people are going to turn to Sanders, that's for sure. But just because Sanders is also weak (shouty uncompromising old socialist Jew) doesn't make Biden any stronger. Hopefully Biden will do better in the next debates, and presumably the media will do their best to play down most of his "gaffs" (the term Democrats use for what Republicans will call dementia). But that doesn't change the fact that, purely pragmatically, there's a reason why people kept turning away from him during the primaries instead of quickly coalescing as they did with Clinton. It's going to be a rough 8 months watching to see whether the next gaff is disastrous enough that it seriously damages his general election prospects.
And no, just because Trump does it too doesn't mean that Biden can get away with the same thing -- if the electability Democrats truly believed that, they wouldn't have spent so much time groping around for another centrist to take his place.
posted by chortly at 9:44 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
None of these people are going to turn to Sanders, that's for sure. But just because Sanders is also weak (shouty uncompromising old socialist Jew) doesn't make Biden any stronger. Hopefully Biden will do better in the next debates, and presumably the media will do their best to play down most of his "gaffs" (the term Democrats use for what Republicans will call dementia). But that doesn't change the fact that, purely pragmatically, there's a reason why people kept turning away from him during the primaries instead of quickly coalescing as they did with Clinton. It's going to be a rough 8 months watching to see whether the next gaff is disastrous enough that it seriously damages his general election prospects.
And no, just because Trump does it too doesn't mean that Biden can get away with the same thing -- if the electability Democrats truly believed that, they wouldn't have spent so much time groping around for another centrist to take his place.
posted by chortly at 9:44 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
It really bothers me to see the coalescing of a "Biden is basically a Republican, so why bother?" and "Biden just thinks better things aren't possible" groupthink on the left. Biden is currently running on:
I mean that's great but campaign promises are easy. Look at the man's record. I am a native Delawarean and so I understand Biden's politics pretty well. He's not a progressive and he thinks that the "Delaware Way" is still possible in 2020. (It's not)
posted by Automocar at 9:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
I mean that's great but campaign promises are easy. Look at the man's record. I am a native Delawarean and so I understand Biden's politics pretty well. He's not a progressive and he thinks that the "Delaware Way" is still possible in 2020. (It's not)
posted by Automocar at 9:46 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
Sanders can’t lead the Democrats if his campaign treats them like the enemy (Ezra Klein, Vox)
This kind of thinking is a bigger problem for the Sanders operation than people realize: If you treat voters and officials in the party you want to lead as the enemy, a lot of people in that party aren’t going to trust you to lead them. It’s part of the reason Sanders trails not just Biden but also Mike Bloomberg and Warren in endorsements from prominent elected Democrats.posted by ZeusHumms at 9:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
This is a real weakness for Sanders, and one that’ll be hard to address: That he’s an insurgent facing down a corrupt Democratic establishment is core to his identity, and to the bond he’s built with his staunchest supporters. But to win the Democratic primary and govern as a Democratic president, you need to win over Democrats who aren’t your natural allies, who didn’t start out in your corner. Biden knows that and acts accordingly. The Sanders campaign is going to have to learn the same lesson, and fast.
Bringing up the structural roadblocks that make voting more difficult here seems like a dodge or just a confusing non sequitur. Bernie just isn't attracting a new wave of voters, he's had five years to build a wave, it's just not happening. That doesn't mean he can't win the nomination or even the presidency, it just means that there's no reason to believe at this point that he could ever deliver the wave election that his candidacy was partly predicated upon. If he were to win, it seems he'd have to win with a similar constituency to that of Clinton and/or Obama. That sucks, last week when everyone (including me) thought he was going to win I was hoping it might be true, and the thought was very inspiring.
posted by skewed at 9:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by skewed at 9:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
I don't see Bernie broadening his base of support from 2016. He's come in, trying to disrupt the status quo again, and now that it's not working again his supporters are railing against the Democratic Party and "the establishment." Look, I would love the see most of policy proposals become reality. I'd like to see the part get a radical overhaul. If he were the nominee, I'd vote for him in a hot second. But he's jumping in and proposing a radical top-down change, not building the coalitions he needs to win, and then talking about how the deck is stacked against him.
Change rarely happens from the top down. It grows from the bottom levels. As much as a disruptor as Trump has been, you have to remember that not only was he giving republican voters what they want, but that many of his vile policies have actually been enacted in one way or another in state and local governments. The GOP has put so much resources into winning city councils, county boards, utility regulating boards, and state legislatures over the past few decades that they've already laid the groundwork for their agenda. They have normalized voter suppression, anti-immigration policies, destroying public schools, and much more at the local levels. Trump was just a culmination of all of this. If you want radical change, you have to build a foundation for it. Take a look at 2010. Democratic turnout was abysmal. Two years before that, Obama had won almost 70 million votes. This resulted in the destructive gerrymandering that we've seen all over the country. Those off-year elections aren't sexy, but that's where you start winning. And the best way to win is to show up. Until 2018, Democrats have been really bad at that. You can't just come in every four years and try to disrupt everything.
Biden performed strongly. He did it with a LOT of voters coming out of the woodwork once it was starting to look like Sanders was going to be the frontrunner. That's not the fault of the Democratic Party. Biden was leading polls most of the pre-primary season. None of this is really a surprise.
posted by azpenguin at 9:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Change rarely happens from the top down. It grows from the bottom levels. As much as a disruptor as Trump has been, you have to remember that not only was he giving republican voters what they want, but that many of his vile policies have actually been enacted in one way or another in state and local governments. The GOP has put so much resources into winning city councils, county boards, utility regulating boards, and state legislatures over the past few decades that they've already laid the groundwork for their agenda. They have normalized voter suppression, anti-immigration policies, destroying public schools, and much more at the local levels. Trump was just a culmination of all of this. If you want radical change, you have to build a foundation for it. Take a look at 2010. Democratic turnout was abysmal. Two years before that, Obama had won almost 70 million votes. This resulted in the destructive gerrymandering that we've seen all over the country. Those off-year elections aren't sexy, but that's where you start winning. And the best way to win is to show up. Until 2018, Democrats have been really bad at that. You can't just come in every four years and try to disrupt everything.
Biden performed strongly. He did it with a LOT of voters coming out of the woodwork once it was starting to look like Sanders was going to be the frontrunner. That's not the fault of the Democratic Party. Biden was leading polls most of the pre-primary season. None of this is really a surprise.
posted by azpenguin at 9:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Biden is currently running on:
- A carbon tax
- An assault weapons ban
- A $15 minimum wage
- Card check for workplace unionization
- Public matching funds for small-dollar donations
- Free community college / post-secondary vocational training
- Decriminalization of marijuana, and the expungement of marijuana convictions
- Ending cash bail and the death penalty
- A public option for healthcare, which will be free for the Medicaid-eligible, and have income-based subsidies and capped premiums for the middle class
- Price controls on pharmaceuticals
- Universal Pre-K
- Statehood for Washington D.C.
Does anyone have examples of Biden talking about these or other campaign planks in this campaign? I don't deny that they probably appear on his website and are at least nominally goals of his, but almost none of his campaigning has involved specific policy issues and it's deeply unclear the extent to which these are priorities for him rather than bullet points in his campaign literature.
posted by Copronymus at 9:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
- A carbon tax
- An assault weapons ban
- A $15 minimum wage
- Card check for workplace unionization
- Public matching funds for small-dollar donations
- Free community college / post-secondary vocational training
- Decriminalization of marijuana, and the expungement of marijuana convictions
- Ending cash bail and the death penalty
- A public option for healthcare, which will be free for the Medicaid-eligible, and have income-based subsidies and capped premiums for the middle class
- Price controls on pharmaceuticals
- Universal Pre-K
- Statehood for Washington D.C.
Does anyone have examples of Biden talking about these or other campaign planks in this campaign? I don't deny that they probably appear on his website and are at least nominally goals of his, but almost none of his campaigning has involved specific policy issues and it's deeply unclear the extent to which these are priorities for him rather than bullet points in his campaign literature.
posted by Copronymus at 9:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
- Decriminalization of marijuana, and the expungement of marijuana convictions
Ol' Joe can't even commit to legalization even though the entire rest of the field did long ago. I guess a drug warrior who believes marijuana is a gateway drug doesn't quit easily.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Ol' Joe can't even commit to legalization even though the entire rest of the field did long ago. I guess a drug warrior who believes marijuana is a gateway drug doesn't quit easily.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Look, I don't have a crystal ball but Biden's approach to the student loan situation was to make them undischargeable in bankruptcy. Kind of makes me wonder what his solution will be to the medical debt situation, especially from someone who loves to compromise so much. Kind of like the "compromise" to keep drug prices under Medicare unnegotiable.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
It's hyperbolic to say he's basically a Republican
Just to calibrate, erryone running since 1992 is basically a Republican. They’re just not all theocratic doom puppets. Sanders himself has a platform not far from Eisenhower.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [28 favorites]
Just to calibrate, erryone running since 1992 is basically a Republican. They’re just not all theocratic doom puppets. Sanders himself has a platform not far from Eisenhower.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [28 favorites]
Also: in the best possible world, the marginal decision maker for whether or not President Bernie Sanders’s legislative agenda makes it through is somewhere between Doug Jones and Joe Manchin. Bernie is going to have to understand how to appeal to the constituencies he got blown out in yesterday if he wants to have any hope of making actual progressive change.
posted by rishabguha at 9:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by rishabguha at 9:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
> Just to calibrate, erryone running since 1992 is basically a Republican. They’re just not all theocratic doom puppets. Sanders himself has a platform not far from Eisenhower.
The labels are meaningless unless we anchor them in their present day meaning. Everyone reading this knows the Democratic party has lurched right in a quest to win the affection of moderate voters who just aren't that into them. That doesn't make them Republicans in any meaningful sense of the word. Stop with this, please.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
The labels are meaningless unless we anchor them in their present day meaning. Everyone reading this knows the Democratic party has lurched right in a quest to win the affection of moderate voters who just aren't that into them. That doesn't make them Republicans in any meaningful sense of the word. Stop with this, please.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
ZeusHumms I saw that article too. It is telling that no one is writing articles about how Biden can't succeed if he keeps attacking and demonizing the leftward people in the Party. As always it seems that the big tent is only big on the right.
posted by sotonohito at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Oh, and my mind's been on this stuff partly because I read a recent and very long profile on Brad Parscale and the social media machine for the Trump campaign.
posted by FJT at 9:54 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 9:54 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
That doesn't make them Republicans in any meaningful sense of the word. Stop with this, please.
So without the R label, how about "the Democratic Party is center to center-right on social policy, center-right on environmental policy and center-right to far-right on economic policy?"
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [19 favorites]
So without the R label, how about "the Democratic Party is center to center-right on social policy, center-right on environmental policy and center-right to far-right on economic policy?"
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [19 favorites]
argybarg you seem to take it as a given that Biden is good at or cares about coalition building
No, I said nothing about Biden.
posted by argybarg at 9:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
No, I said nothing about Biden.
posted by argybarg at 9:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
My proximal concern is the conversation here and everywhere else Democratic activists are speaking to each other.
posted by argybarg at 9:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 9:58 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
> So without the R label, how about "the Democratic Party is center to center-right on social policy and center-right to far-right on economic policy?"
It's a different conversation depending on what you put forward as the meaning of the Democratic Party. The median vote in a functional parliamentary system where they had a majority is different from the outcome of policy in our broken checks and balances system where the GOP controls the Senate. I'd put Obama out there as my best approximation of what the median Democratic vote is on most dimensions, and I have him at center-left on the social axis and dead centrist on economic axis -- nowhere near where I wanted him to be, but nowhere near center-right or right.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's a different conversation depending on what you put forward as the meaning of the Democratic Party. The median vote in a functional parliamentary system where they had a majority is different from the outcome of policy in our broken checks and balances system where the GOP controls the Senate. I'd put Obama out there as my best approximation of what the median Democratic vote is on most dimensions, and I have him at center-left on the social axis and dead centrist on economic axis -- nowhere near where I wanted him to be, but nowhere near center-right or right.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
ZeusHumms I saw that article too. It is telling that no one is writing articles about how Biden can't succeed if he keeps attacking and demonizing the leftward people in the Party. As always it seems that the big tent is only big on the right.
True.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
True.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Just to make sure I’m following: the argument is that Biden is more cognitively impaired than Trump?
I am ...not thrilled... about any candidate for President demonstrating obvious fitness or health issues (which very much includes Sanders, who actually had a heart attack on the campaign trail and has still refused to release his medical records), but if your biggest concern about electability is about cognitive impairment I remind you that the Dem nominee will be running against the most obviously cognitively impaired person on the national stage.
That is not to say it doesn’t matter, but I think, under those circumstances, an electability argument needs a bit more filling out.
posted by schadenfrau at 10:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
I am ...not thrilled... about any candidate for President demonstrating obvious fitness or health issues (which very much includes Sanders, who actually had a heart attack on the campaign trail and has still refused to release his medical records), but if your biggest concern about electability is about cognitive impairment I remind you that the Dem nominee will be running against the most obviously cognitively impaired person on the national stage.
That is not to say it doesn’t matter, but I think, under those circumstances, an electability argument needs a bit more filling out.
posted by schadenfrau at 10:04 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
The great podcast Citations Needed just released an episode on a subject very relevant to this discussion:
The Glib Left-Punching of Purity Politics Discourse
We hear it all the time: progressives, leftists, radicals — and even liberals — are told they must not engage in the siren song of "purity politics." Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we are told. We must be pragmatic, realistic, we must lay down our ideological arms and stop pining for Nirvana when so much is on the line in November.
Evoking purity politics functions — more often than not — as a catch-all defense against any and all criticism of establishment Democrats. In 2016, Hillary Clinton partisans used it against Bernie Sanders supporters; in 2020, Bloomberg’s flacks use it against Sanders again, and even Sanders partisans use it against leftist skeptics of electoralism. Put simply, purity politics is a Get Out Of Jail Free card, a perennial lesser of two evils narrative of an inherent impossibility of anything other than incremental change.
At their core, charges of purity politics are ahistoric and anti-intellectual, pathologizing alternative theories of change that don’t require political compromise as youthful vanity. Indeed, how to balance compromise and ideals has been, for centuries, the central question of the Left, everyone from French revolutionaries to Russian socialists, Black American radicals and Indigenous struggles in North America to Third World liberation movements around the globe have struggled to answer: when do we compromise and when do we not?
But "purity politics" ignores this essential and rich question altogether, brushing aside morally fraught debates about political strategy and reducing anything short of the path of least resistance to unserious solipsism and juvenile stubbornness.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 10:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
The Glib Left-Punching of Purity Politics Discourse
We hear it all the time: progressives, leftists, radicals — and even liberals — are told they must not engage in the siren song of "purity politics." Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we are told. We must be pragmatic, realistic, we must lay down our ideological arms and stop pining for Nirvana when so much is on the line in November.
Evoking purity politics functions — more often than not — as a catch-all defense against any and all criticism of establishment Democrats. In 2016, Hillary Clinton partisans used it against Bernie Sanders supporters; in 2020, Bloomberg’s flacks use it against Sanders again, and even Sanders partisans use it against leftist skeptics of electoralism. Put simply, purity politics is a Get Out Of Jail Free card, a perennial lesser of two evils narrative of an inherent impossibility of anything other than incremental change.
At their core, charges of purity politics are ahistoric and anti-intellectual, pathologizing alternative theories of change that don’t require political compromise as youthful vanity. Indeed, how to balance compromise and ideals has been, for centuries, the central question of the Left, everyone from French revolutionaries to Russian socialists, Black American radicals and Indigenous struggles in North America to Third World liberation movements around the globe have struggled to answer: when do we compromise and when do we not?
But "purity politics" ignores this essential and rich question altogether, brushing aside morally fraught debates about political strategy and reducing anything short of the path of least resistance to unserious solipsism and juvenile stubbornness.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 10:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
I am ...not thrilled... about any candidate for President demonstrating obvious fitness or health issues (which very much includes Sanders, who actually had a heart attack on the campaign trail and has still refused to release his medical records), but if your biggest concern about electability is about cognitive impairment I remind you that the Dem nominee will be running against the most obviously cognitively impaired person on the national stage.
No, the argument is that he is less impaired but more electorally vulnerable because of standard IOKIYAR biases, including Trump having already established his brand in the minds of centrists. But even if Biden is less vulnerable than Trump on this topic, it doesn't change the fact that in the minds of millions of Democratic voters, it was a very strong reason to spend months searching for a better candidate. We're stuck with it now, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a major weakness. (And again, this isn't an argument that the angry old socialist Jew is necessarily any better on electability.)
posted by chortly at 10:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
No, the argument is that he is less impaired but more electorally vulnerable because of standard IOKIYAR biases, including Trump having already established his brand in the minds of centrists. But even if Biden is less vulnerable than Trump on this topic, it doesn't change the fact that in the minds of millions of Democratic voters, it was a very strong reason to spend months searching for a better candidate. We're stuck with it now, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a major weakness. (And again, this isn't an argument that the angry old socialist Jew is necessarily any better on electability.)
posted by chortly at 10:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Yeah a quick look at the twitters of the hosts of that podcast makes me cringe mightily.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 10:13 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 10:13 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
If Sanders pulls out the nomination, we'll be hearing about that heart attack for the next six months, if Biden holds on, we'll be hearing about his cognitive fitness. I hate that fact, but even more I hate that fact that these are legitimate things to discuss, even if the available evidence suggests Trump's overall physical health is worse than Bernie's and his cognitive fitness is worse than Biden's. I'm mad that we didn't produce a candidate who could more cleanly attack on these issues, because I think they really matter.
posted by skewed at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by skewed at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
For anyone curious about how long it would be between Biden becoming the frontrunner and being called a socialist who supports Castro by Republicans, it didn't even take 24 hours.
posted by Copronymus at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Sanders is making some kind of an announcement today from his home in VT, at 2 pm.
posted by anastasiav at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2020
posted by anastasiav at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2020
Yeah, Biden looks and sounds rough out there. I know the campaign is a grind, but so is the presidency. I'm not thrilled about Sanders' age, but his mind is in way better shape than Biden. At this point, as an observer and not a doctor or anything of the sort, I'd categorize Biden and Trump's cognitive impairment at about the same level. Trump's ideas may be worse, but Biden's decline has been very sharp, even just within the last month or so.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Godspeed, young progressives. You got your first dose of Democratic reality. Finance over future, Evey time, no exceptions.
And this is the lesson Bernie needs to listen to, going forward.
It can be argued, rather convincingly, that the core of Bernie's appeal is the inverse of the conservative mantra. Rather than a trickle-down, top-down, the-rich-are-your-betters traditional conservative stance, Bernie's is to work from the bottom up. Stating, very explicitly, that the game needs to be changed so that those at the bottom have a fair chance to at least subsist, and hopefully prosper, and those who are at the top need to pay their fair share to subsidize it.
Which is a good message, a proper message, and one that many Americans can get behind firmly. But the Democratic establishment's target is not the poor and downtrodden and young and needy; they assume that they have those votes in their pocket, or that they simply won't come out no matter what they do. Their target is the upper-middle-class-couple template living rent-free in Chuck Schumer's brain. People who were doing all right under Obama, if not spectacularly.
And those people -- Willie the White-Collar Worker and Susie the Soccer Mom -- don't really care all that much if Maria the Minimum Wager gets $15/hr or gets health care or if advances for Maria benefit the collective American class consciousness. Willie and Susie want to know how THEY, PERSONALLY will benefit more from bottom-up than from top-down -- or from a mealy-mouthed lip-service-to-the-middle approach. They require reassurance that they will not be among those paying for a theoretical demsoc revolution, that their jobs will remain, that their healthcare will not change, that they will not be inconvenienced in any way that might dissuade them from voting to alter the pre-Trump status quo.
Ol' Tip used to say "all politics is local." No, all politics is personal. Bernie can make a case to many of those people that they will benefit... but he has to do it loudly and emphatically and repeatedly and soon.
posted by delfin at 10:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
And this is the lesson Bernie needs to listen to, going forward.
It can be argued, rather convincingly, that the core of Bernie's appeal is the inverse of the conservative mantra. Rather than a trickle-down, top-down, the-rich-are-your-betters traditional conservative stance, Bernie's is to work from the bottom up. Stating, very explicitly, that the game needs to be changed so that those at the bottom have a fair chance to at least subsist, and hopefully prosper, and those who are at the top need to pay their fair share to subsidize it.
Which is a good message, a proper message, and one that many Americans can get behind firmly. But the Democratic establishment's target is not the poor and downtrodden and young and needy; they assume that they have those votes in their pocket, or that they simply won't come out no matter what they do. Their target is the upper-middle-class-couple template living rent-free in Chuck Schumer's brain. People who were doing all right under Obama, if not spectacularly.
And those people -- Willie the White-Collar Worker and Susie the Soccer Mom -- don't really care all that much if Maria the Minimum Wager gets $15/hr or gets health care or if advances for Maria benefit the collective American class consciousness. Willie and Susie want to know how THEY, PERSONALLY will benefit more from bottom-up than from top-down -- or from a mealy-mouthed lip-service-to-the-middle approach. They require reassurance that they will not be among those paying for a theoretical demsoc revolution, that their jobs will remain, that their healthcare will not change, that they will not be inconvenienced in any way that might dissuade them from voting to alter the pre-Trump status quo.
Ol' Tip used to say "all politics is local." No, all politics is personal. Bernie can make a case to many of those people that they will benefit... but he has to do it loudly and emphatically and repeatedly and soon.
posted by delfin at 10:17 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Young people might have made up less of a share of the vote than in 2016 because more voters people over 45 voted. It goes both ways. Plus, I can’t help but think that the lack of a contested Republican primary might have attracted people who just want to vote in a primary - a population that skews old. More candidates running who might be attractive to a wider variety of older voters also may have played a part. I could be wrong, but early handwringing about younger voters not showing up in Iowa proved to be somewhat misguided.
In any event, if Bernie (and to a lesser extent Warren) have problems with younger voters not showing up in great enough numbers to win, Biden’s problem is that voters under 45 aren’t voting for him at all.
We already know Democratic nominees in the modern era can win the nomination by massive margins among Black primary voters over 45. Hillary Clinton did that. She still lost. The pattern is not new.
Can Biden get enough young voters to vote for him? Will Biden’s strength among older suburban voters in the primaries translate to enough votes in the general to win in places like PA? Those are very much open questions to me.
As for the policies Biden is running on, I don’t really take them seriously. Most of Biden’s rhetoric this primary focused on the past rather than the future. The only areas I could see any movement are electric car infrastructure, education, and maybe rail. Electric car infrastructure because regulators in other (less terminally corrupt and dysfunctional countries) are forcing the hands of auto manufacturers, so there might be lobbyist support to move recalcitrant GOP and GOP wannabe senators. Rail because it’s one of the few things Biden seems passionate about and the Japanese seem willing to give us a deal on a maglev line between DC and New York - the better to ferry lobbyists back and forth. Education because his wife is a school psychologist.
posted by eagles123 at 10:21 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
In any event, if Bernie (and to a lesser extent Warren) have problems with younger voters not showing up in great enough numbers to win, Biden’s problem is that voters under 45 aren’t voting for him at all.
We already know Democratic nominees in the modern era can win the nomination by massive margins among Black primary voters over 45. Hillary Clinton did that. She still lost. The pattern is not new.
Can Biden get enough young voters to vote for him? Will Biden’s strength among older suburban voters in the primaries translate to enough votes in the general to win in places like PA? Those are very much open questions to me.
As for the policies Biden is running on, I don’t really take them seriously. Most of Biden’s rhetoric this primary focused on the past rather than the future. The only areas I could see any movement are electric car infrastructure, education, and maybe rail. Electric car infrastructure because regulators in other (less terminally corrupt and dysfunctional countries) are forcing the hands of auto manufacturers, so there might be lobbyist support to move recalcitrant GOP and GOP wannabe senators. Rail because it’s one of the few things Biden seems passionate about and the Japanese seem willing to give us a deal on a maglev line between DC and New York - the better to ferry lobbyists back and forth. Education because his wife is a school psychologist.
posted by eagles123 at 10:21 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
If Sanders pulls out the nomination, we'll be hearing about that heart attack for the next six months, if Biden holds on, we'll be hearing about his cognitive fitness.
The difference is that, unless Sanders has another heart event or some other health problem, it will have been a one-time thing. Biden's "gaffs" are continual events, like having a minor heart episode on tape every day.
posted by chortly at 10:24 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
The difference is that, unless Sanders has another heart event or some other health problem, it will have been a one-time thing. Biden's "gaffs" are continual events, like having a minor heart episode on tape every day.
posted by chortly at 10:24 AM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
I don't think Biden has what it takes to a president into his 80s. (I don't think many people do. Nancy Pelosi seems to have the verve.) That's why Biden's VP is almost as important as Biden as a candidate for me.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:24 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:24 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
My main argument against Biden is that I don't think he's a very good candidate to beat Trump.
That is yet to be determined. Super Tuesday has cleared the field so we are down to whether Sanders or Biden has the best chance of beating Trump.
I think it will come down to how well these two candidates perform in the upper mid-west -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.
As much as people seem to obsess on Trump's unfavorabilities, the polls in the critical states show Democrats ahead of Trump by only a couple of points, incredibly close. All it would take is one more ratfucking by a Comey right before the election and you have Trump round two.
I'm more concerned about which of the two can beat Trump than I am about things that are never going to happen in the next four years, no matter who is president, like Medicare for All.
posted by JackFlash at 10:25 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
That is yet to be determined. Super Tuesday has cleared the field so we are down to whether Sanders or Biden has the best chance of beating Trump.
I think it will come down to how well these two candidates perform in the upper mid-west -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.
As much as people seem to obsess on Trump's unfavorabilities, the polls in the critical states show Democrats ahead of Trump by only a couple of points, incredibly close. All it would take is one more ratfucking by a Comey right before the election and you have Trump round two.
I'm more concerned about which of the two can beat Trump than I am about things that are never going to happen in the next four years, no matter who is president, like Medicare for All.
posted by JackFlash at 10:25 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
What’s Next
I think Warren should drop out and endorse Sanders. I am more convinced than ever that she would make a better president than the two near-octogenarians standing, but as Paul says not only does she have no path to victory she’s not even amassing enough delegates to have much influence if something goes screwy at the convention. How much of this is her campaign’s own mistakes and how much of it is the enormous challenges any woman faces in getting traction in a presidential nomination process is moot at this point.posted by tonycpsu at 10:28 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Whatever I would do in Warren’s situation, from the other side Sanders needs to work to earn Warren’s endorsement. His campaign’s amateurish handling of the story that led to the hail of snake emojis alienated the one candidate with a significant following who could plausibly endorse him if his or her campaign failed to launch. Biden owes his surprising-to-shocking performance on Super Tuesday in large measure to his recognition of the importance of building these relationships.
I may do something longer about this if someone doesn’t beat me to it, but it should also be noted that while it might help a little at the margins Warren dropping out isn’t going to address the fundamental related problem with Bernie’s campaign, which is that he banked on a wave of nonvoters (implausibly) being mobilized or the field not quickly winnowing rather than expanding his base within the party. Warren being on the ballot isn’t the reason he got absolutely clobbered among African-Americans voters in southern states yet again, despite facing a campaign with no money or meaningful infrastructure in most of those states. If the campaign doesn’t address this issue it doesn’t matter what Warren does, Biden is going to be the nominee.
Warren’s campaign does have one major legacy: playing a substantial role in Michael Bloomberg’s utter humiliation.
I think it will come down to how well these two candidates perform in the upper mid-west -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.
Primary voting tells us almost nothing useful about general election tendencies, and head-to-head polls are still worthless. We have almost no usable data on electability, and we won't any time soon. All we have are our gut judgments about the relative tradeoffs between a 78-year-old with something that can be portrayed (probably incorrectly) as early dementia, and a 78-year-old angry Jew with a heart attack. Whatever their relative tradeoffs, it's fairly clear that in the face of one the greatest dangers to US democracy of the last century, Democrats have narrowed it down to two epically weak candidates.
posted by chortly at 10:34 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Primary voting tells us almost nothing useful about general election tendencies, and head-to-head polls are still worthless. We have almost no usable data on electability, and we won't any time soon. All we have are our gut judgments about the relative tradeoffs between a 78-year-old with something that can be portrayed (probably incorrectly) as early dementia, and a 78-year-old angry Jew with a heart attack. Whatever their relative tradeoffs, it's fairly clear that in the face of one the greatest dangers to US democracy of the last century, Democrats have narrowed it down to two epically weak candidates.
posted by chortly at 10:34 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Biden's "gaffs" are continual events, like having a minor heart episode on tape every day.
But Biden as a gaffe-machine has been built into his political image for decades now, just like Trump was well-known as a crass, greedy jerk. The quality of the gaffes is different (which is why people are playing armchair doctor), but “listen to what Joe Biden said now” is not going to surprise anyone. I don’t get it but there’s a significant contingent of people who like when politicians aren’t polished, like they think it means they can’t lie (see also GWB, Trump).
posted by sallybrown at 10:34 AM on March 4, 2020
But Biden as a gaffe-machine has been built into his political image for decades now, just like Trump was well-known as a crass, greedy jerk. The quality of the gaffes is different (which is why people are playing armchair doctor), but “listen to what Joe Biden said now” is not going to surprise anyone. I don’t get it but there’s a significant contingent of people who like when politicians aren’t polished, like they think it means they can’t lie (see also GWB, Trump).
posted by sallybrown at 10:34 AM on March 4, 2020
Can Biden get enough young voters to vote for him? Will Biden’s strength among older suburban voters in the primaries translate to enough votes in the general to win in places like PA? Those are very much open questions to me.
If you just are considering possible advantages and drawbacks between Biden and Sanders in who has the best shot of Trump, leaving all else, the passion the main base of Sanders supporters bring can obviously be a plus if that passion would drive added turn out in the needed areas, those few states that will determine the election, that's something Biden doesn't have.
What Biden may provide, if he can hold it together well enough in his debates and appearances to at least not seem completely at sea, something that isn't a given, his campaign can make the election more of a referendum on Trump than Sanders probably could given the comfort zone he sits in for many, while Sanders is demanding more radical change. That also might aid turnout in those few states that really matter if enough people are indeed fed up with Trump. There may be some advantage in not complicating matters overmuch in that fashion with an unpopular president.
But I have no clear idea which scenario is the more likely, especially given how volatile all three of the men are and in a time of a global health scare and potential economic uncertainty that may accompany it, among many other things. I just don't think it's necessarily the case that either Biden or Sanders is clearly more or less electable given how relatively few people could potentially determine the outcome.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you just are considering possible advantages and drawbacks between Biden and Sanders in who has the best shot of Trump, leaving all else, the passion the main base of Sanders supporters bring can obviously be a plus if that passion would drive added turn out in the needed areas, those few states that will determine the election, that's something Biden doesn't have.
What Biden may provide, if he can hold it together well enough in his debates and appearances to at least not seem completely at sea, something that isn't a given, his campaign can make the election more of a referendum on Trump than Sanders probably could given the comfort zone he sits in for many, while Sanders is demanding more radical change. That also might aid turnout in those few states that really matter if enough people are indeed fed up with Trump. There may be some advantage in not complicating matters overmuch in that fashion with an unpopular president.
But I have no clear idea which scenario is the more likely, especially given how volatile all three of the men are and in a time of a global health scare and potential economic uncertainty that may accompany it, among many other things. I just don't think it's necessarily the case that either Biden or Sanders is clearly more or less electable given how relatively few people could potentially determine the outcome.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:37 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
“listen to what Joe Biden said now” is not going to surprise anyone
Yesterday: Two veterans confronted @JoeBiden about his record of supporting war during his campaign stopover in Oakland on Super Tuesday.
Veteran: "My friends are dead because of your policies."
Biden: "I get it, all right? [points at veteran] So's my son. He was in Iraq for a year. Not that it matters, right? You don't think it matters to me. It matters a lot to me."
Veteran: "I'm not going after your son"
Biden: "You better not."
Beau Biden, uh, did not die in the war. This is not "oh, that goofy gaffy Biden" stuff.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Yesterday: Two veterans confronted @JoeBiden about his record of supporting war during his campaign stopover in Oakland on Super Tuesday.
Veteran: "My friends are dead because of your policies."
Biden: "I get it, all right? [points at veteran] So's my son. He was in Iraq for a year. Not that it matters, right? You don't think it matters to me. It matters a lot to me."
Veteran: "I'm not going after your son"
Biden: "You better not."
Beau Biden, uh, did not die in the war. This is not "oh, that goofy gaffy Biden" stuff.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Agreed. I was more focusing on Biden because I feel like Sander’s weaknesses abs strengths have been discussed to death.
posted by eagles123 at 10:41 AM on March 4, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 10:41 AM on March 4, 2020
Beau Biden, uh, did not die in the war.
This is a good example of people trying to turn Biden’s sloppy speaking into dementia. He was saying his son was a veteran also, not forgetting how his son died (do you genuinely think Biden thought his son died in the war?). We saw another one last night with the “he mixed up his wife and his sister”—because they switched places when he was facing away from them and he didn’t see until he turned around.
posted by sallybrown at 10:47 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
This is a good example of people trying to turn Biden’s sloppy speaking into dementia. He was saying his son was a veteran also, not forgetting how his son died (do you genuinely think Biden thought his son died in the war?). We saw another one last night with the “he mixed up his wife and his sister”—because they switched places when he was facing away from them and he didn’t see until he turned around.
posted by sallybrown at 10:47 AM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
You have no more evidence for your claim that it absolutely didn't happen than I do for my suspicion that it did. I live here, and it's well-known that Republicans do this. Where are you?
Republicans were talking big about voting for Sanders in SC and from what I've seen there's little reason to believe it happened enough to affect anything.
posted by atoxyl at 10:47 AM on March 4, 2020
Republicans were talking big about voting for Sanders in SC and from what I've seen there's little reason to believe it happened enough to affect anything.
posted by atoxyl at 10:47 AM on March 4, 2020
Bloomberg suspends presidential campaign, endorses Biden
posted by clawsoon at 10:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 10:48 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Non-sloppy speaking is one of the more important responsibilities of a President. It doesn't have to be dementia to be very concerning.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:49 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Lets see if he stands with Biden with hands full of cash or with them in his pockets.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2020
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2020
I’m not denying that. My point was that Biden has been famous as sloppy and careless with his words his entire career.
posted by sallybrown at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Exactly. There are a lot of ways to interpret that exchange (e.g., "my son could have died in Iraq just as easily as he died from cancer, so how dare you accuse me of blithely ignoring the consequences of my votes"). I don't think we're going to get anywhere litigating specific gaffes.
posted by AndrewInDC at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by AndrewInDC at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Biden's gaffes remind me of my father. Even at the end we weren't sure if he was developing dementia or not, because he had always been like that.
posted by clawsoon at 10:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 10:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
It's gotten *way* worse, and the rate at which it's getting worse has increased visibly during this campaign. Observation is not an armchair diagnosis.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:51 AM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
This is a good example of people trying to turn Biden’s sloppy speaking into dementia. He was saying his son was a veteran also, not forgetting how his son died
and
There are a lot of ways to interpret that exchange
I can fully grant that Biden does not think his son died in Iraq or as a direct result of combat. But his counter-argument is no more sensical for that. If the question is "why should we vote for someone who supported these terrible wars?" then (paraphrasing) "because I was willing to put my son at risk" is not actually an answer. That demonstrates, at most, that Biden had strong convictions, but it's not actually a reason.
And the vaguely threatening "You better not" shows that he's defensive and overemotional in a way that we do not need in a President.
posted by jedicus at 10:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
and
There are a lot of ways to interpret that exchange
I can fully grant that Biden does not think his son died in Iraq or as a direct result of combat. But his counter-argument is no more sensical for that. If the question is "why should we vote for someone who supported these terrible wars?" then (paraphrasing) "because I was willing to put my son at risk" is not actually an answer. That demonstrates, at most, that Biden had strong convictions, but it's not actually a reason.
And the vaguely threatening "You better not" shows that he's defensive and overemotional in a way that we do not need in a President.
posted by jedicus at 10:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
I'm not thrilled about this playing of the dead brain cancer son card upon being challenged about policy, tbh. It's manipulative and dishonest.
posted by thelonius at 10:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 10:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
If that clip doesn't show dementia then it shows aggressive narcissism that can be played endlessly in attack ads by a Trump who still claims to have been against the Iraq War and to be the Troops' candidate. There's no way to spin it that qualifies Biden for the presidency.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:57 AM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Can we please not with the dementia thing?
posted by all about eevee at 11:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 11:02 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
CNN reporter MJ Lee tweets:
New: Elizabeth Warren's campaign manager Roger Lau has just sent an email to all staff, first thanking them, and also sharing this blunt assessment about last night:posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:05 AM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
“We fell well short of viability goals and projections, and we are disappointed in the results.”
In that email, Lau says they're waiting for more results to come in and the race has been volatile, but again, says they are "obviously disappointed."
Key line: "She’s going to take time right now to think through the right way to continue this fight."
Lau has been with Warren a long time. In the all-staff, he also wrote:
"This decision is in her hands, and it’s important that she has the time and space to consider what comes next."
I don't think the exchange was going to end any other way than the questioner yelling "Trump is more anti-war than Joe Biden" for the sake of their Twitter video, so I'm not willing to invest a lot in the strength of Biden's response here.
posted by AndrewInDC at 11:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by AndrewInDC at 11:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: On Biden/dementia speculation -- we've asked people to hold back from armchair diagnosis stuff and to be extra careful around topics that can end up being ableist/ageist. And to skip the flip jokes that end up being callous. So please lay off that in here. But also I can see it's going to keep being an issue, so this may just have to go to Metatalk if people want to discuss it and figure out where the bounds should be on the site.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:08 AM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Bloomberg suspends presidential campaign, endorses Biden
What a terrible waste of $500M. As a rich guy, he could have easily bought his tax breaks the old-fashioned way, by supporting any number of important Senate seats in contention to flip to the Democratic Party.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
What a terrible waste of $500M. As a rich guy, he could have easily bought his tax breaks the old-fashioned way, by supporting any number of important Senate seats in contention to flip to the Democratic Party.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:10 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Dears, the Biden thing is more complicated: Former VP Joe Biden says military burn pits may have led to his son's death from cancer (Military Times, January 10, 2018).
Former Vice President Joe Biden believes his son’s fatal brain cancer may have been caused by exposure to military burn pits while serving in Iraq and Kosovo.
In an interview with PBS NewsHour posted Wednesday, Biden conceded that he does not have any direct evidence linking Beau Biden’s death in 2015 to the toxic fires. But he said “there is a lot of work to be done” investigating the issue given the high rates of illnesses seen in troops who worked near the waste pits. [...]
The former vice president said he was unaware of how closely his son worked to burn pits until last year, when former Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman released the book “The Burn Pits: The Poisoning of America’s Soldiers.” It includes a chapter on the younger Biden and his battle with cancer.
Near the end of his presidency, Barack Obama named then Vice President Biden to lead his “cancer moonshot” initiative, with the stated goal of doubling the rate of progress in cancer prevention. The effort continues with the newly formed Biden Cancer Initiative.
Joe Biden has said that his son’s death was the primary reason he did not enter the 2016 presidential campaign.
---
Now read that exchange again:
Veteran: "My friends are dead because of your policies."
Biden: "I get it, all right? [points at veteran] So's my son. He was in Iraq for a year. Not that it matters, right? You don't think it matters to me. It matters a lot to me."
Veteran: "I'm not going after your son"
Biden: "You better not."
---
If Biden believes he had a hand in his son's slow death from brain cancer, that is a fucking awful thing all on its own.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:12 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
Former Vice President Joe Biden believes his son’s fatal brain cancer may have been caused by exposure to military burn pits while serving in Iraq and Kosovo.
In an interview with PBS NewsHour posted Wednesday, Biden conceded that he does not have any direct evidence linking Beau Biden’s death in 2015 to the toxic fires. But he said “there is a lot of work to be done” investigating the issue given the high rates of illnesses seen in troops who worked near the waste pits. [...]
The former vice president said he was unaware of how closely his son worked to burn pits until last year, when former Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman released the book “The Burn Pits: The Poisoning of America’s Soldiers.” It includes a chapter on the younger Biden and his battle with cancer.
Near the end of his presidency, Barack Obama named then Vice President Biden to lead his “cancer moonshot” initiative, with the stated goal of doubling the rate of progress in cancer prevention. The effort continues with the newly formed Biden Cancer Initiative.
Joe Biden has said that his son’s death was the primary reason he did not enter the 2016 presidential campaign.
---
Now read that exchange again:
Veteran: "My friends are dead because of your policies."
Biden: "I get it, all right? [points at veteran] So's my son. He was in Iraq for a year. Not that it matters, right? You don't think it matters to me. It matters a lot to me."
Veteran: "I'm not going after your son"
Biden: "You better not."
---
If Biden believes he had a hand in his son's slow death from brain cancer, that is a fucking awful thing all on its own.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:12 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
Lawyers, Guns, and Money, The Morning After:
Elizabeth Warren’s biggest problem was that she’s a woman. The exact same qualities that made Barack Obama so attractive — super smart Harvard Law product with a folksy common touch — were the very things that made her unattractive to voters. (The intelligence was off-putting, the folksiness was somehow fake, Harvard is elitist!). Why the difference? Because she’s a woman, and not the ex-wife [of] a very popular ex-president. Sure she made mistakes, unlike the perfect campaigns run by Joe 'I Personally Broke Nelson Mandela Out of Prison' Biden and Bernie 'Viva Fidel' Sanders, but in the end the problem was her gender, because misogyny.posted by kirkaracha at 11:12 AM on March 4, 2020 [33 favorites]
^misogyny is also the reason women politicians are rarely described as charismatic, even though many of them are.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
Joe 'I Personally Broke Nelson Mandela Out of Prison' Biden and Bernie 'Viva Fidel' Sanders
This is gross.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
This is gross.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:14 AM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
"Voting for the Safe Choice Means Doom for Us All" (Earther):
And look, I get it. Things are supremely fucked up right now. But returning to the past to weasel out of the present isn’t going to happen. There is no centrist position on saving the planet, let alone a compromise one with Republicans. And the longer people clamor for the past, the more likely the future will be even more radically different.posted by Ouverture at 11:18 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Biden supports continuing fracking and has been wishy-washy on renewables targets and whether he would support banning U.S. oil exports. He thinks he can work with Republicans to pass meaningful legislation despite the fact they are actively using their Senate majority to sink his candidacy by perpetuating a conspiracy theory and have put forward laughable climate solutions.
In his speech on Tuesday night, Biden talked about how “the middle class is getting clobbered.” But the poorest among us are suffering, too, and often feel the worst impacts of climate change, compounded by every other factor working against them in society.
Listening to older black voters doesn't mean dismissing younger latinx voters, but thanks for providing a quick example of "you're with us or against us" rhetoric.
The whole "listen to X" discourse can get kinda weird because it often carries an implication that certain demographics have a special wisdom about elections that the rest of us should be listening to. When I think a lot of it really comes down to basic politics stuff like - Joe Biden is strongly tied into Black political and community networks in the South, which have built a capacity for political mobilization for very good historical reasons? Whereas Bernie Sanders has been sending a lot of hotshot organizers to build connections to the growing (and I think generally younger) base of Latino voters in the Southwest, on a level that other candidates haven't matched? Not that we shouldn't discuss exactly which political pitch appeals to which group and why. And certainly not that you shouldn't talk about this from the perspective of a group of which you're a member. I just see so many weird proxy arguments about this stuff online.
posted by atoxyl at 11:28 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
The whole "listen to X" discourse can get kinda weird because it often carries an implication that certain demographics have a special wisdom about elections that the rest of us should be listening to. When I think a lot of it really comes down to basic politics stuff like - Joe Biden is strongly tied into Black political and community networks in the South, which have built a capacity for political mobilization for very good historical reasons? Whereas Bernie Sanders has been sending a lot of hotshot organizers to build connections to the growing (and I think generally younger) base of Latino voters in the Southwest, on a level that other candidates haven't matched? Not that we shouldn't discuss exactly which political pitch appeals to which group and why. And certainly not that you shouldn't talk about this from the perspective of a group of which you're a member. I just see so many weird proxy arguments about this stuff online.
posted by atoxyl at 11:28 AM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
>Copronymus
Does anyone have examples of Biden talking about these or other campaign planks in this campaign?
From my observation, Biden has a roughly 17 min stump speech. It is all about "restoring the soul of the nation" and "Trump is an aberration and once removed the nation can heal". At the end he lists policy. But he just does rapid naming of bullet points to make it sound like a lot is going on. Then he speaks to ending the divisiveness and breaking the gridlock and get it all passed in a bipartisan manner. Because "I'm the guy". Once when he has to speak for a half hour it seemed like he hit the 15 min mark and just started the same speech again. He failed to mention any policy until about the 22 minute mark because he had stopped short of it in the first go round. It is pretty bland to watch.
Also Biden is highly handled at his rallies. He also isn't the closing speech. A couple people do the opening praise and crowd exciting. Biden gets pointed to the microphone, gives his blurb then someone else comes on to makes the closing arguments. There is zero excitement.
At his endorsement rally I thought it was interesting it was the first time I heard him say "Medicare for All who want it".
---
During one of the debates (I think it was the second) Bernie said a half million people go bankrupt because of medical bills. Bankrupt for the crime of having gotten cancer.
Biden responded that his son had cancer and died, so don't talk to him about cancer.
The subject was medical bankruptcy but Biden raised his dead son to shield himself ... it is a play he uses often.
posted by phoque at 11:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
Does anyone have examples of Biden talking about these or other campaign planks in this campaign?
From my observation, Biden has a roughly 17 min stump speech. It is all about "restoring the soul of the nation" and "Trump is an aberration and once removed the nation can heal". At the end he lists policy. But he just does rapid naming of bullet points to make it sound like a lot is going on. Then he speaks to ending the divisiveness and breaking the gridlock and get it all passed in a bipartisan manner. Because "I'm the guy". Once when he has to speak for a half hour it seemed like he hit the 15 min mark and just started the same speech again. He failed to mention any policy until about the 22 minute mark because he had stopped short of it in the first go round. It is pretty bland to watch.
Also Biden is highly handled at his rallies. He also isn't the closing speech. A couple people do the opening praise and crowd exciting. Biden gets pointed to the microphone, gives his blurb then someone else comes on to makes the closing arguments. There is zero excitement.
At his endorsement rally I thought it was interesting it was the first time I heard him say "Medicare for All who want it".
---
During one of the debates (I think it was the second) Bernie said a half million people go bankrupt because of medical bills. Bankrupt for the crime of having gotten cancer.
Biden responded that his son had cancer and died, so don't talk to him about cancer.
The subject was medical bankruptcy but Biden raised his dead son to shield himself ... it is a play he uses often.
posted by phoque at 11:41 AM on March 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
This is gross
Yeah, that's one way to undercut an entire article. First here's my point and second here is why you should disregard everything I say.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:42 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yeah, that's one way to undercut an entire article. First here's my point and second here is why you should disregard everything I say.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:42 AM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
There is one policy Biden brought up, that I forgot to mention, and when I looked into it was flabbergasted. "Surprise billing". This is a real thing and the amount of money (53 million dollars from a single medical company to defeat a single bill ... it is nuts ... so good on Joe for raising the issue).
The $53.8 million campaign sought to derail a crackdown on surprise medical billing, in which patients are unexpectedly hit with exorbitant charges, often following visits to emergency rooms. (Bloomberg new article by Elizabeth Dexheimer from January)
posted by phoque at 11:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
The $53.8 million campaign sought to derail a crackdown on surprise medical billing, in which patients are unexpectedly hit with exorbitant charges, often following visits to emergency rooms. (Bloomberg new article by Elizabeth Dexheimer from January)
posted by phoque at 11:53 AM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Change rarely happens from the top down. It grows from the bottom levels.
Um, that's literally one of Bernie's talking points. And Our Revolution was begun exactly because you can't just "come in every 4 years." That effort is a large part of what got AOC and others elected during the midterms.
posted by Foosnark at 11:59 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Um, that's literally one of Bernie's talking points. And Our Revolution was begun exactly because you can't just "come in every 4 years." That effort is a large part of what got AOC and others elected during the midterms.
posted by Foosnark at 11:59 AM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
If you're interested in surprise billing, the expert to check out is Sarah Kliff. She started research into it at Vox and continued it at NYT.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:00 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:00 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
"She’s going to take time right now to think through the right way to continue this fight."
As pointed out over on the WaPo live chat, this is the kind of thing you say when your candidate is about to drop out. You definitely don't say that kind of thing if you're staying in.
I imagine the main thing Warren is thinking through right now is whether to make an endorsement when she drops out, which in turn involves negotiations regarding what she can get in exchange for that endorsement.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:17 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
As pointed out over on the WaPo live chat, this is the kind of thing you say when your candidate is about to drop out. You definitely don't say that kind of thing if you're staying in.
I imagine the main thing Warren is thinking through right now is whether to make an endorsement when she drops out, which in turn involves negotiations regarding what she can get in exchange for that endorsement.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:17 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Re: Biden's 'surprise, exorbitant medical billing' stance: Biden says Obama offered financial help amid son's illness (CNN, January 12, 2016) Describing in an interview with CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger one of his weekly lunches with Obama, Biden said he told the President he was worried about caring for Beau's family without his son's salary.
"I said, 'But I worked it out.'" Biden recalled telling Obama. "I said, 'But -- Jill and I will sell the house and be in good shape.'" [...]
"He got up and he said, 'Don't sell that house. Promise me you won't sell the house,'" Biden continued, speculating Obama would be "mad" he was retelling the story.
"He said, 'I'll give you the money. Whatever you need, I'll give you the money. Don't, Joe -- promise me. Promise me.' I said, 'I don't think we're going to have to anyway.' He said, 'promise me,'" Biden recalled.
Separately, I hope Biden doesn't go with Klobuchar as his VP pick. She, too, is a 'centrist' 'moderate' 'reach-across-the-aisle' believer, which is no longer a viable technique to pass legislation. She has a long-time friendship with Lindsey Graham, and traveled toured Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia and Montenegro with Graham and John McCain in December 2016:
Maybe Klobuchar's not in serious contention to balance the ticket for this particular nominee, though. Minneapolis NAACP, Black Lives Matter call on Klobuchar to suspend campaign, TheHill, Jan. 29, 2020 / Klobuchar’s Rally Cancelled After BLM Protesters Storm The Stage Over Murder Case, TPM March 2, 2020 / Klobuchar drops out of 2020 campaign, endorses Biden, Politico March 2, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
"I said, 'But I worked it out.'" Biden recalled telling Obama. "I said, 'But -- Jill and I will sell the house and be in good shape.'" [...]
"He got up and he said, 'Don't sell that house. Promise me you won't sell the house,'" Biden continued, speculating Obama would be "mad" he was retelling the story.
"He said, 'I'll give you the money. Whatever you need, I'll give you the money. Don't, Joe -- promise me. Promise me.' I said, 'I don't think we're going to have to anyway.' He said, 'promise me,'" Biden recalled.
Separately, I hope Biden doesn't go with Klobuchar as his VP pick. She, too, is a 'centrist' 'moderate' 'reach-across-the-aisle' believer, which is no longer a viable technique to pass legislation. She has a long-time friendship with Lindsey Graham, and traveled toured Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia and Montenegro with Graham and John McCain in December 2016:
"We have all agreed to be pretty aggressive about an end to this Russian aggression," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said about the Obama administration's claim that Russia hacked political groups' computers, including the Democratic Party, before the Nov. 8 election.A year ago, Republicans offered that she was just too nice for success: Republicans gush over Klobuchar (Politico, Jan. 11, 2019) GOP senators praised the Minnesota Democrat for her deal-cutting ways — even as they worried it could doom her presidential bid.
While assuring leaders of those countries that the United States will continue to support them and NATO, the senators took the opportunity while in the region to warn Russia, and President Vladimir Putin in particular.
Klobuchar said the three senators "are reinforcing our bipartisan commitment to strengthening our NATO alliances and are focused on major cyber security breaches which are of utmost importance as we learn of the depth of Russian interference in our recent election." (Press release, Kobluchar's Senate.gov page, 12/28/16)
Maybe Klobuchar's not in serious contention to balance the ticket for this particular nominee, though. Minneapolis NAACP, Black Lives Matter call on Klobuchar to suspend campaign, TheHill, Jan. 29, 2020 / Klobuchar’s Rally Cancelled After BLM Protesters Storm The Stage Over Murder Case, TPM March 2, 2020 / Klobuchar drops out of 2020 campaign, endorses Biden, Politico March 2, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
If it helps anyone emotionally cope right now, the most important filter I've applied to my news consumption in the past few years is to skip reading anything (articles, comments, essays) whose primary subject is a hypothetical (i.e, "Voting for the Safe Choice Will Doom Us All" or "Why Candidate X is More Viable Against Trump than Candidate Y"). It's amazing to me how much this kind of stuff has supplanted reporting and writing based upon actual research, about things that are actually happening. It's easier and quicker to fill the endless content demands of 24-hour news cycles and the always-on, global internet, but WOW so much of this "news" content is just full-on speculation, and is very rarely worth the time or brain space.
More than any other in living memory, this election is and will continue to be very unpredictable, and it's hard enough to pay attention to (or even to know) what's actually real without filling my head with what-ifs and might-happens. I find that this habit has made my inner life much more manageable. FWIW.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [29 favorites]
More than any other in living memory, this election is and will continue to be very unpredictable, and it's hard enough to pay attention to (or even to know) what's actually real without filling my head with what-ifs and might-happens. I find that this habit has made my inner life much more manageable. FWIW.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [29 favorites]
"Surprise billing". This is a real thing and the amount of money (53 million dollars from a single medical company to defeat a single bill ... it is nuts ... so good on Joe for raising the issue)
Not to turn this into a general politics thread, but "surprise billing" is such a thing that Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio (D) has been pushing a STOP Surprise Medical Bills Act since late 2019 - and currently some PAC or other is putting out local ads thanking him for his efforts to combat this . . . even though he never even entered the Presidential race and his Senate term doesn't expire until 2024.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:46 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Not to turn this into a general politics thread, but "surprise billing" is such a thing that Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio (D) has been pushing a STOP Surprise Medical Bills Act since late 2019 - and currently some PAC or other is putting out local ads thanking him for his efforts to combat this . . . even though he never even entered the Presidential race and his Senate term doesn't expire until 2024.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:46 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
As an anarchist-leaning socialist, I'd prefer Nina Turner as VP, but I would also be pretty enthused to have Warren in the role. Her theory of change is different from Sanders' and I do worry about whether she'd still bring the democratic socialist movement to the table if the worst came to pass and she took the helm, but there is not a deep bench of socialist politicians right now and she is one of the further-left prominent Democratic politicians we have. A coalition between the firebreathing young left and the nerdy higher-ed gen-z wonk types could be very fruitful.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 1:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 1:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
In yet more evidence for why caucuses need to die, Super Tuesday states that had switched to primaries saw massive boosts in turnout.
There are no justifications for caucuses anymore. They need to go.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
There are no justifications for caucuses anymore. They need to go.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Also Warren is great in the Senate but I would pay one million dollars to have a Sanders-Warren ticket
Sanders/Warren ticket = $1,000,000
She really shouldn't be underestimated as a serious political strategist. Beyond the policy stuff, she's phenomenal at DC realpolitik.
Taking the Senate with Warren replacing McConnell as Senate Majority Leader = priceless.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Sanders/Warren ticket = $1,000,000
She really shouldn't be underestimated as a serious political strategist. Beyond the policy stuff, she's phenomenal at DC realpolitik.
Taking the Senate with Warren replacing McConnell as Senate Majority Leader = priceless.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted. This is very weird, everybody here agrees that climate change is a crisis, and the commenter above was talking about detaching from b.s. political-horserace headline-churn clickbait, not about climate change coverage. If you want there to keep being threads about US politics here, this weird "you must not care about x very important thing you monster" stuff has to stop.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:24 PM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:24 PM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
Sanders tells people to chill [SLNYT] when it comes to Warren dropout pressure:
I liked the quoted text's implications so much that I went to the link to see if there was any more detail, but I can't find the quoted text in there. internet fraud detective squad, station number 9, did you accidentally use the wrong link, or did the NYT change their story, or am I just missing something?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 1:35 PM on March 4, 2020
I liked the quoted text's implications so much that I went to the link to see if there was any more detail, but I can't find the quoted text in there. internet fraud detective squad, station number 9, did you accidentally use the wrong link, or did the NYT change their story, or am I just missing something?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 1:35 PM on March 4, 2020
As a Warren supporter, I'm extremely sad today about the state of our politics.
Nathan Robinson on Twitter last night should be exhibit A as to how to learn nothing from this. If you blame everyone around you, including your closest ally, no one will join you. Someone needs to send a memo down the campaign/surrogate grapevine, stat. It's at 100K+ likes.
Also:
posted by donttouchmymustache at 1:38 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Nathan Robinson on Twitter last night should be exhibit A as to how to learn nothing from this. If you blame everyone around you, including your closest ally, no one will join you. Someone needs to send a memo down the campaign/surrogate grapevine, stat. It's at 100K+ likes.
Also:
Whatever @ewarren decides in the days ahead, she will be dragged.But here we are.
If she backs Sanders, many power players will loathe her
If she backs Biden, Sanders' supporters will write off her life's work
If she does nothing, she'll be called selfish/fauxgressive
posted by donttouchmymustache at 1:38 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
One Second Before Awakening, it's under the headline "Sanders says he is ‘disappointed’ with Super Tuesday results" which as I write this is the fifth item from the top on the NYT liveblog. At least on mobile, you have to click "Read More" to get to the quoted text.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I don’t understand what’s wrong the the Robinson tweet. All of that has empirical support for it, or is the most likely explanation. klobuchar and buttigieg didn’t drop out by chance, it’s almost certain they were pressured too (that’s how politics works). Tons of money flowed into Warren’s campaign through a superpac, which she , up to that point, did not accept money from superpacs!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
The media and pundits will do what they do for ad revenue, and there's little to be gained by worrying about them or how they respond.
For Warren supporters, I think it's important to note that she won't be able to do as much and be as effective as we'd like her to be, post-election, if we don't help whichever nominee remove Trump from office.
A vote for Trump's opponent in the general election continues, in a small but crucial way, to lend her our continued support for our shared values, even after this campaign is long over.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:46 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
For Warren supporters, I think it's important to note that she won't be able to do as much and be as effective as we'd like her to be, post-election, if we don't help whichever nominee remove Trump from office.
A vote for Trump's opponent in the general election continues, in a small but crucial way, to lend her our continued support for our shared values, even after this campaign is long over.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:46 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Here's the thing. With everyone else dropping out, the likelihood of a contested convention is dropping to near zero. There are only 61 pledged delegates to candidates other than Sanders and Biden. That means that if either remaining candidate can get just 31 more of the remaining delegates than the other, they win outright in the first round. 31 delegates is less than 1% of the nearly 4000. I doubt it's going to be that close.
What this means is that in the remaining primaries, every vote counts. Since delegates are awarded proportionately in each primary, whoever turns out the most supporters in the remaining primaries is the winner. That's probably as good a measure as any who makes the best candidate to beat Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 1:52 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
What this means is that in the remaining primaries, every vote counts. Since delegates are awarded proportionately in each primary, whoever turns out the most supporters in the remaining primaries is the winner. That's probably as good a measure as any who makes the best candidate to beat Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 1:52 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
DevilsAdvocate, thanks for helping me find that!
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:00 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:00 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Tons of money flowed into Warren’s campaign through a superpac, which she , up to that point, did not accept money from superpacs!
As has already been pointed out in this thread, it is literally illegal for a candidate to take money from a SuperPAC, or even coordinate strategy with them. Warren asked that there not be a SuperPAC gathering money to help her campaign, but she has no control over whether anyone respects that. There is no such thing as "accepting money from a SuperPAC", and unless you have some extraordinary evidence of the Warren campaign breaking federal election law, maybe you should stop talking about things you quite clearly do not know anything about?
posted by tocts at 2:02 PM on March 4, 2020 [19 favorites]
As has already been pointed out in this thread, it is literally illegal for a candidate to take money from a SuperPAC, or even coordinate strategy with them. Warren asked that there not be a SuperPAC gathering money to help her campaign, but she has no control over whether anyone respects that. There is no such thing as "accepting money from a SuperPAC", and unless you have some extraordinary evidence of the Warren campaign breaking federal election law, maybe you should stop talking about things you quite clearly do not know anything about?
posted by tocts at 2:02 PM on March 4, 2020 [19 favorites]
Despite the differences in labels, Sanders and Warren support the same policy goals. Both of them want regulated capital markets, strong social programs and strong labor unions. Both of them want paid parental leave and subsidized daycare and preschool, policies that have led to greater gender equality and a reduction in the gender pay gap in countries that have implemented them. They're both basically social democrats.
posted by nangar at 2:12 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by nangar at 2:12 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Whatever @ewarren decides in the days ahead, she will be dragged.
If she backs Sanders, many power players will loathe her
If she backs Biden, Sanders' supporters will write off her life's work
If she does nothing, she'll be called selfish/fauxgressive
guess she'll just have to do the right thing then ...
posted by philip-random at 2:13 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
If she backs Sanders, many power players will loathe her
If she backs Biden, Sanders' supporters will write off her life's work
If she does nothing, she'll be called selfish/fauxgressive
guess she'll just have to do the right thing then ...
posted by philip-random at 2:13 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
it is literally illegal for a candidate to take money from a SuperPAC, or even coordinate strategy with them.
Not specific to Warren, as I have no idea if she's coordinating behind the scenes or whatnot, but the assertion that it's illegal is like saying someone wouldn't jaywalk because jaywalking is illegal. Instructive media on the topic.
There is no such thing as "accepting money from a SuperPAC", and unless you have some extraordinary evidence of the Warren campaign breaking federal election law, maybe you should stop talking about things you quite clearly do not know anything about?
And mainly because you're coming across particularly pedantic and jerkish, if your campaign website says you would "disavow any Super PAC formed to support [you] in the Democratic primary", and, after a Super PAC forms to support you, you do not disavow said Super PAC, you are tacitly accepting money from said Super PAC. Bullshit campaign finance laws and enforcement be damned.
I say all this as an enthusiastic Warren supporter who would've rather a Warren Pres / Bernie VP ticket than any other viable alternative presented.
posted by avalonian at 2:14 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Not specific to Warren, as I have no idea if she's coordinating behind the scenes or whatnot, but the assertion that it's illegal is like saying someone wouldn't jaywalk because jaywalking is illegal. Instructive media on the topic.
There is no such thing as "accepting money from a SuperPAC", and unless you have some extraordinary evidence of the Warren campaign breaking federal election law, maybe you should stop talking about things you quite clearly do not know anything about?
And mainly because you're coming across particularly pedantic and jerkish, if your campaign website says you would "disavow any Super PAC formed to support [you] in the Democratic primary", and, after a Super PAC forms to support you, you do not disavow said Super PAC, you are tacitly accepting money from said Super PAC. Bullshit campaign finance laws and enforcement be damned.
I say all this as an enthusiastic Warren supporter who would've rather a Warren Pres / Bernie VP ticket than any other viable alternative presented.
posted by avalonian at 2:14 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Nathan Robinson on Twitter last night should be exhibit A as to how to learn nothing from this.
The way people in this thread see this differently reminds me of the divergence in the conspiracy thread. To me, this series of tweets is a classic example of “spin a set of decisions into a unified conspiracy.” Look at the text of the first tweet: “Bernie was on track to win, Biden had no campaign, and they all knew it. So a few phone calls were made behind the scenes to Amy, Pete, Beto. Several million was put into a pro-Warren Super PAC. Voila!”
This set of decisions by individuals is presented as a unified plan, set in motion by “they.” Who is they? Tom Perez? A powerful elected Democrat? A wealthy Democratic donor or set of donors? That part is not mentioned. If it is multiple people, how did they come to agreement? In what way were “they” able to corral four powerful, independent, and at times dissenting-with-each-other adults to obey these orders?
There is no discussion of the fact that these people—Amy, Beto, Pete, Liz—all want continuing power as public figures and likely in the next administration (and for the younger ones, the administrations after that). That rests on public approval and even more so, on betting on a person in their party who is both likely to have the best shot at future power *and* would be likely to see them as having a place in any administration. Moreover, you might even consider that at least two of these four have legitimate personal beliefs in line with the moderate political stances they took in their campaigns, which might also push them towards a more moderate figure.
Instead, these people are presented as puppets. The theory is not even that the four got together themselves and hashed out how to coordinate this. No...phone calls “were placed to” them, money “was put into” an account. By the shadowy they...
posted by sallybrown at 2:16 PM on March 4, 2020 [26 favorites]
The way people in this thread see this differently reminds me of the divergence in the conspiracy thread. To me, this series of tweets is a classic example of “spin a set of decisions into a unified conspiracy.” Look at the text of the first tweet: “Bernie was on track to win, Biden had no campaign, and they all knew it. So a few phone calls were made behind the scenes to Amy, Pete, Beto. Several million was put into a pro-Warren Super PAC. Voila!”
This set of decisions by individuals is presented as a unified plan, set in motion by “they.” Who is they? Tom Perez? A powerful elected Democrat? A wealthy Democratic donor or set of donors? That part is not mentioned. If it is multiple people, how did they come to agreement? In what way were “they” able to corral four powerful, independent, and at times dissenting-with-each-other adults to obey these orders?
There is no discussion of the fact that these people—Amy, Beto, Pete, Liz—all want continuing power as public figures and likely in the next administration (and for the younger ones, the administrations after that). That rests on public approval and even more so, on betting on a person in their party who is both likely to have the best shot at future power *and* would be likely to see them as having a place in any administration. Moreover, you might even consider that at least two of these four have legitimate personal beliefs in line with the moderate political stances they took in their campaigns, which might also push them towards a more moderate figure.
Instead, these people are presented as puppets. The theory is not even that the four got together themselves and hashed out how to coordinate this. No...phone calls “were placed to” them, money “was put into” an account. By the shadowy they...
posted by sallybrown at 2:16 PM on March 4, 2020 [26 favorites]
As the delegate counts in California come in, national delegate totals for candidates are currently Biden 566, Sanders 501
posted by Harry Caul at 2:22 PM on March 4, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 2:22 PM on March 4, 2020
This Twitter thread by Zaid Jilani has only 1% of the likes that conspiracy thread got but immensely more common sense: Nothing's rigged against Bernie Sanders this time! Joe Biden lobbied colleagues to get endorsements and built relationships to turn out voters. That's just politics!
posted by sallybrown at 2:25 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 2:25 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Not specific to Warren, as I have no idea if she's coordinating behind the scenes or whatnot, but the assertion that it's illegal is like saying someone wouldn't jaywalk because jaywalking is illegal.
This isn't semantics. Accepting money from a superPAC is a violation of the law. Campaigns must report all donors each quarter. Any donations from a superPAC would be listed there unless you are accusing a campaign of fraud. There are no donations from the superPAC.
This isn't cutsy wink wink nod nod. This is clear campaign law.
If you want to say a superPAC is supporting a candidate, say so. Anyone can support a candidate. But don't say "tons of money flowing into her campaign" because that is flat illegal and a flat out lie. Not one dollar has flowed from the superPAC to the Warren campaign.
posted by JackFlash at 2:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
This isn't semantics. Accepting money from a superPAC is a violation of the law. Campaigns must report all donors each quarter. Any donations from a superPAC would be listed there unless you are accusing a campaign of fraud. There are no donations from the superPAC.
This isn't cutsy wink wink nod nod. This is clear campaign law.
If you want to say a superPAC is supporting a candidate, say so. Anyone can support a candidate. But don't say "tons of money flowing into her campaign" because that is flat illegal and a flat out lie. Not one dollar has flowed from the superPAC to the Warren campaign.
posted by JackFlash at 2:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
That's just politics!
Not that I necessarily agree that's what happened in this case, but I think that's exactly the point the Robinson tweet was making. That establishment players will act to protect their interests from someone who threatens the status quo. It doesn't require a conspiracy - just power acting in its own interests.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 2:33 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Not that I necessarily agree that's what happened in this case, but I think that's exactly the point the Robinson tweet was making. That establishment players will act to protect their interests from someone who threatens the status quo. It doesn't require a conspiracy - just power acting in its own interests.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 2:33 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
The Robinson tweet portrayed them as acting at the behest of some other entity asking/telling them to drop out, not that they were acting from their own motivation. That’s exactly why it’s a conspiracy allegation. There’s nothing conspiratorial about saying they were being selfish politicians looking out for their own careers.
posted by sallybrown at 2:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 2:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Biden Comeback Drives $48 Billion Gain for Health Insurers
Somebody should tell these investors that it makes no difference because Bernie has no chance of getting anything done anyway
posted by moorooka at 2:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Somebody should tell these investors that it makes no difference because Bernie has no chance of getting anything done anyway
posted by moorooka at 2:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Lawyers, Guns, and Money, The Morning After:
Scott Lemieux expands on a strategic point in a follow-up: 30%. He reminds us of this article from a year ago laying out the Sanders campaign plan:
posted by zachlipton at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Scott Lemieux expands on a strategic point in a follow-up: 30%. He reminds us of this article from a year ago laying out the Sanders campaign plan:
The senator from Vermont’s pitch is a mix of idealism and a shouting anger about the system, but at its heart is a hard-nosed math: He’s the only candidate with a sizable chunk of the electorate that won’t waver, no matter what, so a field that keeps growing and splitting support keeps making things easier.Building a broad powerful inclusive movement by strategizing around getting 30% of the vote just doesn't hold up. "The primary field will narrow" wasn't some unforeseeable event; "candidates will drop out and endorse each other" is politics, not a heretofore unseen dirty trick. The best strategy to win the Democratic primary has always been to persuade a lot, ideally even at least a majority, of members of the Democratic Party to vote for you. I know "Democrats in disarray" is the party motto, but betting on sneaking through while everyone else is caught in chaos just hasn't been enough of a campaign strategy compared to expanding the ranks of supporters.
He’s counting on winning Iowa and New Hampshire, where he was already surprisingly strong in 2016, and hoping that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris will split the black electorate in South Carolina and give him a path to slip through there, too. And then, Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention. They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen.
posted by zachlipton at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Perhaps I'm being too charitable to him but the way I read the tweet was that rather than them acting at the behest of another entity they were offered incentives (i.e. positions in potential Biden admin / Dem party etc.) to drop out now rather than later / endorse Biden*. (Maybe some stick as well as carrot though).
*Welp, I mean this is still a conspiracy I guess so, ah
posted by Beware of the leopard at 2:49 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
*Welp, I mean this is still a conspiracy I guess so, ah
posted by Beware of the leopard at 2:49 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One deleted- first don’t use rape analogies at all; second don’t construct your comment so you’re tacitly accusing someone else in the conversation of doing something like excusing rape.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:50 PM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:50 PM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
If both Sanders and Warren stay in, is it remotely possible they keep Biden from getting a majority? And if so, is it possible that Sanders could send his delegates to Warren and support her, as he did Clinton in 2016? He would not have nearly as much of a challenge getting policy concessions from her as he did Clinton, if that were even necessary. He’d likely get a seat at the table, not as VP or necessarily even in the administration, but as a genuine ally in the Senate.
On her own Warren can be incredibly effective, in the spotlight and especially away from it. However, I think Sanders is clearly a better politician than Warren and has a better team guiding him, which I think is why he’s done better overall. Remember that she was briefly surging, with help from corporate media and party insiders, before Sanders’ heart attack. I think he’d do even better campaigning for her with Trump as the target than with the Democratic Establishment in his crosshairs. But I think his insurgent populist approach is too polarizing to bring the party together and overtake Biden. A previous FPP acquainted me with the work of Dr. Rachel Bitecofer, who posits negative partisanship, the desire to beat the opposition, as the Democrat’s main strength this cycle. I dream of a realignment, a Warren-Castro ticket, with Sanders as attack dog calling Trump to the mat.
posted by callistus at 2:52 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
On her own Warren can be incredibly effective, in the spotlight and especially away from it. However, I think Sanders is clearly a better politician than Warren and has a better team guiding him, which I think is why he’s done better overall. Remember that she was briefly surging, with help from corporate media and party insiders, before Sanders’ heart attack. I think he’d do even better campaigning for her with Trump as the target than with the Democratic Establishment in his crosshairs. But I think his insurgent populist approach is too polarizing to bring the party together and overtake Biden. A previous FPP acquainted me with the work of Dr. Rachel Bitecofer, who posits negative partisanship, the desire to beat the opposition, as the Democrat’s main strength this cycle. I dream of a realignment, a Warren-Castro ticket, with Sanders as attack dog calling Trump to the mat.
posted by callistus at 2:52 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
zachlipton thanks for the insight! that helps to contextualize a lot about the last few weeks.
posted by Harry Caul at 2:53 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Harry Caul at 2:53 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's 100% semantics because that's what you call parsing legal definitions and economic realities. The campaign finance laws - along with their current perversions - are not some blessed tablets brought down from on high, and they don't reflect economic reality. SuperPACs were incepted specifically to be cutesy wink wink nod nod entities. By your assertions, nothing is real until a judge or jury makes a verdict. I don't subscribe to this "legal reality is reality" way of viewing the world. To say SuperPACs are not part of the campaigns they support is doublespeak, as is any defining of reality by U.S. legal definitions.
posted by avalonian at 2:53 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by avalonian at 2:53 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Perhaps I'm being too charitable
You are being too charitable. The immediate follow-up by Robinson is:
This is not remotely subtle. This is straight up conspiracy theorizing. Nobody involved is acting in their own best interests because they're politicians who either are starting a career or want to continue a career, nor because they have a platform they care about and want involved in the ultimate official party platform. Everyone is just doing what "they" say, because "they" want to hurt Bernie.
posted by tocts at 2:57 PM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
You are being too charitable. The immediate follow-up by Robinson is:
Now they'll release a cascade of endorsements, cut deals with Bloomberg and Warren, have everyone turn their fire on Bernie relentlessly including the media orgs, and try to keep Joe Biden from speaking long enough for people to realize some of his marbles are missing.Who is "they"? Unstated -- assumed shadowy figures in smoke-filled rooms, the ones in the prior tweet that were said to have made calls to Amy, Pete, Beto, and just like, told them what to do (which of course they complied with). Also an assured statement that media is in on it and is actively fixing things against Bernie. Also an assured statement that Biden is for sure mentally compromised and the media and/or "they" are covering it up.
This is not remotely subtle. This is straight up conspiracy theorizing. Nobody involved is acting in their own best interests because they're politicians who either are starting a career or want to continue a career, nor because they have a platform they care about and want involved in the ultimate official party platform. Everyone is just doing what "they" say, because "they" want to hurt Bernie.
posted by tocts at 2:57 PM on March 4, 2020 [16 favorites]
OK but if you’re accusing people of committing crimes, the law matters.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:58 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:58 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
If he were controlling them, it seems like they'd be more chill right now.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
An interesting take on black voters on CNN.
I don't endorse or "not endorse" but I think a lot of my bubbles do not include black Southern voices and they are a backbone of the party, so.
posted by nakedmolerats at 3:02 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
I don't endorse or "not endorse" but I think a lot of my bubbles do not include black Southern voices and they are a backbone of the party, so.
posted by nakedmolerats at 3:02 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Here's the thing. With everyone else dropping out, the likelihood of a contested convention is dropping to near zero. There are only 61 pledged delegates to candidates other than Sanders and Biden. That means that if either remaining candidate can get just 31 more of the remaining delegates than the other, they win outright in the first round. 31 delegates is less than 1% of the nearly 4000.
Reuters:
I have not seen what happens with the unpledged delegates re: voting in the first round, so I can't speak to that.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 3:04 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Reuters:
For the first round, the candidate needs a majority of all delegates:Business Insider:
To win on the first ballot, the front-runner must secure the majority of the party’s 3,768 pledged delegates available during the nominating contests leading up to the Democratic convention.
If the front-runner has fewer than 1,885 delegates, the convention will hold a second vote. On subsequent ballots, all delegates become unpledged and superdelegates can also vote.
At the Democratic convention, a candidate will actually be nominated when a simple majority of 1,991 out of 3,979 total pledged delegates support a given candidate.And, if I am reading this correctly from Vox, because of the 15% minimum, not all of the delegates are pledged for the first vote:
Second, it’s not quite so simple as “30 percent of the vote gets you 30 percent of delegates.” Instead, it’s your percentage of the viable candidates’ vote that matters. Basically, votes for any candidate who’s below 15 percent are excluded, and your percentage of whatever’s left determines your share of delegates.(Vox also backs up the claim that you need a simple majority of all delegates in first round voting. The whole article is really rather interesting.)
So let’s say you get 30 percent of the vote, but there are three other viable candidates, getting 25 percent, 20 percent, and 15 percent of the vote. The viable vote adds up to 90 percent, and your 30 percent is one-third of that — so you get one-third of the delegates.
I have not seen what happens with the unpledged delegates re: voting in the first round, so I can't speak to that.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 3:04 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
In terms of Super Tuesday takeaways I think the biggest one I would like to see is explanations for why black voters went overwhelmingly for Biden.
Because many Black Democrats would actually be Republicans if the Republican party were less racist. They're more comfortable voting for someone they perceive to be a centrist.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Because many Black Democrats would actually be Republicans if the Republican party were less racist. They're more comfortable voting for someone they perceive to be a centrist.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
Second, it’s not quite so simple as “30 percent of the vote gets you 30 percent of delegates.” Instead, it’s your percentage of the viable candidates’ vote that matters.
Yes, but if we assume there are only two viable candidates left, then Sanders and Biden split all the delegates proportionately here on out.
So if Biden get 55% of the vote and Sanders gets 45% of the vote, then they split the delegates 55/45.
Right now Biden is ahead in the delegate count by a 50-some delegate margin. If Biden and Sanders split the rest of the primaries 50/50, then Biden wins. What that means is that Sanders can't just match Biden. From here on out he has to beat Biden. And as each primarily goes by, that gets harder to do. Just like in 2016, first he needs 51% to win. Then the next primary he need 55%, then next he needs 60%, then he needs 65%. The math just gets harder unless Sanders can get a couple of knockout wins.
(California delegates are only partially counted so far so the margin will probably be closer.)
posted by JackFlash at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2020
Yes, but if we assume there are only two viable candidates left, then Sanders and Biden split all the delegates proportionately here on out.
So if Biden get 55% of the vote and Sanders gets 45% of the vote, then they split the delegates 55/45.
Right now Biden is ahead in the delegate count by a 50-some delegate margin. If Biden and Sanders split the rest of the primaries 50/50, then Biden wins. What that means is that Sanders can't just match Biden. From here on out he has to beat Biden. And as each primarily goes by, that gets harder to do. Just like in 2016, first he needs 51% to win. Then the next primary he need 55%, then next he needs 60%, then he needs 65%. The math just gets harder unless Sanders can get a couple of knockout wins.
(California delegates are only partially counted so far so the margin will probably be closer.)
posted by JackFlash at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2020
Interpreting this:
Now they'll release a cascade of endorsements, cut deals with Bloomberg and Warren, have everyone turn their fire on Bernie relentlessly including the media orgs, and try to keep Joe Biden from speaking long enough for people to realize some of his marbles are missing.
Through the lens of
loosely coordinated class warfare isn't real when it 100% is
Then I read "they" as lazy shorthand for various different groups of people acting with their class interests at heart. The fundamental disconnect seems to occur when one person's conspiracy theory is another's "just the way the world works".
posted by Beware of the leopard at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Now they'll release a cascade of endorsements, cut deals with Bloomberg and Warren, have everyone turn their fire on Bernie relentlessly including the media orgs, and try to keep Joe Biden from speaking long enough for people to realize some of his marbles are missing.
Through the lens of
loosely coordinated class warfare isn't real when it 100% is
Then I read "they" as lazy shorthand for various different groups of people acting with their class interests at heart. The fundamental disconnect seems to occur when one person's conspiracy theory is another's "just the way the world works".
posted by Beware of the leopard at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Joe Biden sees an 'earned media tsunami' after a night of endorsements (CNN article by Brian Stelter)
The big wave of Biden endorsements sent a signal "that he is the guy to get behind," that he's the guy for the center-left to consolidate behind, David Axelrod said on CNN. And that was important because "his next big mission... is to get the guy with $60 billion to consolidate behind him."
Axelrod was talking about Bloomberg. The former New York City mayor is clearly winning in terms of "paid media," i.e. the TV and radio and digital ad campaign that is impossible to miss.
But the Biden campaign believes it is winning with "earned media," i.e. news coverage. "It's been an earned media tsunami into Super Tuesday," a Biden campaign aide said Monday night. "All you're seeing is Joe Biden." And that's been by design.
"Earned media" is also known as "free media" in the political lexicon. "This 72-hour stretch has got to be the Free Media Bonanza to end all Free Media Bonanzas," Politico's Tim Alberta tweeted Monday night. "Could not have played out any better for them," Ryan Lizza added.
5 Takeaways From a Super Tuesday That Changed the Democratic Race (NYT article by Lazaro Gamio and Shane Goldmacher)
Political operatives marveled at the thoroughness and speed of his consolidation of support. Kevin Cate, a former adviser to Mr. Steyer, noted that the cumulative value of Mr. Biden’s final three days of almost pure positive media coverage amounted to a staggering $72 million, according to Critical Mention, a monitoring company
Kevin Cate tweet
Between South Carolina polls closing Saturday & 7 PM ET on Super Tuesday, @JoeBiden
earned $71,992,629 worth of almost entirely positive national media.
Add local media in those markets and it easily tops $100 million worth of earned media in 72 hours.
Bloomberg spent 500 million over 2 months and got close to double digits in most states. The earned media in 72 hours is a hard thing to organize against. Sanders got a bump from his wins too, so it isn't like 100 million to zero, but the main narrative was how to stop Sanders as opposed to Biden is winning and everyone loves Joe.
posted by phoque at 3:28 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
The big wave of Biden endorsements sent a signal "that he is the guy to get behind," that he's the guy for the center-left to consolidate behind, David Axelrod said on CNN. And that was important because "his next big mission... is to get the guy with $60 billion to consolidate behind him."
Axelrod was talking about Bloomberg. The former New York City mayor is clearly winning in terms of "paid media," i.e. the TV and radio and digital ad campaign that is impossible to miss.
But the Biden campaign believes it is winning with "earned media," i.e. news coverage. "It's been an earned media tsunami into Super Tuesday," a Biden campaign aide said Monday night. "All you're seeing is Joe Biden." And that's been by design.
"Earned media" is also known as "free media" in the political lexicon. "This 72-hour stretch has got to be the Free Media Bonanza to end all Free Media Bonanzas," Politico's Tim Alberta tweeted Monday night. "Could not have played out any better for them," Ryan Lizza added.
5 Takeaways From a Super Tuesday That Changed the Democratic Race (NYT article by Lazaro Gamio and Shane Goldmacher)
Political operatives marveled at the thoroughness and speed of his consolidation of support. Kevin Cate, a former adviser to Mr. Steyer, noted that the cumulative value of Mr. Biden’s final three days of almost pure positive media coverage amounted to a staggering $72 million, according to Critical Mention, a monitoring company
Kevin Cate tweet
Between South Carolina polls closing Saturday & 7 PM ET on Super Tuesday, @JoeBiden
earned $71,992,629 worth of almost entirely positive national media.
Add local media in those markets and it easily tops $100 million worth of earned media in 72 hours.
Bloomberg spent 500 million over 2 months and got close to double digits in most states. The earned media in 72 hours is a hard thing to organize against. Sanders got a bump from his wins too, so it isn't like 100 million to zero, but the main narrative was how to stop Sanders as opposed to Biden is winning and everyone loves Joe.
posted by phoque at 3:28 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'm really uncomfortable with people here I know to be not black posting theories or opinions on why the black community votes the way it does. Maybe stick to sharing articles from actual black people for insight.
Also they're not a monolith.
posted by Think_Long at 3:32 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Also they're not a monolith.
posted by Think_Long at 3:32 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
(to clarify, the CNN post I linked earlier is a black Southern journalist)
posted by nakedmolerats at 3:36 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 3:36 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
In terms of Super Tuesday takeaways I think the biggest one I would like to see is explanations for why black voters went overwhelmingly for Biden.
I would recommend that you read this diary on Daily Kos.
posted by azpenguin at 3:40 PM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
I would recommend that you read this diary on Daily Kos.
posted by azpenguin at 3:40 PM on March 4, 2020 [22 favorites]
I would recommend that you read this diary on Daily Kos.
That was good.
posted by JackFlash at 4:06 PM on March 4, 2020
That was good.
posted by JackFlash at 4:06 PM on March 4, 2020
I would recommend that you read this diary on Daily Kos.
That was a good read, and one point that stands out was this quote from The Root editor Dr. Jason Johnson, from this piece by Elie Mystal:
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:10 PM on March 4, 2020 [23 favorites]
That was a good read, and one point that stands out was this quote from The Root editor Dr. Jason Johnson, from this piece by Elie Mystal:
Voting for Bernie Sanders requires that black people believe that white people will do something they’ve never done: willingly and openly share the economic bounty of the United States.This statement I think captures the heart of issue that Sanders has had with regards to the Black polity - he's struggled to answer "okay, but what if white people would rather die under white supremacy than let minorities benefit?" And ffor a lot of Black people, that's a question of vital importance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:10 PM on March 4, 2020 [23 favorites]
METAFILTER: when one person's conspiracy theory is another's "just the way the world works".
posted by philip-random at 4:16 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 4:16 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
JackFlash:
Like you said Cali is still being counted and Texas has some counting left to do, as well. (Texas jumped to 99% reporting in the 10 minutes it took me to do some calculations so my math is now off. I'll double check it in a bit.)
So, between all the non pledged and not yet assigned delegates, I came up with almost 300. An order of magnitude of difference between assigned delegates for Biden/Bernie. I didn't even look at the primaries/caucuses prior to yesterday in doing this math.
Are candidates allowed to still release their pledged delegates for the first vote? If so, that's most likely 86-61 in Biden's favor.
If we make it to a second vote at the Dem convention, I am guessing a "landslide" for Biden.
tl;dr - Dem nomination process is a big fat mess and needs to be (again) overhauled.
credentials: avid Warren supporter sad she didn't get more votes. Vastly prefers Sanders over Biden. Will still vote Biden if he is the nom, and then just call, e-mail, fax when he (inevitably) keeps moving right instead of left.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 4:16 PM on March 4, 2020
Second, it’s not quite so simple as “30 percent of the vote gets you 30 percent of delegates.” Instead, it’s your percentage of the viable candidates’ vote that matters.I get your point. I still disagree the math is that simple. As of this writing, there are ~40 "lost" or delegates not pledged from Super Tuesday alone.
Yes, but if we assume there are only two viable candidates left, then Sanders and Biden split all the delegates proportionately here on out.
So if Biden get 55% of the vote and Sanders gets 45% of the vote, then they split the delegates 55/45.
Right now Biden is ahead in the delegate count by a 50-some delegate margin. If Biden and Sanders split the rest of the primaries 50/50, then Biden wins. What that means is that Sanders can't just match Biden. From here on out he has to beat Biden. And as each primarily goes by, that gets harder to do. Just like in 2016, first he needs 51% to win. Then the next primary he need 55%, then next he needs 60%, then he needs 65%. The math just gets harder unless Sanders can get a couple of knockout wins.
Like you said Cali is still being counted and Texas has some counting left to do, as well. (Texas jumped to 99% reporting in the 10 minutes it took me to do some calculations so my math is now off. I'll double check it in a bit.)
So, between all the non pledged and not yet assigned delegates, I came up with almost 300. An order of magnitude of difference between assigned delegates for Biden/Bernie. I didn't even look at the primaries/caucuses prior to yesterday in doing this math.
Are candidates allowed to still release their pledged delegates for the first vote? If so, that's most likely 86-61 in Biden's favor.
If we make it to a second vote at the Dem convention, I am guessing a "landslide" for Biden.
tl;dr - Dem nomination process is a big fat mess and needs to be (again) overhauled.
credentials: avid Warren supporter sad she didn't get more votes. Vastly prefers Sanders over Biden. Will still vote Biden if he is the nom, and then just call, e-mail, fax when he (inevitably) keeps moving right instead of left.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 4:16 PM on March 4, 2020
saying that loosely coordinated class warfare isn't real when it 100% is
If your platform is that you can reverse the recent history of that class war, you kinda need to take into account that the class war isn't going to take a break for the primary.
posted by PMdixon at 4:39 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
If your platform is that you can reverse the recent history of that class war, you kinda need to take into account that the class war isn't going to take a break for the primary.
posted by PMdixon at 4:39 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
This probably won't end up mattering, but in Washington we had an explicit option to vote for "unpledged delegates". How does that work? Does "unpledged" need to get above the 15% threshold to be considered viable (which I doubt, but who knows)? Who was pushing for that option, and why? Not implying a conspiracy here, I just have no idea why it's there or why someone thought it was a good idea.
posted by heathkit at 4:49 PM on March 4, 2020
posted by heathkit at 4:49 PM on March 4, 2020
How Bloomberg’s blanketing YouTube with ads has children all over the country talking about Mike (I feel bad for how hard I’m laughing at this article because it’s so creepy...but my god...)
posted by sallybrown at 5:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Once again I see no change in the dynamic of the last several cycles.
In my almost 38 years of voting nearly every election there is a candidate who is going to energize and harness the youth vote. And it always turns out young people don’t turn out to vote.
That’s what’s happening to Sanders. And it’s what everyone said was going to happen to Sanders.
But all I read on social media is conspiracy theories about Sanders Getting screwed by some nefarious plot or another. Which rhymes with the dynamic last time.
All I want is Trump gone.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:03 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
In my almost 38 years of voting nearly every election there is a candidate who is going to energize and harness the youth vote. And it always turns out young people don’t turn out to vote.
That’s what’s happening to Sanders. And it’s what everyone said was going to happen to Sanders.
But all I read on social media is conspiracy theories about Sanders Getting screwed by some nefarious plot or another. Which rhymes with the dynamic last time.
All I want is Trump gone.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:03 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Black Women Went to the Voting Booth With Pragmatism on Super Tuesday
But in more than a dozen interviews with black women in downtown Oakland who are casting their ballots at or around drop boxes near the Alameda County Courthouse, most of them told The Root they preferred voting for Warren but ended up picking a male candidate. The women ranged from ages 18- to 62-years-old, all of whom provided very nuanced explanations for their votes for Biden and Sanders.posted by clawsoon at 5:05 PM on March 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
There Is No Such Thing as the 'Black Vote'
As a volunteer with Obama’s S.C. campaign, I watched as pundits and political reporters parsed the white vote into infinitesimal slices. The frustrated “soccer moms” voted for Hillary but would later become “Mama Grizzlies” in the general election. The “angry, working-class men” went for Edwards before they became “NASCAR Dads.”posted by clawsoon at 5:11 PM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
And the people who voted for Obama?
The frustrated black factory workers; the college-educated black youth; the men who barely missed mass incarceration; the economically anxious black middle-class… They were simply discounted as the “black vote.”
Black people are a monolith…
To white people.
How Bloomberg’s blanketing YouTube with ads has children all over the country talking about Mike (I feel bad for how hard I’m laughing at this article because it’s so creepy...but my god...)
That's our experience as well. Our kid tagged along on multiple Warren door knocking trips so was inoculated against the Bloomberg onslaught, but when he polled his classmates who they would vote for, they were almost unanimously Bloomberg who had 100% name ID thanks to YouTube and radio ads.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
That's our experience as well. Our kid tagged along on multiple Warren door knocking trips so was inoculated against the Bloomberg onslaught, but when he polled his classmates who they would vote for, they were almost unanimously Bloomberg who had 100% name ID thanks to YouTube and radio ads.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:22 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
One thing that I thought was odd about the South Carolina exit polls I looked at was that white voters were broken down into a lot more categories than black voters were, even though the number of black voters was much larger. From the "There Is No Such Thing..." link, it sounds like that's a problem in pretty much every election.
And, also from that article, this is something I didn't know:
And, also from that article, this is something I didn't know:
One of the surprising but underreported facts in politics is that black voters in the South have a higher registration rate and turnout rate than white voters. They register and vote more often than black or white people anywhere else in the country.posted by clawsoon at 5:23 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
All I want is a return to the conditions immediately preceding Trump
posted by moorooka at 5:24 PM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 5:24 PM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
All I want is a return to the conditions immediately preceding Trump
The conditions immediately preceding Trump produced Trump... are you going to wish a Groundhog Day effect on us? Noooooooo!
posted by clawsoon at 5:26 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
The conditions immediately preceding Trump produced Trump... are you going to wish a Groundhog Day effect on us? Noooooooo!
posted by clawsoon at 5:26 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
By this point in his term George W Bush has already started a war under false pretenses, enacted economically damaging tax cuts, and started to gut the EPA. He also continued financial deregulation and economic policies that led to the 2008 crash.
Under Obama the Republicans held up judicial nominations, basically stole a Supreme Court seat, and nearly caused a constitutional crisis over the debt ceiling. As their reward, they got control of all three branches of government and strengthened their control over the judiciary.
Had Clinton won in 2016, I’m convinced we’d be talking about some sort of constitutional crisis between the executive and legislative branches by now. Our government simply can’t operate “for the general welfare” when one party operates as a European style parliamentary party (the Republicans) and corporate interests dominate both parties. We could skate by in the 90’s on loose interest rates from the fed and a slew of checks that are now coming due such as the disproportionate costs and benefits of trade policies on classes and regions. That is just one example.
Getting Trump out gives us what, a two year respite until the inevitable Republican midterm sweep brings god knows what to Washington?
I wish I knew how to fix things. I really do. I would definitely sleep better at night. I’m to the point where I wish I could turn off politics entirely.
I’ll give the right one thing though: they know how to keep their eyes on the prize. It might seem comical that a party of Christian conservatives and businessmen support a conman of questionable morals with such fervor, but the logic is quite clear: he gives them exactly what they want. Well organized minorities have dominated larger but divided populations with less.
posted by eagles123 at 5:27 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Under Obama the Republicans held up judicial nominations, basically stole a Supreme Court seat, and nearly caused a constitutional crisis over the debt ceiling. As their reward, they got control of all three branches of government and strengthened their control over the judiciary.
Had Clinton won in 2016, I’m convinced we’d be talking about some sort of constitutional crisis between the executive and legislative branches by now. Our government simply can’t operate “for the general welfare” when one party operates as a European style parliamentary party (the Republicans) and corporate interests dominate both parties. We could skate by in the 90’s on loose interest rates from the fed and a slew of checks that are now coming due such as the disproportionate costs and benefits of trade policies on classes and regions. That is just one example.
Getting Trump out gives us what, a two year respite until the inevitable Republican midterm sweep brings god knows what to Washington?
I wish I knew how to fix things. I really do. I would definitely sleep better at night. I’m to the point where I wish I could turn off politics entirely.
I’ll give the right one thing though: they know how to keep their eyes on the prize. It might seem comical that a party of Christian conservatives and businessmen support a conman of questionable morals with such fervor, but the logic is quite clear: he gives them exactly what they want. Well organized minorities have dominated larger but divided populations with less.
posted by eagles123 at 5:27 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
All I want is a return to the conditions immediately preceding Trump
Well, there’s no uncracking an egg.
But in any case, the conditions immediately before Trump sucked!
When people say this it makes me think that the only thing that matters to a whole swath of people is tone, because the ravaging inequality and devastating conditions of the poor and working class don’t affect them.
posted by dis_integration at 5:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
Well, there’s no uncracking an egg.
But in any case, the conditions immediately before Trump sucked!
When people say this it makes me think that the only thing that matters to a whole swath of people is tone, because the ravaging inequality and devastating conditions of the poor and working class don’t affect them.
posted by dis_integration at 5:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [14 favorites]
It would be super cool if we could progress as a nation instead of picking from two parties each trying to steer the nation to differing points in history.
posted by FakeFreyja at 5:32 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 5:32 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Had Clinton won in 2016, I’m convinced we’d be talking about some sort of constitutional crisis between the executive and legislative branches by now.
That is a crazy hypothetical.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:35 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
That is a crazy hypothetical.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:35 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
(Sorry to jump on you with a cheap joke, moorooka. It sounds like you're genuinely anxious, and I sympathize.)
posted by clawsoon at 5:35 PM on March 4, 2020
posted by clawsoon at 5:35 PM on March 4, 2020
Quick question: If Biden wins, do you think he will make insurance companies accept Dignity of Work as payment? The answer is kind of important to around thirty million people.
posted by FakeFreyja at 5:38 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 5:38 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
i don't even know how to begin to express how i feel about the events of last night, except to say that i am deeply disappointed and depressed. sanders is our last chance to avert a myriad of worst-case scenarios in our future
posted by entropicamericana at 5:59 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 5:59 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Genuine thanks to people posting black media/black voices in here.
posted by nakedmolerats at 6:03 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 6:03 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
All I want is a return to the conditions immediately preceding Trump
I think I know what you're saying here, but the conditions immediately preceding Trump were not good for a lot of people, especially people of color and the poor.
The deportation machine in overdrive and children in cages? Massive wealth and income inequality? Drone strikes killing thousands of civilians and special forces committing horrifying atrocities in countless countries? The architects and beneficiaries of the CIA torture program and the 2008 financial crisis allowed to get away without any accountability or punishment? The enabling of Saudi war crimes in Yemen?
These conditions and impacts are what made Obama's presidency so disappointing for me and many other leftists/progressives. And it's those same conditions that make so many of us wary of another centrist president, especially one who wants things back to the way they were under Obama.
posted by Ouverture at 6:13 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think I know what you're saying here, but the conditions immediately preceding Trump were not good for a lot of people, especially people of color and the poor.
The deportation machine in overdrive and children in cages? Massive wealth and income inequality? Drone strikes killing thousands of civilians and special forces committing horrifying atrocities in countless countries? The architects and beneficiaries of the CIA torture program and the 2008 financial crisis allowed to get away without any accountability or punishment? The enabling of Saudi war crimes in Yemen?
These conditions and impacts are what made Obama's presidency so disappointing for me and many other leftists/progressives. And it's those same conditions that make so many of us wary of another centrist president, especially one who wants things back to the way they were under Obama.
posted by Ouverture at 6:13 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
All I want is a return to the conditions immediately preceding Trump
I hope everyone knows that moorooka was responding to this quote:
All I want is Trump gone.
by Everyone Expects the Spanish Influenza
Unless I'm drastically misinterpreting moorooka, they were pointing out that you can't just wish Trump gone with Biden, that Biden (and many other liberals) were part of an era that gave us Trump, and that you can't just wish Trump away without unrooting those conditions. Moorooka is at some level saying that we can't go back, only forward.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, moorooka.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
I hope everyone knows that moorooka was responding to this quote:
All I want is Trump gone.
by Everyone Expects the Spanish Influenza
Unless I'm drastically misinterpreting moorooka, they were pointing out that you can't just wish Trump gone with Biden, that Biden (and many other liberals) were part of an era that gave us Trump, and that you can't just wish Trump away without unrooting those conditions. Moorooka is at some level saying that we can't go back, only forward.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, moorooka.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:20 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
speaking of bree and just wanting trump gone: relevant thread:
The problem is defined as "Trump", so the problem is solved when Trump is gone. This allows society to return to where we were b4 which was still a brutal, racist & murderous system. But once Trump is gone, folks can sigh in relief & say, "Back to normal"and
I've consistently warned against the "beat Trump, get back to normal" narrative and will continue to warn that this crisis doesn't end with the 2020 election. The "beat Trump, get back to normal" idea is being pushed by ppl who don't recognize how the "normal" yrs led us to Trumpposted by entropicamericana at 6:40 PM on March 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
Dr. Jason Johnson has expressed vitriol for Sanders for years, characterizing him (I think unfairly) as a virulent racist, rather than a white guy who needs to work on understanding some aspects of racial politics. Johnson has recently been suspended from MSNBC for comments he made about black female Sanders supporters. But that article in the Nation definitely helps me see him in a new light.
Younger black activists like Briahna Joy Grey, Michael Render and Ben Dixon have been drawn to Sanders because he very clearly pushes for a social welfare agenda based on inclusivity. One reason I was turned off by Buttigieg was his criticism of Sanders for supporting free public college for all, regardless of family income. Sanders has been consistent in his support of universal social welfare programs precisely because the moment you introduce means testing, you not only make it harder for people who deserve services to receive them, but you allow these programs to be the target of right-wing racist dogwhistles, stereotyping and othering. It's happened for decades. That's why Sanders is skeptical of reparations. I support reparations on the grounds that they are just, and fulfill a promise the nation made to the descendants of slaves. It's why I donated early on to Marianne Williamson, as the only candidate who backed reparations for ADOS specifically. But I get Sanders' critique: that white people would then go whole hog on racism, as Mitch McConnell did when he posited that the election of Obama somehow mitigated all racism. I remember on the even of the 2008 presidential election, when Joe Scarborough was literally hoping that hidden white racism would sink Obama at the polls. I sometimes wonder if the only reason the U.S. has not embraced social democracy is that, unlike in Denmark or Finland, it would benefit so many people who are not white.
posted by callistus at 6:51 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Younger black activists like Briahna Joy Grey, Michael Render and Ben Dixon have been drawn to Sanders because he very clearly pushes for a social welfare agenda based on inclusivity. One reason I was turned off by Buttigieg was his criticism of Sanders for supporting free public college for all, regardless of family income. Sanders has been consistent in his support of universal social welfare programs precisely because the moment you introduce means testing, you not only make it harder for people who deserve services to receive them, but you allow these programs to be the target of right-wing racist dogwhistles, stereotyping and othering. It's happened for decades. That's why Sanders is skeptical of reparations. I support reparations on the grounds that they are just, and fulfill a promise the nation made to the descendants of slaves. It's why I donated early on to Marianne Williamson, as the only candidate who backed reparations for ADOS specifically. But I get Sanders' critique: that white people would then go whole hog on racism, as Mitch McConnell did when he posited that the election of Obama somehow mitigated all racism. I remember on the even of the 2008 presidential election, when Joe Scarborough was literally hoping that hidden white racism would sink Obama at the polls. I sometimes wonder if the only reason the U.S. has not embraced social democracy is that, unlike in Denmark or Finland, it would benefit so many people who are not white.
posted by callistus at 6:51 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
This isn't semantics. Accepting money from a superPAC is a violation of the law.
Sorry but this is definitely in "fact-checking the actual meaning of a thing into oblivion" territory. Nobody is trying to imply that Warren is violating campaign finance law. They are trying to imply that she is accepting the support of an organization that is spending a lot of money on her behalf. And nobody would buy "I keep telling these people not to spend 15 million dollars advertising my campaign through an organization named in my honor but they just won't stop" as a defense, which is why Warren didn't try to use that defense - she just said that she's doing what she has to do to compete with other candidates who are supported by such organizations.
posted by atoxyl at 6:53 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sorry but this is definitely in "fact-checking the actual meaning of a thing into oblivion" territory. Nobody is trying to imply that Warren is violating campaign finance law. They are trying to imply that she is accepting the support of an organization that is spending a lot of money on her behalf. And nobody would buy "I keep telling these people not to spend 15 million dollars advertising my campaign through an organization named in my honor but they just won't stop" as a defense, which is why Warren didn't try to use that defense - she just said that she's doing what she has to do to compete with other candidates who are supported by such organizations.
posted by atoxyl at 6:53 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
she just said that she's doing what she has to do to compete with other candidates who are supported by such organizations.
Where did she say that? What did she say exactly?
posted by JackFlash at 7:10 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Where did she say that? What did she say exactly?
posted by JackFlash at 7:10 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Elizabeth Warren Reverses Position on SuperPAC Support
But, on Thursday, Warren said that the fact that only the “two women” didn’t have super PAC support was “just not right.”
“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
posted by callistus at 7:14 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
But, on Thursday, Warren said that the fact that only the “two women” didn’t have super PAC support was “just not right.”
“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
posted by callistus at 7:14 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Bernie's flip-flop on letting superdelegates overturning the will of the voters of their states: it's all in the game, do what ya gotta do.
Warren's flip-flop on letting other people spend money on her campaign: I thought you had principlesssss 🐍🐍🐍
posted by tonycpsu at 7:19 PM on March 4, 2020 [21 favorites]
Warren's flip-flop on letting other people spend money on her campaign: I thought you had principlesssss 🐍🐍🐍
posted by tonycpsu at 7:19 PM on March 4, 2020 [21 favorites]
Pew research poll: Liberals make up the largest share of Democratic voters, but their growth has slowed in recent years
It does break up its findings by race, but I'm not sure what they imply about the makeup of the Democratic Party: either some parts of its membership are changing their political views, or maybe the makeup of the party itself is changing.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:23 PM on March 4, 2020
It does break up its findings by race, but I'm not sure what they imply about the makeup of the Democratic Party: either some parts of its membership are changing their political views, or maybe the makeup of the party itself is changing.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:23 PM on March 4, 2020
Where did she say that? What did she say exactly?
this is just the first article I clicked on but it has the quote I remembered
“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in, I’ll lead the charge,” she told reporters on Feb. 20 in Nevada when asked if she would disavow Persist PAC. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
posted by atoxyl at 7:25 PM on March 4, 2020
this is just the first article I clicked on but it has the quote I remembered
“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in, I’ll lead the charge,” she told reporters on Feb. 20 in Nevada when asked if she would disavow Persist PAC. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
posted by atoxyl at 7:25 PM on March 4, 2020
Bernie's flip-flop on letting superdelegates...
That's an unfair characterization in multiple ways: nobody is doing the stupid snake emoji thing here but you. Yes, Bernie flip-flopped, so did Warren. Someone asked for proof. They got it. You can accept it and move on. Why prop up a strawman of a stereotypical Bernie Bro, other than to stir up vitriol?
posted by callistus at 7:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
That's an unfair characterization in multiple ways: nobody is doing the stupid snake emoji thing here but you. Yes, Bernie flip-flopped, so did Warren. Someone asked for proof. They got it. You can accept it and move on. Why prop up a strawman of a stereotypical Bernie Bro, other than to stir up vitriol?
posted by callistus at 7:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
It's not a strawman. Literally yesterday the fact that Bernie deviated from his principles to suit his political aspirations was disputed. We have the option of acknowledging that politicians are politicians, even Bernie. Instead, attacks on Warren for doing the exact same category of thing keep coming long after it's clear she's not winning anyway. What is the purpose of tramping the dirt down at this point?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 PM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 PM on March 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
I thought the Robinson tweet was problematic because of the insinuation of concerted agency that you might expect from a MAGA rally attendee. And Robinson is an academic! And a journalist! And the editor of a popular publication with wide readership! I mean, I could expect it from orb mom. This is not how you build a coalition, in my opinion, and it's the wrong lesson to learn from Trumpism.
But right there is the question I have been wrestling with today, perhaps for progressives moving forward, both in this election and in future ones. How do we build, expand, and maintain a coalition? Can we run a campaign in such a way that we keep our staunch defenders and warriors (some who are so angry that they regularly demand "blood" from their "enemies") and also include allies who present differently and believe in making use of the existing power structures for progressive gains? Include the progressives thinking of voting for other candidates? Include the black women that wanted to vote for Warren but didn't? Include the traumatized, demoralized, and risk-averse who are looking for inspiration to outweigh their fears at the polling booth?
Or do we have to run a campaign that assumes we can use Trump as the Golden Orange of Discord and sneak by with around 30% of voters while everyone else is in disarray? Cementing our plurality using narratives of conspiracy and victimization?
We know the world is burning. We know the current administration is the most transparently corrupt one we've ever seen. We know people are dying because they can't afford prescription medication. We know kids are still in cages. We know Flint still doesn't have clean water. We know drones are killing innocent civilians as collateral damage in wars fought over the financial interests of multinational corporations. We know all of this. I'd wager that most Democratic voters know this, too. Shouldn't it be easy to consolidate their support then?
How, then, do we extend a hand and earn their support? Instead of driving them away and then expect them to crawling back because we believe we have the moral upper hand, like the angry spouse who rages periodically and expects fidelity and forgiveness "because she knows I'm right"?
posted by donttouchmymustache at 7:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
But right there is the question I have been wrestling with today, perhaps for progressives moving forward, both in this election and in future ones. How do we build, expand, and maintain a coalition? Can we run a campaign in such a way that we keep our staunch defenders and warriors (some who are so angry that they regularly demand "blood" from their "enemies") and also include allies who present differently and believe in making use of the existing power structures for progressive gains? Include the progressives thinking of voting for other candidates? Include the black women that wanted to vote for Warren but didn't? Include the traumatized, demoralized, and risk-averse who are looking for inspiration to outweigh their fears at the polling booth?
Or do we have to run a campaign that assumes we can use Trump as the Golden Orange of Discord and sneak by with around 30% of voters while everyone else is in disarray? Cementing our plurality using narratives of conspiracy and victimization?
We know the world is burning. We know the current administration is the most transparently corrupt one we've ever seen. We know people are dying because they can't afford prescription medication. We know kids are still in cages. We know Flint still doesn't have clean water. We know drones are killing innocent civilians as collateral damage in wars fought over the financial interests of multinational corporations. We know all of this. I'd wager that most Democratic voters know this, too. Shouldn't it be easy to consolidate their support then?
How, then, do we extend a hand and earn their support? Instead of driving them away and then expect them to crawling back because we believe we have the moral upper hand, like the angry spouse who rages periodically and expects fidelity and forgiveness "because she knows I'm right"?
posted by donttouchmymustache at 7:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
No, it's a strawman: the post you linked was to someone explaining their understanding of Sanders' 2016 strategy. It did not contain the snake emoji or anything like it (that's the strawman part I was referring to, not the differing interpretations/understandings of how Sanders flip-flopped on superdelegates in 2016). It's not entirely clear to me that phoque's interpretation was wrong, only that Sanders definitely flip-flopped.
You mean what's the purpose of responding with facts when someone asks for proof that Warren flip-flopped? I mean, Sanders did eventually concede in 2016, then did more campaign events for Clinton than anybody outside her immediate family, so why are we still tramping that dirt down?
It isn't even an attack, it's just a fact. I actually get Warren's argument, which is roughly the same as Sanders' (as delivered by Jeff Weaver in 2016): that if everyone is going to play by these rules, and just ignore our arguments for why they are bad, then we will too.
posted by callistus at 7:46 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
You mean what's the purpose of responding with facts when someone asks for proof that Warren flip-flopped? I mean, Sanders did eventually concede in 2016, then did more campaign events for Clinton than anybody outside her immediate family, so why are we still tramping that dirt down?
It isn't even an attack, it's just a fact. I actually get Warren's argument, which is roughly the same as Sanders' (as delivered by Jeff Weaver in 2016): that if everyone is going to play by these rules, and just ignore our arguments for why they are bad, then we will too.
posted by callistus at 7:46 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
I'm not sure what is controversial about this. Is anything she said untrue?
posted by JackFlash at 7:49 PM on March 4, 2020
I'm not sure what is controversial about this. Is anything she said untrue?
posted by JackFlash at 7:49 PM on March 4, 2020
Is anything she said untrue?
Nope, not really. Sanders does not have a dedicated SuperPAC, but he has a PAC (OurRevolution) and a SuperPAC run by a nurse's union supports him as well. But you asked where Warren said she needed SuperPACs to compete, and I answered. Nobody said she said anything untrue.
posted by callistus at 7:56 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Nope, not really. Sanders does not have a dedicated SuperPAC, but he has a PAC (OurRevolution) and a SuperPAC run by a nurse's union supports him as well. But you asked where Warren said she needed SuperPACs to compete, and I answered. Nobody said she said anything untrue.
posted by callistus at 7:56 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what is controversial about this. Is anything she said untrue?
This is one of those situations that is just too many arguments deep and too many parties involved to follow. For the record in my previous two comments I was intentionally not editorializing directly about whether Warren's relationship with PACs is acceptable or whether justification thereof is a good one. I was clarifying a point of fact, and I was making a point about how facts are framed and interpreted. I thought the comments calling out the "taking money from a Super PAC" phrasing were unhelpful nitpicking because the core substance of the claim against her is that she backtracked on her general disavowal of that kind of organization, which she did. And at least one person's comment sort of suggested that she did or would disavow the organization, which she did not. What I think about these decisions and her defense thereof is another question.
posted by atoxyl at 8:12 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is one of those situations that is just too many arguments deep and too many parties involved to follow. For the record in my previous two comments I was intentionally not editorializing directly about whether Warren's relationship with PACs is acceptable or whether justification thereof is a good one. I was clarifying a point of fact, and I was making a point about how facts are framed and interpreted. I thought the comments calling out the "taking money from a Super PAC" phrasing were unhelpful nitpicking because the core substance of the claim against her is that she backtracked on her general disavowal of that kind of organization, which she did. And at least one person's comment sort of suggested that she did or would disavow the organization, which she did not. What I think about these decisions and her defense thereof is another question.
posted by atoxyl at 8:12 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
My actual opinion about what she said is that it's the best and pretty much the only defense, and also that it ultimately boils down to "I think I can do more good by accepting this money (spent on my behalf) than not." Which is almost certainly sometimes the correct decision, and also one of the arterial roads to hell in politics.
posted by atoxyl at 8:22 PM on March 4, 2020
posted by atoxyl at 8:22 PM on March 4, 2020
How, then, do we extend a hand and earn their support? Instead of driving them away and then expect them to crawling back because we believe we have the moral upper hand, like the angry spouse who rages periodically and expects fidelity and forgiveness "because she knows I'm right"?
You do it by actually extending a hand and working to earn support, instead of assuming that support is yours to have. One of the major issues that people have been noting - especially after Tuesday's results - is that the left has been pushing a campaign where they would sweep out the existing power structure and replace it with their own. And Tuesday showed the limits of that sort of campaign. A big example (that I've seen pointed out by a number of feminists) is how progressives have been calling for Warren to drop out and endorse Sanders, with no discussion of how or what would be needed from Sanders to earn Warren's endorsement, as if it was his by default. Or there's been the use of "establishment" as an epithet to be applied to individuals and groups who choose to not go with what progressives want, which comes across badly when it's applied to groups that have historically been disenfranchised.
To become the flagbearer of the Democratic Party, one has to get the support of the Party base. That means listening to their needs and their worries and their fears, and letting them know that you understand those things. And that takes effort, and decentering oneself.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
You do it by actually extending a hand and working to earn support, instead of assuming that support is yours to have. One of the major issues that people have been noting - especially after Tuesday's results - is that the left has been pushing a campaign where they would sweep out the existing power structure and replace it with their own. And Tuesday showed the limits of that sort of campaign. A big example (that I've seen pointed out by a number of feminists) is how progressives have been calling for Warren to drop out and endorse Sanders, with no discussion of how or what would be needed from Sanders to earn Warren's endorsement, as if it was his by default. Or there's been the use of "establishment" as an epithet to be applied to individuals and groups who choose to not go with what progressives want, which comes across badly when it's applied to groups that have historically been disenfranchised.
To become the flagbearer of the Democratic Party, one has to get the support of the Party base. That means listening to their needs and their worries and their fears, and letting them know that you understand those things. And that takes effort, and decentering oneself.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [11 favorites]
Also, one good first step on that would be to boot the dirtbag left. Misogyny and other bigotries should have no home in the left, and trying to defend those who would hold those views on the left out of some misguided notion of them being "warriors" only serves to undercut your position among the people who should be your allies.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:32 PM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:32 PM on March 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
Also, one good first step on that would be to boot the dirtbag left.
How exactly does one "boot the dirtbag left?" Should AOC end all her 2024 campaign addresses with "Chapo Delenda Est?"
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
How exactly does one "boot the dirtbag left?" Should AOC end all her 2024 campaign addresses with "Chapo Delenda Est?"
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Instead of driving them away and then expect them to crawling back because we believe we have the moral upper hand, like the angry spouse who rages periodically and expects fidelity and forgiveness "because she knows I'm right"?
I know that you are trying to characterize Sanders and Sanders supporters (who, as should not need to be said, are not a monolith), but as others have noted, this sounds like an apt description of the Democratic party and the corporate-owned media, who lauded Warren then suddenly and studiously ignored her, and who were very brazenly contemptuous of Sanders (and other outsider candidates, some of whom presented as perfectly amiable and welcoming people). More people will continue to abandon the Democratic party and become independents, or become disillusioned entirely by electoral politics, because so many prominent members of the party will resort to pointing disgustedly at Trump and shouting "Vote Blue No Matter Who!" all the while doing the bare minimum to address (if not outright contributing to!) the litany of problems you say we all know about.
Those who replace Sanders can perhaps try to compromise because "we all essentially believe the same things, we just have different ways of getting there". They can hope to negotiate and slowly build consensus with the "centrists" (a phony concept), but regulatory capture is a real thing, and it will not allow for meaningful change. Sanders' appeal is that he doesn't BS: he called it out for what it was, and didn't give people a pass for succumbing to it in the name of compromise and coalition-building. Perhaps he should have, but why assume this would work? Amy Klobuchar is actually rather progressive by U.S. standards , as is Kirsten Gillibrand (remember her?), Bill DeBlasio, Julian Castro, even Buttigieg early in the race. Most of them barely made a dent. Pretending not see the elephant in the room, and not to be angry that it's there, will not earn the trust of people for whom Sanders was the compromise, unity candidate. The "far from perfect, but good enough" candidate. I think there will be more of those people in 2022 and going forward than there are even today.
posted by callistus at 8:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
I know that you are trying to characterize Sanders and Sanders supporters (who, as should not need to be said, are not a monolith), but as others have noted, this sounds like an apt description of the Democratic party and the corporate-owned media, who lauded Warren then suddenly and studiously ignored her, and who were very brazenly contemptuous of Sanders (and other outsider candidates, some of whom presented as perfectly amiable and welcoming people). More people will continue to abandon the Democratic party and become independents, or become disillusioned entirely by electoral politics, because so many prominent members of the party will resort to pointing disgustedly at Trump and shouting "Vote Blue No Matter Who!" all the while doing the bare minimum to address (if not outright contributing to!) the litany of problems you say we all know about.
Those who replace Sanders can perhaps try to compromise because "we all essentially believe the same things, we just have different ways of getting there". They can hope to negotiate and slowly build consensus with the "centrists" (a phony concept), but regulatory capture is a real thing, and it will not allow for meaningful change. Sanders' appeal is that he doesn't BS: he called it out for what it was, and didn't give people a pass for succumbing to it in the name of compromise and coalition-building. Perhaps he should have, but why assume this would work? Amy Klobuchar is actually rather progressive by U.S. standards , as is Kirsten Gillibrand (remember her?), Bill DeBlasio, Julian Castro, even Buttigieg early in the race. Most of them barely made a dent. Pretending not see the elephant in the room, and not to be angry that it's there, will not earn the trust of people for whom Sanders was the compromise, unity candidate. The "far from perfect, but good enough" candidate. I think there will be more of those people in 2022 and going forward than there are even today.
posted by callistus at 8:37 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
While the president is important, they sign bills passed by congress, so you can hold your nose for Biden while electing another hundred AOCs and advance things that way too.
posted by Marticus at 8:44 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Marticus at 8:44 PM on March 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
How exactly does one "boot the dirtbag left?" Should AOC end all her 2024 campaign addresses with "Chapo Delenda Est?"
Well, I've always been a fan of the classics, as 6 years of junior/high school and 2 semesters of college Latin will attest.
But on a serious note, you boot them by making it clear that misogynistic and other bigoted behavior will not be tolerated, and if they want to be part of the left, they need to knock that shit off. And it's not like there aren't examples of how to do this - look at feminism pushing back on TERFs, for one notable example.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
Well, I've always been a fan of the classics, as 6 years of junior/high school and 2 semesters of college Latin will attest.
But on a serious note, you boot them by making it clear that misogynistic and other bigoted behavior will not be tolerated, and if they want to be part of the left, they need to knock that shit off. And it's not like there aren't examples of how to do this - look at feminism pushing back on TERFs, for one notable example.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
And it's not like there aren't examples of how to do this - look at feminism pushing back on TERFs, for one notable example.
We're really equating TERFs with snake emojis?
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:49 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
We're really equating TERFs with snake emojis?
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:49 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Misogyny and other bigotries should have no home in the left, and trying to defend those who would hold those views on the left out of some misguided notion of them being "warriors" only serves to undercut your position among the people who should be your allies.
some time ago, somebody put it to me in the midst of a rather heated discussion that in politics (and life in general) the means are the end. That if you do shitty things, it doesn't matter what great thing you're aiming for, you'll miss it and end up some place shitty. It didn't really land with me in the moment, but it's a turn of phrase I find I keep coming back to, I guess, because over the decades I've seen it play out time and again. Doing wrong things to achieve right ends -- that's one of those paradoxes that just doesn't work.
posted by philip-random at 8:50 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
some time ago, somebody put it to me in the midst of a rather heated discussion that in politics (and life in general) the means are the end. That if you do shitty things, it doesn't matter what great thing you're aiming for, you'll miss it and end up some place shitty. It didn't really land with me in the moment, but it's a turn of phrase I find I keep coming back to, I guess, because over the decades I've seen it play out time and again. Doing wrong things to achieve right ends -- that's one of those paradoxes that just doesn't work.
posted by philip-random at 8:50 PM on March 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
We're really equating TERFs with snake emojis?
Abstract reasoning is the ability to understand the underlying nature of comparisons without the things being compared being the same. If things were exactly the same it wouldn't be an analogy it would just be the thing itself.
The point NoxAeternum was making isn't that TERFs are exactly the same as some Sanders supporters (the analogy takes no position on that) it was that it is quite possible for one group of people to take a stand against another group of people who claim to be allied with the first group but who do not act in ways of which the first group approves.
posted by Justinian at 9:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Abstract reasoning is the ability to understand the underlying nature of comparisons without the things being compared being the same. If things were exactly the same it wouldn't be an analogy it would just be the thing itself.
The point NoxAeternum was making isn't that TERFs are exactly the same as some Sanders supporters (the analogy takes no position on that) it was that it is quite possible for one group of people to take a stand against another group of people who claim to be allied with the first group but who do not act in ways of which the first group approves.
posted by Justinian at 9:01 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
I mean, I kind of agree that the ship has sailed at this point. I was just explaining the analogy.
Right now the main thing is defeating Trump.
posted by Justinian at 9:08 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Right now the main thing is defeating Trump.
posted by Justinian at 9:08 PM on March 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm reminded of something from a ways upthread:
Well, if "centrists" are going to be purged from the party, I'm sure I'm going to be purged with them. Not because I'm particularly "centrist" but because the idea of having to vote 100% pure and present my bona fides makes me almost physically sick. [...] So have your purge, and goodbye to a viable national party — and hello to a party that has a good chance of actually being kind of revolting.
Meanwhile, let's expel a few million of the country's most ardent and dedicated young leftists from membership in our ranks. Take the group that helped get AOC elected, that contains many of the people currently traveling across the country to try to get out the vote for the most progressive candidate on their own dime, and tell them to fuck off. See how viable and non-revolting the party looks after the purge.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:08 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Well, if "centrists" are going to be purged from the party, I'm sure I'm going to be purged with them. Not because I'm particularly "centrist" but because the idea of having to vote 100% pure and present my bona fides makes me almost physically sick. [...] So have your purge, and goodbye to a viable national party — and hello to a party that has a good chance of actually being kind of revolting.
Meanwhile, let's expel a few million of the country's most ardent and dedicated young leftists from membership in our ranks. Take the group that helped get AOC elected, that contains many of the people currently traveling across the country to try to get out the vote for the most progressive candidate on their own dime, and tell them to fuck off. See how viable and non-revolting the party looks after the purge.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:08 PM on March 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Mod note: Y'all this is going down old familiar circular paths. We don't have to have this argument in all its branches and repetitions again just to fill time, please let it be.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:09 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:09 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
The snake emojis emerged when Warren accused Sanders of saying something inflammatory in a conversation that only the two of them had been a party to the day before a CNN debate, and a couple days before the Iowa caucuses. The "hot mike" dialogue after the CNN debate was especially transparent. I will not defend the snake emojis as they are incredibly immature, but I will defend people who were angered and/or saddened that Warren would make such a nakedly political move. I was neither particularly angry nor saddened that Warren took those steps, as I separate the candidate's political moves from whom they would be once in office, but I get that it upset people.
posted by callistus at 9:16 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by callistus at 9:16 PM on March 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
Where do you find the crosstabs with the results broken out by demographics? This WaPo article is the closest thing that I've found for the Super Tuesday results but it's not quite what I'm looking for.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:19 PM on March 4, 2020
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:19 PM on March 4, 2020
My POV on the "Sanders lied to me" thing is that unless you know that Warren was in fact the one lying, being angry that she brought it up makes zero sense. And the snake emojis, ugh. For the record I'm fully behind Bernie vs. Biden.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:23 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:23 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
To everybody pretending they don't know who the "they" in Nathan Robinson's tweets is: you may find this article illuminating.
posted by kafziel at 9:25 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by kafziel at 9:25 PM on March 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
A link to the intercept doesn't prove anything other then you made a decision to link to the intercept.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 9:28 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 9:28 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
To become the flagbearer of the Democratic Party, one has to get the support of the Party base.
That's literally what Obama did, though, and then the left became disillusioned with him after they decided he was a centrist after all. He got the support because of his slogans of Hope and Change, and perhaps that rhetorical cleverness was why the left felt so burned.
In contrast, Bernie is perceived, by the left, as honest and truthful. Maybe that speaks to why Bernie would not be able to pull off a campaign based on getting support by tailoring one's messaging. I am speculating further, but maybe the left and the center are fundamentally different in terms of temperament, personality, etc.; such that such Democratic advice/strategies for success might not be applicable to a leftist candidate for deeper reasons.
posted by polymodus at 9:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
That's literally what Obama did, though, and then the left became disillusioned with him after they decided he was a centrist after all. He got the support because of his slogans of Hope and Change, and perhaps that rhetorical cleverness was why the left felt so burned.
In contrast, Bernie is perceived, by the left, as honest and truthful. Maybe that speaks to why Bernie would not be able to pull off a campaign based on getting support by tailoring one's messaging. I am speculating further, but maybe the left and the center are fundamentally different in terms of temperament, personality, etc.; such that such Democratic advice/strategies for success might not be applicable to a leftist candidate for deeper reasons.
posted by polymodus at 9:29 PM on March 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
My POV on the "Sanders lied to me" thing is that unless you know that Warren was in fact the one lying, being angry that she brought it up makes zero sense.
She brought it up a year after it supposedly happened, two days before the first vote of the primaries, and the story was exclusively covered by the corporate-owned television network that owned the rights to the debate the following day, in which the CNN moderator asked Sanders if he had said that a woman can't win, then immediately pivoted from his answer that he had not said that to ask Warren how she felt when he had said that a woman cannot win. She then approached him on camera and audibly accused him of lying, knowing full-well that CNN would broadcast the footage. After Warren lied about her child attending public school when he in fact attended a very expensive and exclusive private school (among several other untruths), I think I can be forgiven for not just taking her at her word when she says things that are unverifiable and to her political advantage.
Again, I like Warren and think she will make a great president. I'd like to see Bernie endorse her, at the convention or in 2024. But I think some of the comments in her defense here rival the delusions of the most stalwart Bernie Bros.
posted by callistus at 9:40 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
She brought it up a year after it supposedly happened, two days before the first vote of the primaries, and the story was exclusively covered by the corporate-owned television network that owned the rights to the debate the following day, in which the CNN moderator asked Sanders if he had said that a woman can't win, then immediately pivoted from his answer that he had not said that to ask Warren how she felt when he had said that a woman cannot win. She then approached him on camera and audibly accused him of lying, knowing full-well that CNN would broadcast the footage. After Warren lied about her child attending public school when he in fact attended a very expensive and exclusive private school (among several other untruths), I think I can be forgiven for not just taking her at her word when she says things that are unverifiable and to her political advantage.
Again, I like Warren and think she will make a great president. I'd like to see Bernie endorse her, at the convention or in 2024. But I think some of the comments in her defense here rival the delusions of the most stalwart Bernie Bros.
posted by callistus at 9:40 PM on March 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
The last time I looked there was still a disappointing/confusing youth turnout problem. I, at least, don't want to expel millions of young leftists but I... Don't know how to support remaking the entire party for people who aren't voting. Bernie would have crushed Minnesota if younger voters turned out more. I genuinely don't get it.
posted by nakedmolerats at 9:41 PM on March 4, 2020
posted by nakedmolerats at 9:41 PM on March 4, 2020
After Warren lied about her child attending public school when he in fact attended a very expensive and exclusive private school
She said her children went to public schools, which the article you link to said was true.
posted by No One Ever Does at 10:04 PM on March 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
She said her children went to public schools, which the article you link to said was true.
posted by No One Ever Does at 10:04 PM on March 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
I'm seeing people still trying to smear Warren in this thread, at this stage, with outright untruths, and it just hurts, man. It really does. Are you guys winning yet? Did you guys stick it to the "establishment" yet? Do you know how many hours of volunteering I put in for her? Can you guess how many voters I spoke to? In case you're wondering I'm a volunteer, so I didn't get paid. Do you think I feel like putting forth the same effort for a candidate whose base still doesn't get it?
My apologies, I was trying to read this thread as a way to gather my thoughts and refocus for the coming struggle and I guess I'm still not over my disappointment of how Warren was treated this cycle. It's obviously time for self-care, so I'll bow out for now.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 10:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [41 favorites]
My apologies, I was trying to read this thread as a way to gather my thoughts and refocus for the coming struggle and I guess I'm still not over my disappointment of how Warren was treated this cycle. It's obviously time for self-care, so I'll bow out for now.
posted by donttouchmymustache at 10:45 PM on March 4, 2020 [41 favorites]
I've been pushing back on anti-Warren disinformation on Reddit for months, but I never thought I'd see it repeated here.
callistus: "She brought it up a year after it supposedly happened, two days before the first vote of the primaries, and the story was exclusively covered by the corporate-owned television network that owned the rights to the debate the following day, in which the CNN moderator asked Sanders if he had said that a woman can't win, then immediately pivoted from his answer that he had not said that to ask Warren how she felt when he had said that a woman cannot win.
She never "brought it up." She mentioned it at an off-the-record dinner shortly after their conversation, before either of them started their campaigns. Even when asked about rumors he urged her not to run at SXSW later that year, she declined to discuss it. CNN were the ones that decided to sit on the story for months before springing it on them right before the Iowa debate for headlines and drama. There's *no* evidence Warren or her team had anything to do with planting the story.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:50 PM on March 4, 2020 [27 favorites]
callistus: "She brought it up a year after it supposedly happened, two days before the first vote of the primaries, and the story was exclusively covered by the corporate-owned television network that owned the rights to the debate the following day, in which the CNN moderator asked Sanders if he had said that a woman can't win, then immediately pivoted from his answer that he had not said that to ask Warren how she felt when he had said that a woman cannot win.
She never "brought it up." She mentioned it at an off-the-record dinner shortly after their conversation, before either of them started their campaigns. Even when asked about rumors he urged her not to run at SXSW later that year, she declined to discuss it. CNN were the ones that decided to sit on the story for months before springing it on them right before the Iowa debate for headlines and drama. There's *no* evidence Warren or her team had anything to do with planting the story.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:50 PM on March 4, 2020 [27 favorites]
The last time I looked there was still a disappointing/confusing youth turnout problem. I, at least, don't want to expel millions of young leftists but I... Don't know how to support remaking the entire party for people who aren't voting. Bernie would have crushed Minnesota if younger voters turned out more. I genuinely don't get it.
Bernie's whole campaign is premised on the idea that it's possible to expand the electorate and tap into the more than 40% of the eligible population that either didn't vote or voted for a third party candidate in the 2016 Presidential election. If we were going to apply 2020 MSNBC logic to the 2016 presidential election, we could say that more eligible voters opted for "None of the Above" over either Clinton or Trump so at least from one angle it's not a totally baseless idea.
But maybe that theory is just wrong. The average to subpar youth turnout results in basically all of the primaries and caucuses to date would seem to point that way. But I do wonder if that logic applies more to the general election than to primary elections, where there are often more weird rules and arbitrary deadlines to keep track of. I don't know the rules in every state but I do know that re-registering as a Democrat in NY after 2016 so that I could start participating in local primary elections was a whole fucking ordeal that I almost certainly would not have seen through to the end when I was 22.
I also know that the only time I've had to wait in a line to vote at a local precinct was the 2018 general election. In my district at least, the only thing that abnormally large number of voters really accomplished was sending a democratic socialist to the NY State Senate for the first time in like 100 years in very convincing fashion. Which was cool and all but the actually competitive Democratic primary that put her on the ballot had the essentially same sort of extraordinarily low turnouts that characterize primary elections in New York City.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 11:03 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Bernie's whole campaign is premised on the idea that it's possible to expand the electorate and tap into the more than 40% of the eligible population that either didn't vote or voted for a third party candidate in the 2016 Presidential election. If we were going to apply 2020 MSNBC logic to the 2016 presidential election, we could say that more eligible voters opted for "None of the Above" over either Clinton or Trump so at least from one angle it's not a totally baseless idea.
But maybe that theory is just wrong. The average to subpar youth turnout results in basically all of the primaries and caucuses to date would seem to point that way. But I do wonder if that logic applies more to the general election than to primary elections, where there are often more weird rules and arbitrary deadlines to keep track of. I don't know the rules in every state but I do know that re-registering as a Democrat in NY after 2016 so that I could start participating in local primary elections was a whole fucking ordeal that I almost certainly would not have seen through to the end when I was 22.
I also know that the only time I've had to wait in a line to vote at a local precinct was the 2018 general election. In my district at least, the only thing that abnormally large number of voters really accomplished was sending a democratic socialist to the NY State Senate for the first time in like 100 years in very convincing fashion. Which was cool and all but the actually competitive Democratic primary that put her on the ballot had the essentially same sort of extraordinarily low turnouts that characterize primary elections in New York City.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 11:03 PM on March 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
How do you activate the vaporwave generation?
Die-hard Sanders supporters simply know it as "The Speech": a filibuster he launched decrying a bipartisan tax deal crafted primarily by then-Vice President Joe Biden and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 12:05 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Die-hard Sanders supporters simply know it as "The Speech": a filibuster he launched decrying a bipartisan tax deal crafted primarily by then-Vice President Joe Biden and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 12:05 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
But I do wonder if that logic applies more to the general election than to primary elections
I don't think it's surprising that a lot of folks are not willing to risk finding out, though. Young leftists had their chance here. Probably their best shot in a generation. After the Nevada caucus Bernie had a good shot at the nomination if the people he said would turn out had just turned out. But they didn't and the only two reasons that could be are that they either don't exist or they just don't care enough.
Betting the country on the idea that the folks he said would turn out didn't turn out in the primary but, trust him, they would totes show up in the general is just a bridge too far for many many people when the downside if he's wrong is Donald Trump.
posted by Justinian at 12:56 AM on March 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
I don't think it's surprising that a lot of folks are not willing to risk finding out, though. Young leftists had their chance here. Probably their best shot in a generation. After the Nevada caucus Bernie had a good shot at the nomination if the people he said would turn out had just turned out. But they didn't and the only two reasons that could be are that they either don't exist or they just don't care enough.
Betting the country on the idea that the folks he said would turn out didn't turn out in the primary but, trust him, they would totes show up in the general is just a bridge too far for many many people when the downside if he's wrong is Donald Trump.
posted by Justinian at 12:56 AM on March 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
Sanders Will Drop Out if Biden Gets a Plurality Coming Into Dem Convention
Speaking to Rachel Maddow: "If Biden walks into the convention, or at the end of the process, [and] has more votes than me, he's the winner," said Sanders, before confirming he would concede whether the lead was a majority or a plurality.
At the end of the 2016 primaries, Democratic convention rules allowed superdelegates to vote on the first ballot, which is no longer the case in 2020. Instead, a candidate who has a majority of at least 1,991 delegates would automatically win on the first ballot. However, if a candidate only had a plurality of votes, a second ballot could potentially be decided by superdelegates.
"I think it would be a real, real disaster for the Democratic party," said Sanders. "People would say 'the person who won the most votes didn't get selected.' Not a good idea."
posted by callistus at 3:15 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
Speaking to Rachel Maddow: "If Biden walks into the convention, or at the end of the process, [and] has more votes than me, he's the winner," said Sanders, before confirming he would concede whether the lead was a majority or a plurality.
At the end of the 2016 primaries, Democratic convention rules allowed superdelegates to vote on the first ballot, which is no longer the case in 2020. Instead, a candidate who has a majority of at least 1,991 delegates would automatically win on the first ballot. However, if a candidate only had a plurality of votes, a second ballot could potentially be decided by superdelegates.
"I think it would be a real, real disaster for the Democratic party," said Sanders. "People would say 'the person who won the most votes didn't get selected.' Not a good idea."
posted by callistus at 3:15 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
After the 2016 primary I mostly tuned out of politics. It made it easier to vote for Clinton in the general because I wasn’t exposed to constant attacks for supporting Sanders. Soon it’s gonna be time to do that again, I think.
posted by eagles123 at 3:45 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 3:45 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
Also, one good first step on that would be to boot the dirtbag left.
. . .
you boot them by making it clear that misogynistic and other bigoted behavior will not be tolerated
Just the Leftist dirtbags, then? Misogynist or bigoted Centrists are still OK? I know that's not what you want to be saying, but why did you specify the Left? If you're going to purge the party of a segment of people based on their ethics, it looks kind of like you are using it as an excuse to attack Leftists, if you limit the purge to just them. And yes, I am deliberately using that word.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:48 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
. . .
you boot them by making it clear that misogynistic and other bigoted behavior will not be tolerated
Just the Leftist dirtbags, then? Misogynist or bigoted Centrists are still OK? I know that's not what you want to be saying, but why did you specify the Left? If you're going to purge the party of a segment of people based on their ethics, it looks kind of like you are using it as an excuse to attack Leftists, if you limit the purge to just them. And yes, I am deliberately using that word.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:48 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
If, instead of assuming bad faith, you go back and read the full context of NoxAeternum's comments, and identify what they are referring to by the "one good first step on that" portion of the line you quoted, it will be clear why they are specifically referring to the Left.
posted by Roommate at 4:07 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Roommate at 4:07 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
Do y'all not understand the need to clean your own house before making demands on others? Jesus Christ folks.
Like, literal Jesus Christ. Matthew 7:5. The mote and the beam.
This isn't a new concept. We need to get rid of the Dirtbag Left so that we're actually welcoming, so that we have the moral authority.
Of course we can get mad. Of course we should be passionate. Of course we should fight, fight, fight. But being mad is no excuse for sexism, racism, or homophobia. We can fight a clean fight.
Bullies should not be tolerated just because they bear a (D) or pin a 🌹 to their Twitter handle.
And from a practical (as opposed to tactical) standpoint, it's easier for me to ask leftists to be kind. I'm not in contact with MAGA sorts. My time with moderate/centrist sorts is better spent reminding them why "socialism" these days means FDR/Eisenhower, not Mao. It's the leftists who're already on-board with my politics (give or take a few quibbles), so it's easier to say, "agreed, but let's cool it with the -ism? That's not how we do it."
posted by explosion at 4:20 AM on March 5, 2020 [16 favorites]
Like, literal Jesus Christ. Matthew 7:5. The mote and the beam.
This isn't a new concept. We need to get rid of the Dirtbag Left so that we're actually welcoming, so that we have the moral authority.
Of course we can get mad. Of course we should be passionate. Of course we should fight, fight, fight. But being mad is no excuse for sexism, racism, or homophobia. We can fight a clean fight.
Bullies should not be tolerated just because they bear a (D) or pin a 🌹 to their Twitter handle.
And from a practical (as opposed to tactical) standpoint, it's easier for me to ask leftists to be kind. I'm not in contact with MAGA sorts. My time with moderate/centrist sorts is better spent reminding them why "socialism" these days means FDR/Eisenhower, not Mao. It's the leftists who're already on-board with my politics (give or take a few quibbles), so it's easier to say, "agreed, but let's cool it with the -ism? That's not how we do it."
posted by explosion at 4:20 AM on March 5, 2020 [16 favorites]
The best article I read on the Warren/Sanders sexism thing was this one by Rebecca Traister.
Warren is too smart to think leaking that conversation would help her. She wasn't lying.
posted by Mavri at 4:33 AM on March 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
Warren is too smart to think leaking that conversation would help her. She wasn't lying.
posted by Mavri at 4:33 AM on March 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
The characterization of the dirtbag left in here as racist and sexist is just not accurate though. It sounds like you've been listening to the NYT, not the dirtbag left itself. They're largely rude and mean on twitter toward people who want uninsured people to die and poor people to suffer, and the people who support those people. That fills a lot of media people with angst. They're not particularly bigoted though. If bigotry were a part of their platform or techniques, they would be part of the right wing, not the left.
There's one exception I know of, and that podcast (not the one you're thinking of) is niche and highly controversial on the left -- most of us tend to think the ladies running it are crypto-alt-right grifters.
It's totally fair to criticize the dirtbag left for their confrontational nature, and plenty of leftists do (e.g. Nathan Robinson), but the racism/sexism accusation is a smear designed to augment what is actually garden variety anti-left tone-policing.
As for me, I think there's a place for them in the movement. A common refrain on MetaFilter has always been "we need a left version of fox news and right wing talk radio." Well, now we have it, and it's working to radicalize young and angry people to the left instead of the right. They're much better off with Chapo than Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro, trust me.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 4:40 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
There's one exception I know of, and that podcast (not the one you're thinking of) is niche and highly controversial on the left -- most of us tend to think the ladies running it are crypto-alt-right grifters.
It's totally fair to criticize the dirtbag left for their confrontational nature, and plenty of leftists do (e.g. Nathan Robinson), but the racism/sexism accusation is a smear designed to augment what is actually garden variety anti-left tone-policing.
As for me, I think there's a place for them in the movement. A common refrain on MetaFilter has always been "we need a left version of fox news and right wing talk radio." Well, now we have it, and it's working to radicalize young and angry people to the left instead of the right. They're much better off with Chapo than Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro, trust me.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 4:40 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
Hi, I am a member of the left. Right here, on this very webpage, I have seen my fellow leftists say shitty things about black voters and female candidates. On Twitter, it's way worse. Black women, especially, are attacked for their beliefs by other members of the left in a way that white men, especially, never ever are. The US left has a huge racism and sexism problem and prefers to dismiss it as identity politics rather than deal with it.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:45 AM on March 5, 2020 [38 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 4:45 AM on March 5, 2020 [38 favorites]
If you think the left is particularly worse about this than liberals in general, I'm going to have to disagree. Remember the reaction to the Al Franken fiasco, for example?
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 4:47 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 4:47 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
Wishing you all a lot of bad luck with your campaign to drive me and everyone like me from the left
Just checking, you do have a plan for how you're going to do so, given that we already believe the centre hates us and wants us purged, how you might possibly send the message that actually you do like left-wing ideas, just not anyone who advocates for those policies.
I don't listen to CTH, never have, but I'm very confident that when most liberals say dirtbag left, they're not actually concerned with any group past who the NYT has told them the problem is, they mean anyone who's mean to centrists on twitter.
posted by Acid Communist at 4:47 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
Just checking, you do have a plan for how you're going to do so, given that we already believe the centre hates us and wants us purged, how you might possibly send the message that actually you do like left-wing ideas, just not anyone who advocates for those policies.
I don't listen to CTH, never have, but I'm very confident that when most liberals say dirtbag left, they're not actually concerned with any group past who the NYT has told them the problem is, they mean anyone who's mean to centrists on twitter.
posted by Acid Communist at 4:47 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
Given the amount of vitriol that noted extra-polite, upper-class-coded, articulate and friendly fancy lad Nathan Robinson inspires on this site, I probably shouldn't waste my time any further defending actually polemical leftists here.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
The question was how can Bernie/The Left reach out to more moderate voters and build a coalition that can actually beat Donald Trump. NoxAeternum offered one suggestion. Retorting with calling Warren* supporters "people who want uninsured people to die and poor people to suffer" and therefore it's okay to be rude and mean to them, is certainly a tactic to take, but not likely to win them over to your side.
*I know you didn't specifically mention Warren, but it's in replies to her supporters (even those saying "Bernie is my second choice and I'll happily vote for him") that I *constantly* see a stream of "oh, I guess you want poor people to die then". These are the people who would, theoretically, be easiest to win over as Bernie supporters if Warren drops out, but the "dirtbag left" folks seem to have no interest in doing that.
posted by Roommate at 5:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
*I know you didn't specifically mention Warren, but it's in replies to her supporters (even those saying "Bernie is my second choice and I'll happily vote for him") that I *constantly* see a stream of "oh, I guess you want poor people to die then". These are the people who would, theoretically, be easiest to win over as Bernie supporters if Warren drops out, but the "dirtbag left" folks seem to have no interest in doing that.
posted by Roommate at 5:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
I wasn't calling Warren supporters anything! But this kind of uncharitable reading speaks to the way your perception of the left is framing the way you read their writing.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:05 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:05 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
BTW I'm not saying there aren't dickish or bigoted leftists on Twitter, because good lord I know there are (as there are for any political group). I just don't see it as a defining characteristic of the movement. I'd better bow out, this isn't going anywhere productive.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:07 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:07 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yes, I apologize, I instantly regretted wording things that way. but I stand by saying the tactic you explicitly are okay with is often applied to Warren supporters. And for the record, I voted for Bernie in my (SC) primary. But I think he's going to have a hard time winning the general (or even the primary) if he and his supporters can't push back on and rein in the more... let's say vitriolic supporters.
posted by Roommate at 5:10 AM on March 5, 2020
posted by Roommate at 5:10 AM on March 5, 2020
There’s a lot of frankly boring and tiring bickering in this thread, mostly between a subset of Usual Suspects. Given the multiple mod notes asking for people to cut it out, I am concerned that the endless bickering is going to get primary threads shut down generally, as a mod mentioned was a possibility. Please stop, so the silent majority of us coming here for info and not round 300 of circular argument can continue to do so.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:11 AM on March 5, 2020 [40 favorites]
posted by lazaruslong at 5:11 AM on March 5, 2020 [40 favorites]
Black voters, ‘Whole Foods moms’ and an anti-Trump base: Biden builds coalition that could boost Democrats in November
His surprise overnight elevation to delegate leader pleased moderate Democrats and unnerved some Republicans who had expected Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to come out in front after 14 states voted on Super Tuesday.posted by octothorpe at 5:24 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
The results also harked back to the 2018 midterm elections, in which Democrats won back the House and prevailed in several competitive gubernatorial races by capitalizing on disdain for Trump among moderate and suburban voters, combined with high turnout among members of the Democratic base.
If you think the left is particularly worse about this than liberals in general, I'm going to have to disagree. Remember the reaction to the Al Franken fiasco, for example?
I think the left is exactly as sexist and racist as the rest of the Democratic Party. I expect better of the left. I will continue to expect better of the left. And I expect better of folks on this website, since not being racist and sexist is explicitly in the rules here.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:33 AM on March 5, 2020 [18 favorites]
I think the left is exactly as sexist and racist as the rest of the Democratic Party. I expect better of the left. I will continue to expect better of the left. And I expect better of folks on this website, since not being racist and sexist is explicitly in the rules here.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:33 AM on March 5, 2020 [18 favorites]
I think that coalition has the potential to flip Pennsylvania; although, primary turnout doesn’t necessarily translate to general election turnout. Republicans saw a corresponding surge in rural voters in the midterms that helped them hold some Senate seats. PA is kind of where those two trends meet. Unfortunately, I don’t recall any statewide elections that offer a good comparison. Wolf won re-election for governor in 2018, but he also won in 2014 when the Democrats got clobbered elsewhere.
posted by eagles123 at 5:34 AM on March 5, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 5:34 AM on March 5, 2020
If you think the left is particularly worse about this than liberals in general, I'm going to have to disagree. Remember the reaction to the Al Franken fiasco, for example?
Hey, look, some whataboutism. Addressing misogyny and racism in your own house is always a good thing, no matter whose house it is.
They're largely rude and mean on twitter toward people who want uninsured people to die and poor people to suffer, and the people who support those people.
They do this to Warren supporters. If everyone who isn't Bernie is defined as wanting poor people to die and fair game for vitriol, then you're not building a movement. You're just making yourself feel good on twitter.
posted by Mavri at 5:45 AM on March 5, 2020 [23 favorites]
Hey, look, some whataboutism. Addressing misogyny and racism in your own house is always a good thing, no matter whose house it is.
They're largely rude and mean on twitter toward people who want uninsured people to die and poor people to suffer, and the people who support those people.
They do this to Warren supporters. If everyone who isn't Bernie is defined as wanting poor people to die and fair game for vitriol, then you're not building a movement. You're just making yourself feel good on twitter.
posted by Mavri at 5:45 AM on March 5, 2020 [23 favorites]
Hydropsyche, I agree with you. I of course do believe in rooting out any kind of bigotry from the left to the extent possible. I regret how defensive I was in my posts earlier. There is a huge tension I feel in these threads which contain people who see themselves as the left and people who see the left as other. In this context, it's very difficult to make the distinction between smears against the left that aim to paint our movement as distinctly bigoted, vs. good-faith critiques from people who are part of the left or sympathize with our goals. I will grant that those smears are much more common on twitter (as is all shitty discourse), but they've also been put forth by members of the democratic establishment, by certain political campaigns, by news anchors, by partisan journalists, and by people on this site. It's a whole morass that's very tough to navigate, particularly in a mixed left-liberal space like this.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
I do not believe Bernard Sanders supporters are any different than the supporters of any other political candidate. I think on social media there is a tendency to other those with whom you disagree combined with a perceived need to catastrophize, hence the dreaded "bernie bros" who frequently appear on Extremely Online Peoples' list of hated things right next to Nazis.
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:44 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:44 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
The good news for everyone is that most Democratic voters don't know about
snake emoji (even I have no idea what that is)
dirtbag left
chapo trap house
bernie bro
stuff on twitter
stuff on reddit
I'm 50 and in tech so I sort of straddle the Very Online and the Everyone Else demographics, and even in arguing with friends on Facebook about Sanders/Warren I realize it's pretty much unfulfilling masturbation that doesn't change anything.
Also here's my git off my lawn thought for the day: Twitter is not a citable news source, and the large amount of Metafilter comments and FPPs that assume a Twitter-centric world feel like a step down from earlier quality. A friend last night complained that Warren hadn't dropped out after Super Tuesday and I was like ... dude ... it's Wednesday ... do you think she's gonna roll out of bed and tweet that she's dropping out? Have you ever worked in a huge organization with thousands of people, tons of money, legal agreements, and other moving parts? Back in the day I thought the 24 hour CNN cycle was killing society, but the 10 second Twitter cycle is 1000 times worse.
posted by freecellwizard at 6:51 AM on March 5, 2020 [42 favorites]
snake emoji (even I have no idea what that is)
dirtbag left
chapo trap house
bernie bro
stuff on twitter
stuff on reddit
I'm 50 and in tech so I sort of straddle the Very Online and the Everyone Else demographics, and even in arguing with friends on Facebook about Sanders/Warren I realize it's pretty much unfulfilling masturbation that doesn't change anything.
Also here's my git off my lawn thought for the day: Twitter is not a citable news source, and the large amount of Metafilter comments and FPPs that assume a Twitter-centric world feel like a step down from earlier quality. A friend last night complained that Warren hadn't dropped out after Super Tuesday and I was like ... dude ... it's Wednesday ... do you think she's gonna roll out of bed and tweet that she's dropping out? Have you ever worked in a huge organization with thousands of people, tons of money, legal agreements, and other moving parts? Back in the day I thought the 24 hour CNN cycle was killing society, but the 10 second Twitter cycle is 1000 times worse.
posted by freecellwizard at 6:51 AM on March 5, 2020 [42 favorites]
snake emoji (even I have no idea what that is)
It's a thing from the Calvin Harris/Taylor Swift feud over the lyrics to "This is What You Came For".
In popular parlance, the people replying with snakes are contextually calling the OP or the implied antagonist in the OP's tweet a snake.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:57 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's a thing from the Calvin Harris/Taylor Swift feud over the lyrics to "This is What You Came For".
In popular parlance, the people replying with snakes are contextually calling the OP or the implied antagonist in the OP's tweet a snake.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:57 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Is this just the megathread, but with less of the things that were good about the megathreads and all the things that were bad about them?
posted by clawsoon at 7:12 AM on March 5, 2020 [21 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 7:12 AM on March 5, 2020 [21 favorites]
I really hope going forward that the Democratic Party puts forth a unity ticket and not that Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine shit. If Biden is put at the top of the ticket with just a bare majority/plurality, I think its appropriate to have a VP that's on the left flank of the party and not just another centrist Democrat. As I mentioned before, there are currently no left liberals/socialists in any of the following leadership positions: Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, House Majority Whip, Senate Minority Leader, Senate Minority Whip. If the entire Democratic leadership is headed by conservative or moderate Democrats, I think a VP slot would be appropriate. If the Democratic Party isn't trying to shut out its left flank, let's see evidence.
Of course, if Sanders does win the nomination, I do expect someone to his slight right to be selected, though Warren qualifies, too.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:14 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
Of course, if Sanders does win the nomination, I do expect someone to his slight right to be selected, though Warren qualifies, too.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:14 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
Is this just the megathread, but with less of the things that were good about the megathreads and all the things that were bad about them?
It's primary season which means more conflict among the various leftish viewpoints of MF.
This sorta happened in the primary season in 2016. Once the primaries are over and the nominee is clear people will become militant about not relitigating the primaries (assuming some sort of megathread still exists, I would not blame the mods if they wanted to can it because last season was hell on them).
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:15 AM on March 5, 2020
It's primary season which means more conflict among the various leftish viewpoints of MF.
This sorta happened in the primary season in 2016. Once the primaries are over and the nominee is clear people will become militant about not relitigating the primaries (assuming some sort of megathread still exists, I would not blame the mods if they wanted to can it because last season was hell on them).
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:15 AM on March 5, 2020
Young leftists had their chance here. Probably their best shot in a generation. After the Nevada caucus Bernie had a good shot at the nomination if the people he said would turn out had just turned out. But they didn't and the only two reasons that could be are that they either don't exist or they just don't care enough.
A great way to keep people who earnestly believe that their ideology is the only way to save billions of lives in your coalition is to flippantly tell them that they're not going to get their way until the earth becomes uninhabitable. Not only does it make us feel welcome, it also makes you seem like you give a shit about politics as anything but spectacle.
Betting the country on the idea that the folks he said would turn out didn't turn out in the primary but, trust him, they would totes show up in the general is just a bridge too far for many many people when the downside if he's wrong is Donald Trump.
Yeah, let's see how centrist liberalism fares against Trump and fascism for once. Give it a chance, folks!
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:31 AM on March 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
A great way to keep people who earnestly believe that their ideology is the only way to save billions of lives in your coalition is to flippantly tell them that they're not going to get their way until the earth becomes uninhabitable. Not only does it make us feel welcome, it also makes you seem like you give a shit about politics as anything but spectacle.
Betting the country on the idea that the folks he said would turn out didn't turn out in the primary but, trust him, they would totes show up in the general is just a bridge too far for many many people when the downside if he's wrong is Donald Trump.
Yeah, let's see how centrist liberalism fares against Trump and fascism for once. Give it a chance, folks!
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:31 AM on March 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
flippantly tell them that they're not going to get their way until the earth becomes uninhabitabl
Oh. Com on. That’s not what is being said.
What is being said is the coalition for Sanders relied on the unreliable. Young people. And it looks very much like it cost him the nomination.
You can be angry about it. I’m angry about it. But it’s the reality. There is no conspiracy.
There is how people are voting.
So. We either adapt to this reality or we continue self destruction.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
Oh. Com on. That’s not what is being said.
What is being said is the coalition for Sanders relied on the unreliable. Young people. And it looks very much like it cost him the nomination.
You can be angry about it. I’m angry about it. But it’s the reality. There is no conspiracy.
There is how people are voting.
So. We either adapt to this reality or we continue self destruction.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
Oh. Com on. That’s not what is being said.
What is being said is the coalition for Sanders relief on the unreliable. Young people. And it looks very much like it cost him the nomination.
"Young leftists had their chance here. Probably their best shot in a generation."
What is that if not writing off the entire left for the next 30 years?
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:40 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
What is being said is the coalition for Sanders relief on the unreliable. Young people. And it looks very much like it cost him the nomination.
"Young leftists had their chance here. Probably their best shot in a generation."
What is that if not writing off the entire left for the next 30 years?
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:40 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Hey, everybody! I'm pretty fuckin' worn out with this! I'm using sarcastic exclamation points! That's a really bad sign if I'm honest! So:
Stop what you're doing and go for a walk or whatever your preferred not-arguing-in-this-thread alternative is.
Yes, you, the person who is only arguing this way because of the strength of your convictions. And you, the person who wouldn't be so quick to jab if only they hadn't started it. And you, the person who wasn't gonna say anything but after that kind of comment why should you hold back, since...
Everybody who has been scrapping instead of actively trying to make this thread a useful thing needs to take a goddam breather, and when you're done with that spend about ten times as much effort as you have been lately looking at what you're typing and honestly assessing whether it's for anybody else or if it's just for you to get some shit out of your system. This is a peak moment in political stress and people being stressed and needing to get shit out of their system is understandable, I sympathize to a point, but you don't need to do it here and you don't need to do it like this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:46 AM on March 5, 2020 [39 favorites]
Stop what you're doing and go for a walk or whatever your preferred not-arguing-in-this-thread alternative is.
Yes, you, the person who is only arguing this way because of the strength of your convictions. And you, the person who wouldn't be so quick to jab if only they hadn't started it. And you, the person who wasn't gonna say anything but after that kind of comment why should you hold back, since...
Everybody who has been scrapping instead of actively trying to make this thread a useful thing needs to take a goddam breather, and when you're done with that spend about ten times as much effort as you have been lately looking at what you're typing and honestly assessing whether it's for anybody else or if it's just for you to get some shit out of your system. This is a peak moment in political stress and people being stressed and needing to get shit out of their system is understandable, I sympathize to a point, but you don't need to do it here and you don't need to do it like this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:46 AM on March 5, 2020 [39 favorites]
Damn. I've been looking forward to voting for Warren for years now and now I can't.
posted by octothorpe at 7:50 AM on March 5, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 7:50 AM on March 5, 2020 [10 favorites]
*signs into ActBlue and turns off recurring donation to Warren*
Damn shame. Now to see how the primary shakes out.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:52 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Damn shame. Now to see how the primary shakes out.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:52 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Time to bite my nails until she endorses someone.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2020
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2020
Time to bite my nails until she endorses someone.
I hope she doesn't. I hope she just says "I endorse whoever the eventual nominee is" and give neither side the satisfaction of using her as a cudgel or scapegoat.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:56 AM on March 5, 2020 [30 favorites]
I hope she doesn't. I hope she just says "I endorse whoever the eventual nominee is" and give neither side the satisfaction of using her as a cudgel or scapegoat.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:56 AM on March 5, 2020 [30 favorites]
It looks like she won't be endorsing anyone yet. This makes me happy to see.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:00 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:00 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
I should mention that the Biden coalition outlined above is pretty much the H. Clinton coalition from 2016. It’s not even the full Obama coalition from 2008. That coalition tends to lose against Republicans unless there is some kind of disaster or recession (92 or 2008). So it’s not like the “centrists” have any answers either. This sucks for everyone.
posted by eagles123 at 8:01 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 8:01 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
She could fake everyone out and endorse Tulsi.
posted by delfin at 8:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by delfin at 8:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
Be mad at the people who didn’t show up.
As a veteran of 8 years of Paul LePage, let me say in all seriousness that if we lose, it will be because progressive dems and moderate dems refuse to get along.
Seriously, folks - Sanders or Biden ... it DOES NOT MATTER ONE WHIT who wins if we don't elect progressive House Reps and retake the Senate. Neither Sanders nor Biden can sign legislation that isn't passed.
Just stop it. Stop. It DOES NOT MATTER if Sanders or Biden gets the nomination. What does matter is the House and ... most crucially ... the Senate.
We're doing all we can to dump Collins where I live. I hope you're putting at least as much energy into your local downballot races as you are to arguing over which old white guy should sign the bills.
posted by anastasiav at 8:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [27 favorites]
As a veteran of 8 years of Paul LePage, let me say in all seriousness that if we lose, it will be because progressive dems and moderate dems refuse to get along.
Seriously, folks - Sanders or Biden ... it DOES NOT MATTER ONE WHIT who wins if we don't elect progressive House Reps and retake the Senate. Neither Sanders nor Biden can sign legislation that isn't passed.
Just stop it. Stop. It DOES NOT MATTER if Sanders or Biden gets the nomination. What does matter is the House and ... most crucially ... the Senate.
We're doing all we can to dump Collins where I live. I hope you're putting at least as much energy into your local downballot races as you are to arguing over which old white guy should sign the bills.
posted by anastasiav at 8:03 AM on March 5, 2020 [27 favorites]
I would imagine there is probably immense pressure on Warren from party officials to either endorse Biden or nobody. Endorsing Bernie could damage her connections with people she might need in her future career. I hope she sticks with her principles over that and endorses the candidate who is by far closer to her political views and goals.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:04 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:04 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Just gave a couple folks a day off. Please see previous note. Gonna start doing that a lot more freely at this point and if I have to do it multiple times for someone we're gonna just jump to "see you after the election".
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2020 [44 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2020 [44 favorites]
> Endorsing Bernie could damage her connections with people she might need in her future career.
She's not a career politician who needs the help. She's a liberal Senator in a blue state. That's as good as job security gets. If Schumer wants to take away committee spots or otherwise marginalize her, she doesn't really need the job.
If she endorses Biden, then I've significantly overestimated her.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
She's not a career politician who needs the help. She's a liberal Senator in a blue state. That's as good as job security gets. If Schumer wants to take away committee spots or otherwise marginalize her, she doesn't really need the job.
If she endorses Biden, then I've significantly overestimated her.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
It DOES NOT MATTER if Sanders or Biden gets the nomination.
It may not matter to you. But there are mountains of difference between Biden and Sanders on foreign policy, an arena where the president has a lot of leeway. For example, Biden was instrumental in supporting the Iraq War, in which thousands of Americans died and a million Iraqis were killed. I think that qualifies as "mattering".
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2020 [18 favorites]
It may not matter to you. But there are mountains of difference between Biden and Sanders on foreign policy, an arena where the president has a lot of leeway. For example, Biden was instrumental in supporting the Iraq War, in which thousands of Americans died and a million Iraqis were killed. I think that qualifies as "mattering".
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2020 [18 favorites]
She will endorse whichever one of them can further her policy goals. (Practicality over sentimentality for Warren.) Biden should be trying to show her how she can control/influence policy in his administration and Bernie should be trying to show her he has a solid path to a win. She will be laser focused on result and risk.
posted by sallybrown at 8:10 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:10 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
Endorsing Bernie now does not preclude endorsing Biden later. It puts you at the back of the line for patronage hires, but I don't think that's her angle in any of this. I don't see how she could trust Biden to move as far ideologically as he'd need to, while having Bernie in the race for as long as possible ensures that Biden has to worry about his left flank. A Bernie endorsement as soon as possible is unquestionably the correct tactical move.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:13 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:13 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
I believe she will endorse whoever ultimately gets the nomination in an attempt to use whatever remaining influence she has to bring the party together. She has fought many times with Biden- even before considering public office- and it would be surprising in the extreme if she endorsed him before he actually clinches the nom.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:14 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:14 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Warren's Supporters Second Choice:
Sanders 40%
Biden 16%
@MorningConsult Poll 2/23-27
(source)
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:18 AM on March 5, 2020
Sanders 40%
Biden 16%
@MorningConsult Poll 2/23-27
(source)
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:18 AM on March 5, 2020
Good piece on Warren and Biden’s major policy conflict on bankruptcy.
posted by sallybrown at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
Vox has a good overview of the Democratic primary schedule. This month:
March 10: Idaho, Michigan (Sanders currently leading), Mississippi, Missouri (Biden), North Dakota , and Washington (Sanders). (State names linked to 538 tracking polls; 47 percent of pledged delegates allocated after these primaries)
March 17: Arizona (Sanders) , Florida (Biden), Illinois, and Ohio (Sanders). (61 percent of pledged delegates allocated)
March 24: Georgia (Biden)
March 29: Puerto Rico
posted by kirkaracha at 8:50 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
March 10: Idaho, Michigan (Sanders currently leading), Mississippi, Missouri (Biden), North Dakota , and Washington (Sanders). (State names linked to 538 tracking polls; 47 percent of pledged delegates allocated after these primaries)
March 17: Arizona (Sanders) , Florida (Biden), Illinois, and Ohio (Sanders). (61 percent of pledged delegates allocated)
March 24: Georgia (Biden)
March 29: Puerto Rico
posted by kirkaracha at 8:50 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
BTW if anyone has already early-voted for Warren, I encourage you to check whether your state allows you to change your vote now that she's out of the race. Some states do allow that. I know Michigan does.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:53 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 8:53 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
This is from 2008, but illustrates my concern over how we're interpreting exit polls re: youth turnout. Key points:
posted by brook horse at 8:57 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
"The model predicted that young people would have appeared in the exit polls at 96.26% of the national rate in a state with no absentee or early votes and only at 62.39% of the national rate where all of the voting was done by early or absentee ballot."I've seen so much vitriol against young voters across the Internet the past few days, based entirely on exit polls. Most of the Super Tuesday states have early voting. All of them have excused absentee voting, which includes college students. Maybe we shouldn't be yelling at the youth for being lazy/apathetic based on numbers that may not even be accurate. Particularly when that's likely to just demotivate people more?
"I also used the 2004 CPS data to confirm that young people were taking disproportionate advantage of early voting possibilities. Young people represented 16.51% of those who reported voting on Election Day in 2004, but 20.70% of absentee voters and 18.33% of early voters."
"For a variety of reasons, exit polling will not yield a fully unbiased estimate of youth voter turnout. First, excused absentee voting is a possibility for individuals who are unable to make it to the polling location on Election Day in every state. Excused absentee voting is common among college students and military populations as well as the infirm and elderly (Oliver, 1996; Patterson and Caldeira, 1985). It should come as no surprise, therefore, that young voters might be overrepresented in this sample and thus underrepresented at the polls. These individuals may also have been under-sampled in the exit polls."
posted by brook horse at 8:57 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
Everyone owes Warren gratitude for single handedly taking down Bloomberg. At least one variant of this nightmare was defused.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:18 AM on March 5, 2020 [39 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 9:18 AM on March 5, 2020 [39 favorites]
I've seen so much vitriol against young voters across the Internet the past few days, based entirely on exit polls. Most of the Super Tuesday states have early voting. All of them have excused absentee voting, which includes college students. Maybe we shouldn't be yelling at the youth for being lazy/apathetic based on numbers that may not even be accurate.
Counterpoint: "Among the California Democratic primary voters who had voted early as of Monday, 30 percent are under 50 years old. That includes only 9 percent who are under 30 years old."
posted by Rhaomi at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Counterpoint: "Among the California Democratic primary voters who had voted early as of Monday, 30 percent are under 50 years old. That includes only 9 percent who are under 30 years old."
posted by Rhaomi at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Everyone owes Warren gratitude for single handedly taking down Bloomberg. At least one variant of this nightmare was defused.
Yes, Sanders supporters give her a lot of props for that, and for her help in championing medicare for all, wealth taxes, student loan forgiveness, free universal early childhood education, and other policy goals they have in common. It always felt great to see the two of them one-two-punching the moderates in the debates. I'll miss seeing her on that stage.
I'm excited to team up with Warren supporters now under the same banner to try and bring our shared goals to fruition!
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:20 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
Yes, Sanders supporters give her a lot of props for that, and for her help in championing medicare for all, wealth taxes, student loan forgiveness, free universal early childhood education, and other policy goals they have in common. It always felt great to see the two of them one-two-punching the moderates in the debates. I'll miss seeing her on that stage.
I'm excited to team up with Warren supporters now under the same banner to try and bring our shared goals to fruition!
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:20 AM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'm really bummed that Warren didn't gather more support. I really think she would have made the best president, but I'm also excited to see what she does next. I don't think she's going to stop fighting for what's right anytime soon.
posted by arcolz at 9:20 AM on March 5, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by arcolz at 9:20 AM on March 5, 2020 [16 favorites]
Seriously, it was kind of a big deal on Tuesday, it's shocking that within 24 hours the pivot was "young people just didn't want to vote, no notes."
posted by kafziel at 9:21 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by kafziel at 9:21 AM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
The other side cheats, both sides are incompetent, and the electoral system is a mess. Banking on increased youth turnout and not having enough of it to overcome these structural barriers was a mistake. It's not the youth voters' fault, but it did happen, and Democratic strategy has to account for and be resistant to these weaknesses
posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
I think it's kind of amazing *any* young person today--any person really at all--shows up to vote. Our voting system was set up by and for wealthy white property-owning men (including owners of human beings). The sort of person who has zero issue making his way to a ballot box to personally insert his ballot some random Tuesday morning. This wealthy, utterly privileged constituency is the only one our voting process naturally serves.
As time has drifted from the late 18th-century, and our population has grown by leaps and bounds vis-a-vis education, technology, and civil rights, it doesn't surprise me that the youth (or anyone) finds it, at least unconsciously, more and more unnerving to have to ape a late 1700s slave-owning white man in order to vote--particuarly when voting against this system set up for 1700s slave-owning white men. Against the background of our ability now to institute robust, "instant" votes for American Idol and Doordash/Postmates/Amazon delivery of all the things, I think the youth by and large see it as inflicting self-harm to engage in this kind of regressive voting behavior. To strawman the point (no one's said this but in my head), "Why would I act like a late 1700s white male land/human-owner in order to vote against all the hideous leftovers of the system set up by white male land/human-owners?"
TLDR: The very institution of voting in this nation remains a product of white male aristocratic privilege, designed to keep everyone else out. If today's youth, or any citizens, by and large find it self-harming to assume the role of a late 1700s white male aristocrat, that's not surprising to me.
posted by riverlife at 9:46 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
As time has drifted from the late 18th-century, and our population has grown by leaps and bounds vis-a-vis education, technology, and civil rights, it doesn't surprise me that the youth (or anyone) finds it, at least unconsciously, more and more unnerving to have to ape a late 1700s slave-owning white man in order to vote--particuarly when voting against this system set up for 1700s slave-owning white men. Against the background of our ability now to institute robust, "instant" votes for American Idol and Doordash/Postmates/Amazon delivery of all the things, I think the youth by and large see it as inflicting self-harm to engage in this kind of regressive voting behavior. To strawman the point (no one's said this but in my head), "Why would I act like a late 1700s white male land/human-owner in order to vote against all the hideous leftovers of the system set up by white male land/human-owners?"
TLDR: The very institution of voting in this nation remains a product of white male aristocratic privilege, designed to keep everyone else out. If today's youth, or any citizens, by and large find it self-harming to assume the role of a late 1700s white male aristocrat, that's not surprising to me.
posted by riverlife at 9:46 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
Warren's Supporters Second Choice:
Sanders 40%
Biden 16%
44% are missing. Presumably their second choices are Klobuchar, Buttigeige, Bloomberg -- all to the right of Sanders.
I'm guessing that Warren supporters will split roughly 50/50 for Sanders/Biden. I see no need for her to endorse either candidate at this point. It doesn't appear that her endorsement is going to swing many either way.
posted by JackFlash at 9:56 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sanders 40%
Biden 16%
44% are missing. Presumably their second choices are Klobuchar, Buttigeige, Bloomberg -- all to the right of Sanders.
I'm guessing that Warren supporters will split roughly 50/50 for Sanders/Biden. I see no need for her to endorse either candidate at this point. It doesn't appear that her endorsement is going to swing many either way.
posted by JackFlash at 9:56 AM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
That same site today updated the "Warren voters 2nd choice" stats to 43% Sanders, 36% Biden, based on polls from Monday and Tuesday of this week (before Bloomberg dropped out).
posted by Roommate at 10:04 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Roommate at 10:04 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
I don't believe it was intentional, but certainly staying in through super Tuesday and then dropping out without an endorsement is the move maximally damaging to Sanders. I suppose more damaging would be endorsing Biden, but that's hard when half your supporters explicitly support the other guy. Again, I don't think anything that happened on Sunday and Monday when the centrists dropped out but Warren didn't was particularly planned, and it certainly wasn't a conspiracy, but in addition to the Clyburn/SC/Buttigieg/Klobuchar sequence of lucky events for the center, Warren staying in until after Tuesday and then endorsing no one (so far) was another amazingly lucky break for them.
posted by chortly at 10:06 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by chortly at 10:06 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
i don't know if an east coast statesman running primarily against someone rather than for something is a winning formula. it certainly wasn't in 2004In order to try and process things internally, I've sorted, at least for now, the Democratic electorate into three broad and inevitably oversimplified camps: those who simply want Trump out of office, those who want Trump out of office in the hopes of returning to "normalcy," and those who want Trump out of office so we can face the future with some semblance of a plan and fewer illusions about where we currently stand and what it'll take to survive.
Group #1 includes, presumably, all Democrats and leftists, and achieving its goal is an absolutely necessary condition for any democratic future whatsoever. I understand the desire of group #2 to be able to stop fucking worrying about politics all the time and just live their lives, but I find appeals to going back to the halcyon days of 2014 or whatever misguided for a number of reasons (you can't go back, even if you could go back material conditions have fundamentally changed, this kind of pining for the past can prove to be a shortcut to broader conservatism or reaction). Biden is this group's main proponent, and I worry that not only would a Biden victory against Trump be far from a sure thing, but that if things don't go back to "normal" under his administration, a lot of people might get disillusioned and seek alternatives come 2022 and 2024 (alternatives that, based on what I'm seeing now, would not be sought on the left). Group #3, of which I consider myself a part and which I see represented primarily by Sanders and Warren supporters, advocates fulfilling not only the necessary condition of defeating Trump, but the (closest to) sufficient conditions for going forward in the face of climate change and concomitant geopolitical tensions. These candidates are running for something, which I think is crucial.
The old United Front approach has its flaws, but at the same time it's useful, and easy to understand and make understood. Everyone in groups #1-3 would love a four-year breather from this shitshow of an administration (we've sure as shit earned and deserve one), but without a vision and active plan for where we go from here the climate will grow more and more inhospitable and the right will inevitably marshal its forces. So we have to band together with anyone else who wants to fight fascism and make a better world for everyone, no matter who wins the election. The nature of the struggle will be different (i.e., easier, hopefully) under Biden than it would be under Trump, but we still have to take it beyond the ballot box and fight on every front, because a Biden presidency would be necessary but not sufficient for facing the future.
I think that Sanders, for all his flaws, would push closer to meeting those sufficient conditions, as would have Warren before she dropped out; whether or not those conditions can be entirely met is a different issue, but let's take a stab at it anyway, since we literally have nothing to lose.
For now, however, let's try to fulfill that first, necessary, condition of defeating Trump, a task that will require solidarity. Solidarity that we'll need even more of in our inevitable and numerous future battles.
posted by heteronym at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
This tweet made me laugh, if anyone else needs a laugh today: The greatest twist of the primary, by far, was when Corn Pop turned out to be a real person who knew Joe Biden.
posted by sallybrown at 10:32 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:32 AM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
> I don't believe it was intentional, but certainly staying in through super Tuesday and then dropping out without an endorsement is the move maximally damaging to Sanders. I suppose more damaging would be endorsing Biden, but that's hard when half your supporters explicitly support the other guy. Again, I don't think anything that happened on Sunday and Monday when the centrists dropped out but Warren didn't was particularly planned, and it certainly wasn't a conspiracy, but in addition to the Clyburn/SC/Buttigieg/Klobuchar sequence of lucky events for the center, Warren staying in until after Tuesday and then endorsing no one (so far) was another amazingly lucky break for them.
Warren was in the race as Sanders' competitor, and would have been foolish to drop out on the basis of poll numbers alone. The suggestion that she somehow had to keep in mind the potential damage she might be doing to an opponent's campaign is a standard that is never applied to any other candidate in any other context.
She had already held her fire for the most part during the campaign and focused it on the centrist wing, so she owed Bernie nothing. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that she had some responsibility to consider the timing of her exit from the race, from what we've seen of the 2nd choice polling, no pre-Super-Tuesday drop-out-and-endorse maneuver was going to save Sanders from a very bad result.
Furthermore, describing Clyburn/SC as part of the "lucky events" group implies a lack of control, when in reality, Bernie had five years to try to do what had to be done to secure the support of Clyburn in particular, South Carolinians in general, and older voters of color in other states. None other than Clyburn himself has said that Bernie made no significant effort to do so, and if he can't be bothered to do that, on what basis should we believe he tried hard to build coalitions elsewhere?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:46 AM on March 5, 2020 [32 favorites]
Warren was in the race as Sanders' competitor, and would have been foolish to drop out on the basis of poll numbers alone. The suggestion that she somehow had to keep in mind the potential damage she might be doing to an opponent's campaign is a standard that is never applied to any other candidate in any other context.
She had already held her fire for the most part during the campaign and focused it on the centrist wing, so she owed Bernie nothing. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that she had some responsibility to consider the timing of her exit from the race, from what we've seen of the 2nd choice polling, no pre-Super-Tuesday drop-out-and-endorse maneuver was going to save Sanders from a very bad result.
Furthermore, describing Clyburn/SC as part of the "lucky events" group implies a lack of control, when in reality, Bernie had five years to try to do what had to be done to secure the support of Clyburn in particular, South Carolinians in general, and older voters of color in other states. None other than Clyburn himself has said that Bernie made no significant effort to do so, and if he can't be bothered to do that, on what basis should we believe he tried hard to build coalitions elsewhere?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:46 AM on March 5, 2020 [32 favorites]
Please stop, so the silent majority of us coming here for info and not round 300 of circular argument can continue to do so.
I support the idea that if 1) you're not posting links to information and 2) you are posting more than twice a day, you should please please please consider ramping down your participation in this kind of thread, to boost the signal to noise ratio above what makes these discussions worth the moderators' time.
posted by mediareport at 10:58 AM on March 5, 2020 [20 favorites]
I support the idea that if 1) you're not posting links to information and 2) you are posting more than twice a day, you should please please please consider ramping down your participation in this kind of thread, to boost the signal to noise ratio above what makes these discussions worth the moderators' time.
posted by mediareport at 10:58 AM on March 5, 2020 [20 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren's campaign suspension presser.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:06 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:06 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
I'm guessing that Warren supporters will split roughly 50/50 for Sanders/Biden. I see no need for her to endorse either candidate at this point. It doesn't appear that her endorsement is going to swing many either way.
Wait is there anything to go on about what her endorsement does or doesn't swing? She doesn't specifically owe anybody an endorsement, but the point of one is to try to swing the split away from 50/50 one way or the other.
on what basis should we believe he tried hard to build coalitions elsewhere?
He tried to build his own from scratch, more or less, without relying on the party leaders. The West shows ways in which he's been successful in doing that. The South shows ways in which he hasn't.
posted by atoxyl at 11:13 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Wait is there anything to go on about what her endorsement does or doesn't swing? She doesn't specifically owe anybody an endorsement, but the point of one is to try to swing the split away from 50/50 one way or the other.
on what basis should we believe he tried hard to build coalitions elsewhere?
He tried to build his own from scratch, more or less, without relying on the party leaders. The West shows ways in which he's been successful in doing that. The South shows ways in which he hasn't.
posted by atoxyl at 11:13 AM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
I think Warren decided to use last shreds of her political capital and all the rhetorical fire power she's capable of in the last two debates to make sure Bloomberg would never stand a chance of becoming president. It worked! Now that Bloomberg's out, she can drop out with good conscience.
posted by nangar at 11:14 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by nangar at 11:14 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
Just to pick up a point that is hopefully less contentious than fighting about specific candidates: the narrative about young voters just not turning up for the umpteenth time I think needs more thorough investigation.
For example, stories have widely quoted the Virginia results that show the percentage of young voters at just 13% in 2020, versus 16% in 2016. Sometimes the stories even acknowledge that voter turnout doubled in Vermont. No one ever does the math on this: in 2016, ~125,000 young voters came out for the primary, versus ~170,000 young voters in 2020.
This gets phrased as "young people just didn't vote," even though they voted in greater numbers than before. The real story is that other age groups came out in way bigger numbers.
Does this mean young people definitely weren't the problem? I don't know. You'd have to do some more math about the total eligible population versus actual turnout and see how that's changed (or stayed the same) over the past few primary seasons. It may yet be true that the vast majority of young people stayed home, and for people relying on that vote (largely Sanders), that will be a huge problem going forward.
But just relying on "13% is smaller than 16%, take that young voters" is so obviously sloppy that it feels like the media outlets parroting this statistic are intentionally insulting my intelligence.
posted by chrominance at 11:32 AM on March 5, 2020 [16 favorites]
For example, stories have widely quoted the Virginia results that show the percentage of young voters at just 13% in 2020, versus 16% in 2016. Sometimes the stories even acknowledge that voter turnout doubled in Vermont. No one ever does the math on this: in 2016, ~125,000 young voters came out for the primary, versus ~170,000 young voters in 2020.
This gets phrased as "young people just didn't vote," even though they voted in greater numbers than before. The real story is that other age groups came out in way bigger numbers.
Does this mean young people definitely weren't the problem? I don't know. You'd have to do some more math about the total eligible population versus actual turnout and see how that's changed (or stayed the same) over the past few primary seasons. It may yet be true that the vast majority of young people stayed home, and for people relying on that vote (largely Sanders), that will be a huge problem going forward.
But just relying on "13% is smaller than 16%, take that young voters" is so obviously sloppy that it feels like the media outlets parroting this statistic are intentionally insulting my intelligence.
posted by chrominance at 11:32 AM on March 5, 2020 [16 favorites]
(show your work time: the numbers I'm going off came from this Esquire article, which in turn took them from USA Today. According to The Hill, 780,000 people voted in the Virginia primary in 2016, of which exit polls estimate 16% were young voters. 1.3 million voted in 2020, of which exit polls estimate 13% were young voters. 16% of 780,000 gets you about 125,000 voters; 13% of 1.3 million gets you about 170,000.)
posted by chrominance at 11:37 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by chrominance at 11:37 AM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
I should mention that the Biden coalition outlined above is pretty much the H. Clinton coalition from 2016. It’s not even the full Obama coalition from 2008. That coalition tends to lose against Republicans unless there is some kind of disaster or recession (92 or 2008). So it’s not like the “centrists” have any answers either. This sucks for everyone.
That Hillary Clinton coalition won the popular vote and narrowly lost the Electoral College. If you get them again and add those who just couldn't vote for Clinton but like Biden, plus the expected anti-Trump turnout bump, and and you're in pretty good shape.
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:49 AM on March 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
That Hillary Clinton coalition won the popular vote and narrowly lost the Electoral College. If you get them again and add those who just couldn't vote for Clinton but like Biden, plus the expected anti-Trump turnout bump, and and you're in pretty good shape.
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:49 AM on March 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
This gets phrased as "young people just didn't vote," even though they voted in greater numbers than before. The real story is that other age groups came out in way bigger numbers.
I mean, when people say "young people just didn't vote" they don't literally mean that no young people showed up. It means that the promised surge in young and non-voter turnout didn't materialize. And we've got plenty of data to suggest that's the case.
posted by Justinian at 11:50 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
I mean, when people say "young people just didn't vote" they don't literally mean that no young people showed up. It means that the promised surge in young and non-voter turnout didn't materialize. And we've got plenty of data to suggest that's the case.
posted by Justinian at 11:50 AM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
He tried to build his own from scratch, more or less, without relying on the party leaders. The West shows ways in which he's been successful in doing that. The South shows ways in which he hasn't.
And, really, he's done a remarkable job of helping to coalesce a movement on the farther left and get some people elected. Sanders is somewhat limited in who he can approach and how he can help energize the left into entering mainstream politics because appealing to more centrist politicians could cost more in his base support than it could gain from the center. The expectation that Sanders could somehow energize an entire nation of voters to change their understanding of how the system works and potentially place their trust in something new to them and untested in the US at the very time so many older people are heavily invested in seeing that same system pay out as expected for so long having followed the rules as they understood them, is a hell of a lot to ask.
That Sanders has and is doing this well with that is fantastic, that many young people and some not so young people expect even more is also good for maintaining that coalition, but not necessarily as likely an immediate change for the sheer amount of elements in the society designed and desired to work against it. Whatever the outcome of this primary season and election, the legacy of helping get more notice to the left and its values is still a worthy success, as long as we don't tear each other apart in continuing to build on those values for any given candidate and election worries as the values are the most important element to maintain and demand from any government.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:54 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
And, really, he's done a remarkable job of helping to coalesce a movement on the farther left and get some people elected. Sanders is somewhat limited in who he can approach and how he can help energize the left into entering mainstream politics because appealing to more centrist politicians could cost more in his base support than it could gain from the center. The expectation that Sanders could somehow energize an entire nation of voters to change their understanding of how the system works and potentially place their trust in something new to them and untested in the US at the very time so many older people are heavily invested in seeing that same system pay out as expected for so long having followed the rules as they understood them, is a hell of a lot to ask.
That Sanders has and is doing this well with that is fantastic, that many young people and some not so young people expect even more is also good for maintaining that coalition, but not necessarily as likely an immediate change for the sheer amount of elements in the society designed and desired to work against it. Whatever the outcome of this primary season and election, the legacy of helping get more notice to the left and its values is still a worthy success, as long as we don't tear each other apart in continuing to build on those values for any given candidate and election worries as the values are the most important element to maintain and demand from any government.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:54 AM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
That Warren presser. In the most trying of circumstances, the inspiration, leadership, grace, and charisma. That this could have been our background-level vibration.
posted by riverlife at 12:00 PM on March 5, 2020 [29 favorites]
posted by riverlife at 12:00 PM on March 5, 2020 [29 favorites]
Can't figure out how to permalink the comment but commenter Tamar puts it best on this page:
" Clyburn didn’t force anyone to vote a certain way, didn’t suppress votes, didn’t pay people to vote, didn’t cheat any voting systems. He’s influential because people respect him. They heard him out and then made their own choices."
posted by nakedmolerats at 12:04 PM on March 5, 2020 [10 favorites]
" Clyburn didn’t force anyone to vote a certain way, didn’t suppress votes, didn’t pay people to vote, didn’t cheat any voting systems. He’s influential because people respect him. They heard him out and then made their own choices."
posted by nakedmolerats at 12:04 PM on March 5, 2020 [10 favorites]
For a little levity: Democratic candidates as tech companies (I particularly liked Bloomberg = UBER vs. Steyer = LYFT)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:07 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:07 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
If you get them again and add those who just couldn't vote for Clinton but like Biden, plus the expected anti-Trump turnout bump, and and you're in pretty good shape.
. . .
I wasn't the biggest Clinton fan, but any disadvantage or bad vote Clinton had, Biden has worse. I don't think Clinton ever reassured a group of rich people (at least on record) that nothing would fundamentally change upon her election. She never went to bat for a segregationist. She never spoke out against busing. She never bashed Anita Hill.
I don't want to create a whole back-and-forth, but I think believing that Biden is an upgrade to the Clinton coalition is seriously flawed.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:08 PM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
. . .
I wasn't the biggest Clinton fan, but any disadvantage or bad vote Clinton had, Biden has worse. I don't think Clinton ever reassured a group of rich people (at least on record) that nothing would fundamentally change upon her election. She never went to bat for a segregationist. She never spoke out against busing. She never bashed Anita Hill.
I don't want to create a whole back-and-forth, but I think believing that Biden is an upgrade to the Clinton coalition is seriously flawed.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:08 PM on March 5, 2020 [8 favorites]
If Sanders loses the nomination, will you be as stupid as 1968 me was? --- alternate title in the URL: "I was [a] 1968 version [of a] Bernie Bro [and] I still regret it" (Joe Klein Op Ed for the Washington Post, March 4, 2020)
Warren Declines To Endorse, Talks About Support From 'All Those Little Girls' (Danielle Kurtzleben for NPR, March 5, 2020)
Agreed, mournfully.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [21 favorites]
I am trying to remember the person I was in 1968. I was 22 years old and a recent college graduate. I was angry, infuriated by the war in Vietnam and racial segregation. It was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. I was living in New Jersey — very briefly — and I voted for Dick Gregory, the brilliant comedian running as a write-in candidate, instead of Hubert Humphrey, the Democrat running against Republican Richard Nixon. It was a protest vote, obviously. I regret it to this day.An interesting look back at his own decisions and growth as a person, and considerations of political realities.
Humphrey was the Joe Biden of his day, a standard-issue establishment Democrat. He was known to be a lovely man who had a problem with his mouth: He talked too much. He had started out as a civil-rights crusader in Minnesota, but that seemed like ancient history to me. Worse, he was Lyndon B. Johnson’s vice president and a supporter of the war in Vietnam until late in the campaign. We — the Bernie Bros of the moment — had driven Johnson from the race. It was infuriating that we’d done so in order to make the world safe for Hubert Horatio Humphrey.
In retrospect, my vote was an act of blind defiance. I was part of a generational movement — not just political but also cultural, perhaps more so.
Warren Declines To Endorse, Talks About Support From 'All Those Little Girls' (Danielle Kurtzleben for NPR, March 5, 2020)
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ended her bid for the presidency on Thursday, acknowledging her place as the last major female candidate in the race "and all those little girls who are gonna have to wait four more years."riverlife: That Warren presser. In the most trying of circumstances, the inspiration, leadership, grace, and charisma. That this could have been our background-level vibration.
[...]
Warren was asked by reporters outside her home in Cambridge, Mass., about which former rival she might endorse and declined to announce anything immediately. "Let's take a deep breath and spend a little time on that. We don't have to decide this minute," Warren said.
Agreed, mournfully.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [21 favorites]
I don't want to create a whole back-and-forth, but I think believing that Biden is an upgrade to the Clinton coalition is seriously flawed.
You're allowed to believe anything you want but we can see the people turning out for Biden. It's an upgrade in the primary. Maybe that won't translate to the general. Sure, that's possible. But the evidence so far is that Biden's coalition is at least as strong as Clinton's.
I don't think Clinton ever reassured a group of rich people (at least on record) that nothing would fundamentally change upon her election.
This is a distortion of what happened. He told a bunch of rich people that their taxes would have to go up but that their anxiety over that was way overblown because nothing would fundamentally change about their standard of living even though their taxes were going up.
posted by Justinian at 12:17 PM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
You're allowed to believe anything you want but we can see the people turning out for Biden. It's an upgrade in the primary. Maybe that won't translate to the general. Sure, that's possible. But the evidence so far is that Biden's coalition is at least as strong as Clinton's.
I don't think Clinton ever reassured a group of rich people (at least on record) that nothing would fundamentally change upon her election.
This is a distortion of what happened. He told a bunch of rich people that their taxes would have to go up but that their anxiety over that was way overblown because nothing would fundamentally change about their standard of living even though their taxes were going up.
posted by Justinian at 12:17 PM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
An interesting look back at his own decisions and growth as a person, and considerations of political realities.
I wonder if 1968 would've been different if they'd already had four years of Nixon.
posted by clawsoon at 12:19 PM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
I wonder if 1968 would've been different if they'd already had four years of Nixon.
posted by clawsoon at 12:19 PM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
That Hillary Clinton coalition won the popular vote and narrowly lost the Electoral College. If you get them again and add those who just couldn't vote for Clinton but like Biden, plus the expected anti-Trump turnout bump, and and you're in pretty good shape.
The problem is that the Electoral College hasn't gone anywhere since 2016. I think there's a very real possibility that the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by an even higher margin this time around and yet still come up short in electoral votes. The question is: which candidate, Biden or Bernie, has the better chance of winning back those purple states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan) that went for trump last time? I honestly don't know the answer to that.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:19 PM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
The problem is that the Electoral College hasn't gone anywhere since 2016. I think there's a very real possibility that the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by an even higher margin this time around and yet still come up short in electoral votes. The question is: which candidate, Biden or Bernie, has the better chance of winning back those purple states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan) that went for trump last time? I honestly don't know the answer to that.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:19 PM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Regarding the importance of a Warren endorsement:
I'm now a Sanders supporter since she's out. If she came out in support of Biden, in her typical well-articulated fashion, I'd definitely take notice and quite possibly change my mind. I have to assume the Biden-supporting equivalent of me would do the same if she went for Sanders.
She's quite possibly the only person right now who could sell me on switching prior to it being settled at the convention.
That said, I'm sure she understands the power and influence she wields, and so I very much respect her decision to give it another day or three to do it right.
posted by explosion at 12:20 PM on March 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
I'm now a Sanders supporter since she's out. If she came out in support of Biden, in her typical well-articulated fashion, I'd definitely take notice and quite possibly change my mind. I have to assume the Biden-supporting equivalent of me would do the same if she went for Sanders.
She's quite possibly the only person right now who could sell me on switching prior to it being settled at the convention.
That said, I'm sure she understands the power and influence she wields, and so I very much respect her decision to give it another day or three to do it right.
posted by explosion at 12:20 PM on March 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
The Warren farewell presser is really good. At the end, she once again brings attention to the trillions in student loan debt and the terrible state of healthcare in the country. I would encourage all the Sanders and Biden supporters to watch the whole thing to help inform where we should go from here.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:23 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:23 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
I wasn't the biggest Clinton fan, but any disadvantage or bad vote Clinton had, Biden has worse.
I think he has some of the same ones, and some different ones. People for sure hated her just for being her long before the election, and he doesn't have that attached to him. He probably has more genuine political and personal baggage than she does, though many people seem happy enough to overlook it right now. He's definitely better at the pure charming politician stuff. He also often comes off pretty scattered as a speaker these days (and, yes, even back in the day he was "gaffe-prone" as they say). HRC never seemed to mean as much to a lot of people my age (even politically engaged women, in my circles) as she did to, say, my mom. Joe Biden doesn't try to appeal to young people at all, really. Etc. etc.
posted by atoxyl at 12:24 PM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think he has some of the same ones, and some different ones. People for sure hated her just for being her long before the election, and he doesn't have that attached to him. He probably has more genuine political and personal baggage than she does, though many people seem happy enough to overlook it right now. He's definitely better at the pure charming politician stuff. He also often comes off pretty scattered as a speaker these days (and, yes, even back in the day he was "gaffe-prone" as they say). HRC never seemed to mean as much to a lot of people my age (even politically engaged women, in my circles) as she did to, say, my mom. Joe Biden doesn't try to appeal to young people at all, really. Etc. etc.
posted by atoxyl at 12:24 PM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I find Hillary LOADS more charming than creeper Biden ever has been. Shrug.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:30 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:30 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
If Sanders loses the nomination, will you be as stupid as 1968 me was? --- alternate title in the URL: "I was [a] 1968 version [of a] Bernie Bro [and] I still regret it" (Joe Klein Op Ed for the Washington Post, March 4, 2020)
For what it's worth, we should be so lucky as to have a Hubert Humphrey to vote for instead of arch-conservative Joe Biden. A civil rights organizer who ran on ending the nation's military quagmire? Yes please.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:32 PM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
For what it's worth, we should be so lucky as to have a Hubert Humphrey to vote for instead of arch-conservative Joe Biden. A civil rights organizer who ran on ending the nation's military quagmire? Yes please.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:32 PM on March 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
Sadly, we go to war with the candidates we have and not the candidates we wish we had.
posted by Justinian at 12:33 PM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:33 PM on March 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
For what it’s worth, you can go back and look at rankings of Senators by how liberal/conservative they are by one metric or another. A sampling of VoteView (whoever that is) rankings typically had Biden somewhere in the 20’s of “most liberal” in the 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s.
(Looks like these are based on DW-NOMINATE scores.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:45 PM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
(Looks like these are based on DW-NOMINATE scores.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:45 PM on March 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
I find Hillary LOADS more charming than creeper Biden ever has been. Shrug
I don't like him either but I can see it working when I watch him and he's got the whole weird folksy thing. You couldn't swap John Kerry's name into those Onion bits. He even managed to get weirdtwitterleft people to go pretty easy on him for a few weeks there when it looked like his campaign was going down the tubes and he just became this weird old guy.
posted by atoxyl at 12:53 PM on March 5, 2020
I don't like him either but I can see it working when I watch him and he's got the whole weird folksy thing. You couldn't swap John Kerry's name into those Onion bits. He even managed to get weirdtwitterleft people to go pretty easy on him for a few weeks there when it looked like his campaign was going down the tubes and he just became this weird old guy.
posted by atoxyl at 12:53 PM on March 5, 2020
Justinian You're putting words in Biden's mouth that he did not say. He never said their taxes were going up.
Full quote
You can argue that he implied they'd need to pay more taxes, but he didn't directly say it and the main thrust of his statement was that he wanted to help the very rich.
posted by sotonohito at 1:02 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Full quote
“By the way, you know, remember I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, ‘You know what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people.’ Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.”Biden later tried to spin his statement as what you said, but the context was not one of Biden taking about increasing taxes in the rich while reassuring them he wouldn't bankrupt them. It was him telling them that he felt they were wrongly maligned and expressing that he would not let down the very rich people he was speaking to.
The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change. Because when we have income inequality as large as we have in the United States today, it brews and ferments political discord and basic revolution. Not a joke. Not a joke. I’m not (inaudible) revolution. But not a joke. It allows demagogues to step in and say the reason where we are is because of the other, the other.” You’re not the other. I need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won’t let you down. I promise you. I have a bad reputation, I always say what I mean. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean.”
You can argue that he implied they'd need to pay more taxes, but he didn't directly say it and the main thrust of his statement was that he wanted to help the very rich.
posted by sotonohito at 1:02 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments deleted. Getting into an argument about Nixon is a decent example of the kind of thing that feels more like killing time because you're bored than trying to add anything constructive to the discussion.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:03 PM on March 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:03 PM on March 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
sotonohito: It's clear from the context that "you all know in your gut what has to be done" is him saying their taxes have to go up? I don't think that's something anyone has ever denied?
posted by Justinian at 1:06 PM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:06 PM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
WSJ, Richard Rubin, like three hours ago, Biden Tax Plan Targeting Top Earners Would Raise $4 Trillion in 10 Years, Study Says
posted by zachlipton at 1:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
Former Vice President Joe Biden would raise taxes by $4 trillion over a decade, concentrating those higher levies on top earners, according to a study of his tax proposals.It's obviously not the Sanders or Warren tax plan and would not to the same degree address inequality or provide necessary services to those who need them, but he has an actual policy document on this we can look at.
Mr. Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, would increase federal taxes by about 8% as a whole, but the effects would vary sharply by income group, according to the analysis released on Thursday by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group run by a former Obama administration official.
The top 1% of households would pay 74% of the additional taxes and they would see their after-tax income drop by 17% in 2021. That would be an average tax increase of nearly $300,000. Middle-income households would see tax hikes averaging $260 in 2021, mostly because of the indirect effects of corporate tax increases. That would be less than 0.5% of after-tax income.
posted by zachlipton at 1:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
I don't like him either but I can see it working when I watch him and he's got the whole weird folksy thing.
I think Biden tends to read as genuine, unlike a lot of politicians, which also sometimes means genuinely clueless and occasionally perhaps genuinely dickish as well. But however you tote up his defects and charms coming off as true in oneself can be something of a political gift and might explain why many people are so able to write off many of his blunders as just mistakes instead of something worse.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think Biden tends to read as genuine, unlike a lot of politicians, which also sometimes means genuinely clueless and occasionally perhaps genuinely dickish as well. But however you tote up his defects and charms coming off as true in oneself can be something of a political gift and might explain why many people are so able to write off many of his blunders as just mistakes instead of something worse.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
I don’t see Mitch letting that tax plan even get to the floor.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:16 PM on March 5, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 1:16 PM on March 5, 2020
You can see that implication yes. But that's all it is, US trying to interpret a rather vague statement. He didn't say their taxes would go up and that was not the context of his statement.
He started and finished by telling the rich people he was talking to that he thought they were wrongly maligned, that he supported them, and that he wanted to serve their interests. That's the context.
An exceptionally charitable reading could argue that he was trying to gently cajole them into accepting a small tax increase. But that is by no means clear or unambiguous. Claiming that he was definitely talking about tax increases for the rich is disingenuous at best.
There is no better or more logical reason to focus on the ambiguous you know what needs to be done part than the less ambiguous nothing will fundamentally change part.
Further, to the left, even if he has meant that as a softener for a coyly hinted at but never openly revealed intent to raise taxes in a small and to the rich essentially not noticeable way, that isn't actually any better. See, we want things to fundamentally change. Because fundamentally things are terrible right now.
posted by sotonohito at 1:17 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
He started and finished by telling the rich people he was talking to that he thought they were wrongly maligned, that he supported them, and that he wanted to serve their interests. That's the context.
An exceptionally charitable reading could argue that he was trying to gently cajole them into accepting a small tax increase. But that is by no means clear or unambiguous. Claiming that he was definitely talking about tax increases for the rich is disingenuous at best.
There is no better or more logical reason to focus on the ambiguous you know what needs to be done part than the less ambiguous nothing will fundamentally change part.
Further, to the left, even if he has meant that as a softener for a coyly hinted at but never openly revealed intent to raise taxes in a small and to the rich essentially not noticeable way, that isn't actually any better. See, we want things to fundamentally change. Because fundamentally things are terrible right now.
posted by sotonohito at 1:17 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
A sampling of VoteView (whoever that is) ... (Looks like these are based on DW-NOMINATE scores.)
voteview is dw-nominate straight from the KeithPoole's mouth. the pure source.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
voteview is dw-nominate straight from the KeithPoole's mouth. the pure source.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Another comment removed, another tired-of-this-repetition day off. Make the least effort not to treat this like some shitty twitter fight.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:31 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:31 PM on March 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
I don’t see Mitch letting that tax plan even get to the floor.
Nothing will get to the floor unless blue takes the Senate. Not climate legislation, not tax stuff, not fixing ACA, not anything. So it's pretty important that we go all out to get at least 50 senators.
posted by Justinian at 1:47 PM on March 5, 2020 [17 favorites]
Nothing will get to the floor unless blue takes the Senate. Not climate legislation, not tax stuff, not fixing ACA, not anything. So it's pretty important that we go all out to get at least 50 senators.
posted by Justinian at 1:47 PM on March 5, 2020 [17 favorites]
Rich people get bitter, they cling to money or tax breaks or antipathy to people who aren't rich like them...
posted by clawsoon at 1:57 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:57 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Looking at the Cook Forecast for the Senate isn't very encouraging. Getting a tie would mean gaining 3 or 4 depending on what Angus King does. It's possible but seems far from a sure thing.
posted by octothorpe at 2:00 PM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 2:00 PM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Steve Bullock’s running, which helps but is a little derail-y.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:23 PM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:23 PM on March 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I don't think Clinton ever reassured a group of rich people (at least on record) that nothing would fundamentally change upon her election. She never went to bat for a segregationist. She never spoke out against busing. She never bashed Anita Hill.
Three of those four things were a long time ago, which isn't to dismiss them but to say that most voters simply don't have that kind of memory. It just won't register. And quite frankly, Hillary's problem was not her previous policies or statements, it was misogyny and long-simmering anti-Clinton attitudes fostered over decades by the right wing. The kind of baggage Biden has is, for better or worse, easily overlooked by the average voter (as is also true with Trump).
posted by schoolgirl report at 2:23 PM on March 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
Three of those four things were a long time ago, which isn't to dismiss them but to say that most voters simply don't have that kind of memory. It just won't register. And quite frankly, Hillary's problem was not her previous policies or statements, it was misogyny and long-simmering anti-Clinton attitudes fostered over decades by the right wing. The kind of baggage Biden has is, for better or worse, easily overlooked by the average voter (as is also true with Trump).
posted by schoolgirl report at 2:23 PM on March 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
Mike Bloomberg plans new group to support Democratic nominee
Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to form an independent expenditure campaign that will absorb hundreds of his presidential campaign staffers in six swing states to work to elect the Democratic nominee this fall.posted by kirkaracha at 2:51 PM on March 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
...
Bloomberg’s advisers have identified Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida and North Carolina as the six states that will decide the electoral college winner this year. Staffers in each of those states have signed contracts through November to work on the effort.
Just a few years ago, Biden was the topic of cheerful memes. Plenty of people think of him as "that fun guy who hung out with Obama for 8 years; obviously he'd be terrific in office on his own."
The hard path ahead, is getting supporters of The Other Guy to help turn out the vote for whichever of them wins the primaries. Convincing Bernie and Biden supporters that, no really, Trump is worse than the other Democrat, no matter how awful you think he is, will be difficult.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
The hard path ahead, is getting supporters of The Other Guy to help turn out the vote for whichever of them wins the primaries. Convincing Bernie and Biden supporters that, no really, Trump is worse than the other Democrat, no matter how awful you think he is, will be difficult.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:12 PM on March 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
I think the upcoming vote on the Burisma subpoenas is suddenly a lot more interesting due to Mitt Romney's comments earlier. If he is the deciding factor in a decision against the subpoena you can expect another Trump nuclear meltdown with him spitting as much bile at Romney as possible. It's a game changer if Romney ends up playing defense against this bullshit, even if it is on behalf of the truth or morality or whatever motivates him rather than in direct support of Biden. I do think Trump is in an apparently strong position electorally at the moment but he still has the ability to talk himself into being in further opposition to moderate/"independent" Republicans and if cracks emerge there we could see a wave out of the middle instead of from the edges as had been predicted earlier. I don't know if this could happen quickly enough to be reflected in the remaining primaries but nothing is surprising anymore.
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:32 PM on March 5, 2020
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:32 PM on March 5, 2020
The hard path ahead, is getting supporters of The Other Guy to help turn out the vote for whichever of them wins the primaries. Convincing Bernie and Biden supporters that, no really, Trump is worse than the other Democrat, no matter how awful you think he is, will be difficult.
The thing I come back to is that I don't need to find the candidate especially inspiring. Whichever it is, I'm confident that come October I'll be able to pull up a poll and start going through vote-intention crosstabs and find lots of people I want to be with. People intending to turn out and vote for them by the millions, intending to and doing the work to get them elected. Dunno exactly what those groups are going to be, but I'm sure they'll be there.
I don't need to particularly support Biden to go out and vote in support of and solidarity with [purposes of argument] millions of Black women. I don't need to particularly support Sanders to vote in support and solidarity with [purposes of argument] millions of young latinx people. I don't need to support either to vote in support and solidarity with my union sisters and brothers.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:44 PM on March 5, 2020 [24 favorites]
The thing I come back to is that I don't need to find the candidate especially inspiring. Whichever it is, I'm confident that come October I'll be able to pull up a poll and start going through vote-intention crosstabs and find lots of people I want to be with. People intending to turn out and vote for them by the millions, intending to and doing the work to get them elected. Dunno exactly what those groups are going to be, but I'm sure they'll be there.
I don't need to particularly support Biden to go out and vote in support of and solidarity with [purposes of argument] millions of Black women. I don't need to particularly support Sanders to vote in support and solidarity with [purposes of argument] millions of young latinx people. I don't need to support either to vote in support and solidarity with my union sisters and brothers.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:44 PM on March 5, 2020 [24 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted. If you know a claim is bullshit, don't use it to stir the pot here; take a day off moorooka.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:51 PM on March 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:51 PM on March 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change. Because when we have income inequality as large as we have in the United States today, it brews and ferments political discord and basic revolution. Not a joke. Not a joke.
This is probably one of the most astute things Biden could have said to the ultra rich. For a long time we... tolerated... the ultra rich because once upon a time the rising tide did lift all boats. Henry Ford, proud Nazi that he was, would pay his workers a wage capable of buying his products. In the last 40 years corporate America has defaulted on its half of the New Deal social contract of "spread the wealth and we'll overlook the insane greed". The system will only go so far. We can either fix it by bringing the ultra rich down to "avarice" instead of "avarice beyond their wildest dreams" or they can go long on pitchfork futures and profit from their own eventual demise.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:44 PM on March 5, 2020 [15 favorites]
This is probably one of the most astute things Biden could have said to the ultra rich. For a long time we... tolerated... the ultra rich because once upon a time the rising tide did lift all boats. Henry Ford, proud Nazi that he was, would pay his workers a wage capable of buying his products. In the last 40 years corporate America has defaulted on its half of the New Deal social contract of "spread the wealth and we'll overlook the insane greed". The system will only go so far. We can either fix it by bringing the ultra rich down to "avarice" instead of "avarice beyond their wildest dreams" or they can go long on pitchfork futures and profit from their own eventual demise.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:44 PM on March 5, 2020 [15 favorites]
Can Kansas be flipped? Republican Senator Pat Roberts is resigning.
The Republicans have 6 candidates announced for the primaries including Kris Kobach. A divided primary may lead to an even more reactionary than average candidate (e.g. Kobach).
Kansas has had three Democrats for governors recently.
Among the three declared Democrats seeking nomination, Barbara Bollier, seems to be leading. 62 years old, she recently switched from Republican to Democrat citing anti-transgender language Republican platform as being the final straw. She is a physician.
She could be a good place to target your donations.
Of the three recent Democratic governors, any of them would make good nominees.
Kathleen Sebelius (governor Kansas 2003-2009) resigned to become Secretary of Health and Human Services. Won her last election with 58% of the vote. Only 71 years old. And her maiden name is Gilligan. Has declined running for the seat, but maybe she could persuaded to change her mind?
Laura Kelly (governor of Kansas 2019-current). Only 70 years old. I can see someone not wanting to jump to Senate after being governor only a year and a half.
Mark Parkinson (governor of Kansas 2009-2011). Only 63 years old. Former Republican. Took over when Sebelius resigned.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:36 AM on March 6, 2020 [6 favorites]
The Republicans have 6 candidates announced for the primaries including Kris Kobach. A divided primary may lead to an even more reactionary than average candidate (e.g. Kobach).
Kansas has had three Democrats for governors recently.
Among the three declared Democrats seeking nomination, Barbara Bollier, seems to be leading. 62 years old, she recently switched from Republican to Democrat citing anti-transgender language Republican platform as being the final straw. She is a physician.
She could be a good place to target your donations.
Of the three recent Democratic governors, any of them would make good nominees.
Kathleen Sebelius (governor Kansas 2003-2009) resigned to become Secretary of Health and Human Services. Won her last election with 58% of the vote. Only 71 years old. And her maiden name is Gilligan. Has declined running for the seat, but maybe she could persuaded to change her mind?
Laura Kelly (governor of Kansas 2019-current). Only 70 years old. I can see someone not wanting to jump to Senate after being governor only a year and a half.
Mark Parkinson (governor of Kansas 2009-2011). Only 63 years old. Former Republican. Took over when Sebelius resigned.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:36 AM on March 6, 2020 [6 favorites]
Your Childhood Pet Rock perhaps it was a good thing to say to the billionaires. But it was an awful thing to say to everyone else.
We're back to the fact that if you have to explain that Biden wasn't really promising rich people that nothing would change then you've already lost that exchange. And hypocritical and bonkers as it is, I guarantee that Republican groups will be running ads about how Biden is all in for billionaires while only Trump cares about the (white) working men of America.
It was, at best, exceptionally poor phrasing and an unforced error making him look foolish, out of touch, and more concerned for the plight of the poor maligned billionaires than about the real problems facing everyone else. You can say that's not what he meant and you may even be right. But that doesn'tactually matter.
If you have to explain why it wasn't bad, it was bad. Explaining means you lost. The goal is to avoid situations where you have to explain. Sadly this only applies to Democrats, Trump can do and say anything and it doesn't hurt him.
Personally I think your take is overly generous and he really did mean what he said. But even if you're right and I'm wrong it was still an awful thing to say.
posted by sotonohito at 6:00 AM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
We're back to the fact that if you have to explain that Biden wasn't really promising rich people that nothing would change then you've already lost that exchange. And hypocritical and bonkers as it is, I guarantee that Republican groups will be running ads about how Biden is all in for billionaires while only Trump cares about the (white) working men of America.
It was, at best, exceptionally poor phrasing and an unforced error making him look foolish, out of touch, and more concerned for the plight of the poor maligned billionaires than about the real problems facing everyone else. You can say that's not what he meant and you may even be right. But that doesn'tactually matter.
If you have to explain why it wasn't bad, it was bad. Explaining means you lost. The goal is to avoid situations where you have to explain. Sadly this only applies to Democrats, Trump can do and say anything and it doesn't hurt him.
Personally I think your take is overly generous and he really did mean what he said. But even if you're right and I'm wrong it was still an awful thing to say.
posted by sotonohito at 6:00 AM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
I had the exact same read on the quote that Your Childhood Pet Rock did, which suggests to me that the necessary explaining (and therefore “losing”) might not be coming from the side you think it is. If you have to intuit a bunch of extratextual context to support your position, that’s the very definition of explaining.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:51 AM on March 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:51 AM on March 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
This is fascinating. That Vox article showing that Bernie needed an unprecedented youth turnout to win the general election? Its bullshit. Riddled with errors.
"According to the authors, these Bernie-or-Bust respondents [non-Republican youths who would vote for Bernie in a general but no one else] represent about 11 percent of all non-Republican 18-34-year-olds, which means that if they all turned out to vote for Sanders, the turnout rate for the “non-Republican 18-34-year-old” demographic would be 11 percentage points higher than it would be if Joe Biden were the nominee and they all stayed home.
At some point in the authors’ thought process they appear to have confused this counterfactual difference in turnout — the difference between a world where Sanders wins the nomination and a world where Biden does — with a sequential increase in turnout that occurs over some historical time period — say, from 2016 to 2020....Even with zero increase in youth turnout, Sanders still beats Biden. Remarkably, a separate analysis presented within the paper conclusively disproves the authors’ own claim about Sanders’ need for a turnout surge."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:40 AM on March 6, 2020
"According to the authors, these Bernie-or-Bust respondents [non-Republican youths who would vote for Bernie in a general but no one else] represent about 11 percent of all non-Republican 18-34-year-olds, which means that if they all turned out to vote for Sanders, the turnout rate for the “non-Republican 18-34-year-old” demographic would be 11 percentage points higher than it would be if Joe Biden were the nominee and they all stayed home.
At some point in the authors’ thought process they appear to have confused this counterfactual difference in turnout — the difference between a world where Sanders wins the nomination and a world where Biden does — with a sequential increase in turnout that occurs over some historical time period — say, from 2016 to 2020....Even with zero increase in youth turnout, Sanders still beats Biden. Remarkably, a separate analysis presented within the paper conclusively disproves the authors’ own claim about Sanders’ need for a turnout surge."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:40 AM on March 6, 2020
How to Maintain Civility in a Two-Candidate Democratic Race
With disorienting speed, the 2020 Democratic presidential nominating contest has gone from a multicandidate affair in which a contested convention seemed a good bet to a two-candidate competition. And it’s difficult to forget even for a moment that the two survivors, much as they have in common as late septuagenarian white men who seem to have been around forever, pretty clearly represent the two ideological factions that have been battling for supremacy in the Democratic Party for the last half-century.posted by kirkaracha at 8:09 AM on March 6, 2020 [11 favorites]
So it’s an opportune time to ask if they can keep their expressions of disagreement within certain bounds to optimize their ability to unite and defeat the dangerous man in the White House.
...
- Don’t impugn the motives or integrity of fellow Democrats
- Note common principles along with differences of opinion about how to promote them
- Recognize that different strokes for different folks strengthens the party
- Practice coalition politics
- Cut deals if necessary to keep the peace
Simon Balto, LGM: On Bernie, Biden, Black Voters, and Whiteness
There is also a large and reasonable suspicion of whether or not enough white voters would actually support a Sanders-style political recalibration. Kelly, again:posted by tonycpsu at 8:37 AM on March 6, 2020 [14 favorites]Black voters over 45 have lived long enough to see the history made by Obama, but also have an even longer memory of the disappointment and shortcomings of candidates who failed. They’ve surveyed the polarized political landscape and bitterly divided Congress, and they doubt that a Sanders’-style political revolution is even a remote possibility in an age when just voting to fund the government is regularly up for debate. Many of them admired the grit and talent of Warren but had no faith that white men in any significant numbers would support a woman for president, even if she was the best choice.Or as the great Black Freedom Movement scholar Hasan Jeffries put it:
I’m only going to say this once, so listen up! It’s not that Black voters don’t trust #BernieSanders enough to vote for him in the primaries, it’s that they don’t trust white voters enough to vote for him over Trump in the general election. So #Biden it is.[...] For the duration of this election cycle, Sanders has been more popular among people of color than he has been among white folks, with obvious variation between and among various demographic groups and ups and downs in the precise statistics. It’s probably true that some Black voters and other voters of color wouldn’t vote for Bernie in the general, whether because they disagree with his politics or because they don’t buy his Democratic credentials or because he’s skipping states in the primary or whatever.
But there is also the reality that many nonwhite voters are suspicious, based upon experience and history, of white voters’ commitment to a politics explicitly premised on social, economic, and racial justice that might disrupt the privileges of whiteness. That reality weighs on what people think is possible, and thus influences how they primary. It’s obviously not the only thing, but it’s there. The voting calculations of nonwhite voters aren’t made in a vacuum. They’re made in a political landscape indelibly shaped (one might say mutilated) by whiteness.
538 updated their model finally today with Tuesday's results giving Biden an 85% chance of the nomination. This seems like a repeat of 2016 where Sanders wasn't that far behind but all Clinton had to do was split the delegate count on the primaries to keep her lead. Sanders is going to have to really run the table here and win big to overcome the gap.
posted by octothorpe at 8:44 AM on March 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:44 AM on March 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
The 538 model feels like it’s been thrashing around chaotically, but then again the primary also feels like it’s been thrashing around chaotically, so there you go.
They discontinued the “Nowcast” because it was overreacting to everything. It’ll be interesting to see what they do with the primary forecast next time around.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:03 AM on March 6, 2020
They discontinued the “Nowcast” because it was overreacting to everything. It’ll be interesting to see what they do with the primary forecast next time around.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:03 AM on March 6, 2020
Things are looking pretty grim for Sanders. He's behind by 70 delegates right now which means he has to win a lot of states just to catch up.
Next Tuesday is Michigan. Sanders eked out a 1% win in 2016, but currently polling shows Biden with a small lead. If Sanders is going to turn it around, he has to start in Michigan, and by a lot more than 1%. So we will have a much better picture in four days.
And the week after that is Florida. Biden has a huge lead in the polling there. If that pans out, it's pretty much over.
So we will learn a lot this Tuesday and by the following Tuesday it could be definitive.
I don't think we are going to have a repeat of 2016 where Sanders supporters hung on to the bitter end saying "all we have to do is win 80% of the vote in the next ten states."
posted by JackFlash at 9:51 AM on March 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Next Tuesday is Michigan. Sanders eked out a 1% win in 2016, but currently polling shows Biden with a small lead. If Sanders is going to turn it around, he has to start in Michigan, and by a lot more than 1%. So we will have a much better picture in four days.
And the week after that is Florida. Biden has a huge lead in the polling there. If that pans out, it's pretty much over.
So we will learn a lot this Tuesday and by the following Tuesday it could be definitive.
I don't think we are going to have a repeat of 2016 where Sanders supporters hung on to the bitter end saying "all we have to do is win 80% of the vote in the next ten states."
posted by JackFlash at 9:51 AM on March 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Re: possible Biden running mates. Congressman Clymer (whose endorsement is credited for securing Biden's South Carolina win, paving the way for Super Tuesday) wants the Democratic VP pick to be a woman who's a person of color, and has someone specific in mind, not that he's discussed the matter with Biden. (Yahoo News link; its Skullduggery podcast interviewed Clymer yesterday.)
Former hopeful Amy Klobuchar urges an independent investigation into Myon Burrell's case: Amy Klobuchar Calls for Independent Review of Murder Case That Dogged Her Presidential Campaign. (Time, March 5, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:11 AM on March 6, 2020
Former hopeful Amy Klobuchar urges an independent investigation into Myon Burrell's case: Amy Klobuchar Calls for Independent Review of Murder Case That Dogged Her Presidential Campaign. (Time, March 5, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:11 AM on March 6, 2020
Interesting story interviewing Bloomberg staffers who indicate that it was Elizabeth Warren's attack on Bloomberg in the debate that sunk his campaign. So good for her.
And also funny is that some Bloomberg canvassers hired by Bloomberg actually used their paid time to work for Sanders and other down ballot candidates. Seems only fair that the proletariat gets in on the grift.
posted by JackFlash at 11:23 AM on March 6, 2020 [15 favorites]
And also funny is that some Bloomberg canvassers hired by Bloomberg actually used their paid time to work for Sanders and other down ballot candidates. Seems only fair that the proletariat gets in on the grift.
posted by JackFlash at 11:23 AM on March 6, 2020 [15 favorites]
Interesting story interviewing Bloomberg staffers who indicate that it was Elizabeth Warren's attack on Bloomberg in the debate that sunk his campaign. So good for her.
From the article:
And they say patriarchy is dead...
posted by clawsoon at 1:05 PM on March 6, 2020 [13 favorites]
From the article:
As another field organizer put it, “The people who liked Mike initially didn’t care about the sexual [harassment] allegations or stop and frisk, but they got turned off because they thought he made himself look weak and that he had let Warren walk all over him.”So if Bloomberg had been even more of an asshole, if he had been successfully nasty back to Warren, put her and the women she was defending in their "place", he would've gained support from some fraction of the electorate?
And they say patriarchy is dead...
posted by clawsoon at 1:05 PM on March 6, 2020 [13 favorites]
Utterly depressing, is about the only description I can come up with for the way things are right now.
posted by eagles123 at 5:44 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 5:44 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Joe Biden tweet
Senator @EWarren is the fiercest of fighters for middle class families. Her work in Washington, in Massachusetts, and on the campaign trail has made a real difference in people's lives. We needed her voice in this race, and we need her continued work in the Senate.
Sanders needed two tweets to have enough space for praise and her plans.
.@ewarren has taken on the most powerful corporate interests because she cares about those who have been left behind. Without her, the progressive movement would not be nearly as strong as it is today. I know that she'll stay in this fight and we are grateful that she will.
Sen. Warren has run an extraordinary campaign of ideas – demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share, ending corruption in Washington, guaranteeing health care for all, addressing climate change, tackling the student debt crisis and vigorously protecting women's rights.
The bolded bits are perhaps meaningless, but they give me some hope for how each campaign views possible support.
---
In other twitter linking news;
Hillary Rosen(Democratic strategist on CNN) endorsed Joe Biden on the Chris Coumo show on CNN. Nina Turner was there for the Sanders side. During the segment Turner quoted MLK's warning about white moderates. Hilary told Nina she didn't understand what King was saying and began to explain what MLK really meant. Nina was not impressed with a white woman explaining Rev. Dr. King to her but Cuomo cut Nina off to let Hilary make her point but he lost all control when Nina was given back the mic. Nina was having none of that shit. Hilary then shouted over Nina telling her she didn't have standing to use MLK's words. (YouTube video of the segment (8min 12 sec) but linked to exchange at the end (a couple minutes long). But also not actually worth watching because ... it's nothing positive ... but it is illustrative ... but I also gave all the spoilers).
Rosen tweeted a (now deleted) apology;
“On air thurs I said my colleague @ninaturner didn’t have standing to use MLK Jr. That was wrong. I am sorry for saying those words. Pls no need to defend me and attack angry black women. They have standing. I always need to listen more than I talk. We rise together,”
Which got a negative reaction, so she tried again;
Good morning. I have nothing but the upmost respect for Nina, her experience as a person of color, and the fight she’s waging in this election. Wake up this morning to this: I apologized + I take full responsibility. I look forward to the rest of the primary seeking common ground
But added;
Nina, I didn't mean to talk over you. I apologize. Our hero MKLJr said to be afraid of white moderates who prefer peace over justice. That isn't what you said. We can disagree over positions, but both our choices seek justice over peace. We all should.
NinaTurner shot back;
You know Hilary, you didn’t just talk over me. Go back & watch the segment. You said among other things that I did not have standing. Wrap your mind around that. The Rev. Dr. MLK I speak of challenged the status quo. He spoke out against militarism, materialism, poverty & racism.
And then Hilary deleted that tweet too. And has tried to explain more
I’m horrified that anyone would think i would call Nina Turner “an angry black woman” I would NEVER!! After the TV hit last night, I was getting tons of ugly messages to keep fighting her using that phrase. I was trying to tell people to STOP. Cause I KNEW I needed to apologize.
But Sanders has weighed in.
.@JoeBiden must accept responsibility for his surrogate telling our campaign co-chair Senator @NinaTurner that she doesn't have standing to invoke the words of Dr. King. That is unacceptable and Joe must apologize to Nina and all the people of color supporting our campaign.
posted by phoque at 6:01 PM on March 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Senator @EWarren is the fiercest of fighters for middle class families. Her work in Washington, in Massachusetts, and on the campaign trail has made a real difference in people's lives. We needed her voice in this race, and we need her continued work in the Senate.
Sanders needed two tweets to have enough space for praise and her plans.
.@ewarren has taken on the most powerful corporate interests because she cares about those who have been left behind. Without her, the progressive movement would not be nearly as strong as it is today. I know that she'll stay in this fight and we are grateful that she will.
Sen. Warren has run an extraordinary campaign of ideas – demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share, ending corruption in Washington, guaranteeing health care for all, addressing climate change, tackling the student debt crisis and vigorously protecting women's rights.
The bolded bits are perhaps meaningless, but they give me some hope for how each campaign views possible support.
---
In other twitter linking news;
Hillary Rosen(Democratic strategist on CNN) endorsed Joe Biden on the Chris Coumo show on CNN. Nina Turner was there for the Sanders side. During the segment Turner quoted MLK's warning about white moderates. Hilary told Nina she didn't understand what King was saying and began to explain what MLK really meant. Nina was not impressed with a white woman explaining Rev. Dr. King to her but Cuomo cut Nina off to let Hilary make her point but he lost all control when Nina was given back the mic. Nina was having none of that shit. Hilary then shouted over Nina telling her she didn't have standing to use MLK's words. (YouTube video of the segment (8min 12 sec) but linked to exchange at the end (a couple minutes long). But also not actually worth watching because ... it's nothing positive ... but it is illustrative ... but I also gave all the spoilers).
Rosen tweeted a (now deleted) apology;
“On air thurs I said my colleague @ninaturner didn’t have standing to use MLK Jr. That was wrong. I am sorry for saying those words. Pls no need to defend me and attack angry black women. They have standing. I always need to listen more than I talk. We rise together,”
Which got a negative reaction, so she tried again;
Good morning. I have nothing but the upmost respect for Nina, her experience as a person of color, and the fight she’s waging in this election. Wake up this morning to this: I apologized + I take full responsibility. I look forward to the rest of the primary seeking common ground
But added;
Nina, I didn't mean to talk over you. I apologize. Our hero MKLJr said to be afraid of white moderates who prefer peace over justice. That isn't what you said. We can disagree over positions, but both our choices seek justice over peace. We all should.
NinaTurner shot back;
You know Hilary, you didn’t just talk over me. Go back & watch the segment. You said among other things that I did not have standing. Wrap your mind around that. The Rev. Dr. MLK I speak of challenged the status quo. He spoke out against militarism, materialism, poverty & racism.
And then Hilary deleted that tweet too. And has tried to explain more
I’m horrified that anyone would think i would call Nina Turner “an angry black woman” I would NEVER!! After the TV hit last night, I was getting tons of ugly messages to keep fighting her using that phrase. I was trying to tell people to STOP. Cause I KNEW I needed to apologize.
But Sanders has weighed in.
.@JoeBiden must accept responsibility for his surrogate telling our campaign co-chair Senator @NinaTurner that she doesn't have standing to invoke the words of Dr. King. That is unacceptable and Joe must apologize to Nina and all the people of color supporting our campaign.
posted by phoque at 6:01 PM on March 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Months of nonstop bickering is going to be awesome.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:15 PM on March 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 6:15 PM on March 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
I mean I wouldn't characterize a white women lecturing a black woman on what MLK really meant and that same white woman calling the black woman an "angry black woman" as "bickering".
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:36 PM on March 6, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:36 PM on March 6, 2020 [16 favorites]
Man that was a truly awful performance by Rosen. I get it must be hard to think on your feet in front of a live national audience but what the heck. Just go very carefully with something like "Joe Biden's strongest base of support is African American voters, because they know and trust him to stand with them and work every day to improve the lives of every American in furtherance of Dr King's dream of a better future". Or something like that. Just move past the white moderate thing because there's no way that ends well for Rosen.
posted by Justinian at 7:23 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:23 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
"the nazis don't think bernie's just an old white man."
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:30 PM on March 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:30 PM on March 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
After being a white person for over three decades, I've noticed that white people are really good at sympathy but really bad at empathy.
Just go very carefully with something like "Joe Biden's strongest base of support is African American voters, because they know and trust him to stand with them and work every day to improve the lives of every American in furtherance of Dr King's dream of a better future". Or something like that. Just move past the white moderate thing because there's no way that ends well for Rosen.
Exactly. "Yes. Moderates can be fearful but it's only a natural human emotion to change, especially with how many Americans live only one paycheck away from disaster. Joe Biden stands with his allies in the African American community and is ready to show those moderates that we can have justice in our society without having to fear the future."
As soon as Rosen said "actually" I physically cringed.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:35 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Just go very carefully with something like "Joe Biden's strongest base of support is African American voters, because they know and trust him to stand with them and work every day to improve the lives of every American in furtherance of Dr King's dream of a better future". Or something like that. Just move past the white moderate thing because there's no way that ends well for Rosen.
Exactly. "Yes. Moderates can be fearful but it's only a natural human emotion to change, especially with how many Americans live only one paycheck away from disaster. Joe Biden stands with his allies in the African American community and is ready to show those moderates that we can have justice in our society without having to fear the future."
As soon as Rosen said "actually" I physically cringed.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:35 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
I saw a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that said “Goering is my copilot” driving through my city the other day. Evil.
posted by eagles123 at 7:59 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 7:59 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Several deleted, because, Jesus, Mary, and Holy Saint Joseph, have you not all had this argument enough times already? You're making my banhammer itchy.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
There was a study released recently that models such as 538 may have reduced turnout among Democrats in 2016. Something to keep in mind for the general I think.
posted by eagles123 at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
There was a study released recently that models such as 538 may have reduced turnout among Democrats in 2016.
That's such a twentieth century way to think. With sophisticated enough polling analysis we won't even need elections in the future, we can just use the polls instead! So much more convenient.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:36 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
That's such a twentieth century way to think. With sophisticated enough polling analysis we won't even need elections in the future, we can just use the polls instead! So much more convenient.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:36 PM on March 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
That's such a twentieth century way to think. With sophisticated enough polling analysis we won't even need elections in the future, we can just use the polls instead! So much more convenient.
Heck, We won't even need polls!
posted by Roommate at 6:39 AM on March 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
Heck, We won't even need polls!
posted by Roommate at 6:39 AM on March 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
Hilary Rosen is definitely on team money. Here are some highlights from a Nation article about her:
posted by ishmael at 9:42 AM on March 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
We’ve compiled a partial list of SKDKnickerbocker’s clients. Since the firm refuses to register as an ordinary lobbying firm, we don’t know their full roster of clients:She's a terrible surrogate. Unless you're into that sort of thing.
— SKDKnickerbocker was hired by Kaplan Education to block Obama’s reforms on for-profit college companies, an industry plagued by by low quality education, false promises to students, and fraudulent business practices.
— SKDKnickerbocker was hired to push for billions in tax breaks for already profitable corporations. As Bloomberg reported, SKDKnickerbocker manages a lobbying campaign called “Win America,” an effort by companies like Google and Pfizer to receive hundreds of billions in tax breaks on profits made overseas.
— SKDKnickerbocker was hired by a coalition of food manufacturers to fight the Obama administration’s proposals on food nutrition standards. As the Washington Post reported, the firms paying Dunn include General Mills and PepsiCo.
— SKDKnickerbocker represents consulting for Students First, a lobbying group aimed at destroying collective bargaining, and replacing public education with a mix of charters, private schools, and online learning companies. According to documents revealed the blog At The Chalk Face, Students First helped craft bills in Michigan to break teachers unions by severely limiting collective bargaining.
— SKDKnickerbocker previously worked with the Association of American Railroads, a group representing large railroad companies. When the railroad industry was in a pitched battle with their respective labor unions, SKDKnickberbocker produced ads for the railroad lobby.
posted by ishmael at 9:42 AM on March 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
What does it mean to be a "surrogate." Is Rosen on Biden's staff? Is she paid by the campaign? Does she talk to Biden or his campaign staff?
Or is she just a Biden supporter. A Biden Bro.
posted by JackFlash at 9:58 AM on March 7, 2020
Or is she just a Biden supporter. A Biden Bro.
posted by JackFlash at 9:58 AM on March 7, 2020
Oh I don't know if she's part of his campaign. She was being his booster on CNN, and she's just not a good look. I'd think that Biden's campaign would want to distance themselves from her.
posted by ishmael at 10:07 AM on March 7, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by ishmael at 10:07 AM on March 7, 2020 [1 favorite]
DNC Changes Debate Qualification Rules, Eliminating Only Tulsi Gabbard from Arizona Stage (Caleb Howe, Mediaite)
On Friday, the Democratic National Committee changed their qualification guidelines, and in so doing eliminated Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from the upcoming Arizona debate.posted by ZeusHumms at 1:21 PM on March 7, 2020
The [March 15] Democratic primary debate in Phoenix, Arizona will be the 11th this election season, and will feature only two white men: former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders. That’s due to new qualification guidelines which require a candidate to have obtained at least 20% of the delegates awarded so far in order to make the stage.
Gabbard calls on Biden, Sanders to help put her on debate stage (The Hill, March 7, 2020) “@JoeBiden @BernieSanders I’m sure you would agree that our Democratic nominee should be a person who will stand up for what is right. So I ask that you have the courage to do that now in the face of the DNC's effort to keep me from participating in the debates. #LetTulsiDebate,” Gabbard tweeted late Friday night.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:41 PM on March 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:41 PM on March 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
She's an also ran that's about to lose her seat. She has no relevance and would only be there to inject chaos into the proceedings and do the bidding of an autocrat. Putin, Assad, Modi, take your pick.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:46 PM on March 7, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:46 PM on March 7, 2020 [8 favorites]
If Bloomberg hadn't gotten to appear on the two debated, he might still be in the race.
posted by octothorpe at 4:53 PM on March 7, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:53 PM on March 7, 2020 [14 favorites]
Additionally Bloomberg had risen to polling third nationally and first in some states. Gabbard has like 10 supporters, 8 of whom are dudebro trumpists.
posted by Justinian at 7:41 PM on March 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:41 PM on March 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
Just because Gabbard's shitty doesn't mean it's okay to change the rules to disqualify her after she qualifies.
posted by kafziel at 10:05 PM on March 7, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by kafziel at 10:05 PM on March 7, 2020 [6 favorites]
This isn't Mini UN: it's a process that's intended to find the best nominee. It's an arguably sucky system, but if it were better then Gabbard would have been eliminated a long tine ago. She's obviously not a desirable nominee; she would never obtain the support of most Democrats; for goodness sakes let her go without wasting more time and money.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:17 PM on March 7, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:17 PM on March 7, 2020 [13 favorites]
Exactly, having Gabbard on stage is a waste of time, everyone knows it, and letting her have talking time takes away from the time the actual candidates have to speak. Having her on stage at this point would make things actively worse for everyone involved. Except Gabbard in her quest for a lucrative Fox News gig, I guess.
posted by Justinian at 12:06 AM on March 8, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:06 AM on March 8, 2020 [8 favorites]
I haven't been paying attention to the news for the last few days, has Biden made a public appearance in the last week? Is his campaign's strategy still to keep him hidden as much as possible and to keep him away from voters? It's something that has me worried about how well he'd hold up in the general election, where he can't rely on being the comfortable default option for 2/3 of the electorate. If he just disappears for weeks at a time like Clinton did in 2016, it's going to kill him versus Trump, where we need more people out in public making the case for electing Democrats, not hiding and assuming that if we just wait him out, Trump will go away quietly.
posted by Copronymus at 8:13 AM on March 8, 2020
posted by Copronymus at 8:13 AM on March 8, 2020
I'm not sure why I'm doing your internet search for you but yes, Biden has made speeches in the last week. He was in St. Louis last night.
posted by octothorpe at 8:26 AM on March 8, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:26 AM on March 8, 2020 [6 favorites]
I love the posting technique of spreading a lie by putting it in the form of a question so that you can just say "I was only asking questions" when called on it.
posted by octothorpe at 8:30 AM on March 8, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:30 AM on March 8, 2020 [11 favorites]
I was aware of the LA event with the sister-wife mixup, but had assumed it was longer ago than it was, and was not aware of either of the Missouri events. I'm glad to hear that I was incorrect on that front, although I'm not going to pretend that all of my fears about his campaign are allayed. I would also appreciate it if people would not accuse me of deliberately lying to poison the minds of the 5 people still reading the very end of an 1800 comment thread from 15 days ago, whatever the efficacy of that could possibly be. I can assure you that in the future I will be less hasty in my posting.
posted by Copronymus at 9:06 AM on March 8, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 9:06 AM on March 8, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Please drop this argument and speculating on Biden's health. This is a community conversation not "Please convince me of this one thing" Many people are still reading this thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:08 AM on March 8, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:08 AM on March 8, 2020 [13 favorites]
Jesse Jackson just endorsed Sanders. Kamala Harris endorsed Biden.
posted by eagles123 at 9:33 AM on March 8, 2020 [3 favorites]
If people unfollowed any Twitter account that was spreading stories easily disproven with one five-second google search, it would quickly improve a lot of dialogue. Instead it’s a race to the bottom as people reach for garbage tweets to soothe the genuine pain of watching someone you spent so much time supporting and hoping for not do well. It’s been surprising to watch the unfolding of post-campaign recrimination. (I had no clue the Warren campaign had so much beef with Buttigieg, for example.) But instead of focusing on how to push for influence from the campaigns that remain, people are spending time trying to turn the Biden campaign into Dave. In the long run, the Chapo-ization of the left does a huge disservice to the real, ass-kicking, diverse progressive movement that’s out there fighting for necessary change.
posted by sallybrown at 9:53 AM on March 8, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 9:53 AM on March 8, 2020 [16 favorites]
And let me add—however much crap David Sirota has gotten in the past as a surrogate, he has been an incredibly strong voice this week for contrasting Bernie and Biden on the very serious differences between them on the ISSUES and for, for the most part, ignoring the crap flowing around some of Twitter. Same with AOC. (Who has been attacked all day for daring to publicly enjoy an SNL skit.)
posted by sallybrown at 10:06 AM on March 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:06 AM on March 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
I know this will probably get everyone on here to hate me, but Chapo is part of the left and always will be part of the left. I can understand people not liking Chapo, but it will always be here. And, quite frankly, the fanbase is very active is promoting and fighting for left wing causes both through get out the vote efforts and donations.
I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate criticisms of Chapo and legitimate reasons to dislike them depending on who you are, but they aren’t going away, and they are one of the main platforms advocating for people to get involved and do something. One of their central theses is that online doesn’t matter and is a distraction.
And the questions regarding Biden’s mental status neither originate with them nor come primarily from them. A sports talk radio host I occasionally listened to expressed incredulity that the Democrats would consider nominating Biden after a particularly bad October debate.
Rest assured, the Republicans and Trump are aware of these issues and will use them in the general.
Now you all can fire away and get your 10 minute hate on towards me.
posted by eagles123 at 10:10 AM on March 8, 2020 [3 favorites]
I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate criticisms of Chapo and legitimate reasons to dislike them depending on who you are, but they aren’t going away, and they are one of the main platforms advocating for people to get involved and do something. One of their central theses is that online doesn’t matter and is a distraction.
And the questions regarding Biden’s mental status neither originate with them nor come primarily from them. A sports talk radio host I occasionally listened to expressed incredulity that the Democrats would consider nominating Biden after a particularly bad October debate.
Rest assured, the Republicans and Trump are aware of these issues and will use them in the general.
Now you all can fire away and get your 10 minute hate on towards me.
posted by eagles123 at 10:10 AM on March 8, 2020 [3 favorites]
There is so much to cover in this piece about Biden, but the passages about the Iraq War in this piece are heartbreaking and infuriating:
Do those leaders get a pass because they just happen to be Democrats?
posted by Ouverture at 10:10 AM on March 8, 2020 [13 favorites]
Then there’s Iraq. In 2003, Biden was “a senator bullish about the push to war [in Iraq] who helped sell the Bush administration’s pitch to the American public,” who “voted for—and helped advance—the Bush agenda.” He was the war’s “most crucial” senate supporter. Biden repeated the myth that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, saying that “these weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power.” The resulting war was one of the most deadly catastrophes in the history of U.S. foreign policy—the Iraqi death toll was in the hundreds of thousands or possibly even the millions, and 4,500 American troops died. And that’s just the dead: countless more were left permanently maimed, to suffer with PTSD for the rest of their lives. For every dead person, there is a family who will struggle forever to get over their loss. This is no trivial issue: In selecting a commander in chief, you want someone who doesn’t launch catastrophic wars of aggression.I still can't understand why Americans refuse to see the Iraq War (and the sanctions before them) as one of the deadliest and most significant acts of white supremacy in our lifetimes. A handful of loud leftist voices being mean online gets so much attention and that seems to be enough to discount and disqualify a leader, but where is the moral outrage for the leaders who have the blood and suffering of millions on their hands?
Now, you might be tempted to forgive Biden: Who among us hasn’t made the occasional disastrous decision that caused millions of deaths? But most unforgivably, Biden hasn’t reckoned with or atoned for what he did. Instead, he has simply lied about it repeatedly, because he knows how embarrassing the truth is. “I never believed they had weapons of mass destruction,” he said in October 2004, even though he had told the American people the exact opposite. In this campaign, Biden has been saying things like:President George W. Bush “got them in, and before we know it, we had a ‘shock and awe.’ Immediately, the moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment.Biden had to admit to fact-checkers that this was false. He has explained his conduct by saying that he wrongly placed his trust in George W. Bush to use his authority carefully, but the Intercept has reported that as early as 1998 Biden was saying things like “the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone.” If you want to understand the anger of the veteran who recently confronted Biden about his record on Iraq, saying he had “blood on his hands,” it’s important to remember that Biden not only provided Democratic support for George W. Bush’s criminal war of aggression, but he has lied about what he did and blamed Bush for his actions. He has been “repeatedly suggesting he opposed the war and Mr. Bush’s conduct from the beginning, claims that detailed fact checks have deemed wrong or misleading.” Biden “got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal,” and worse, he did so because of the foreign policy “principles” he now touts as giving him unique diplomatic judgment. Buying the obviously-flimsy rationale for the Iraq War in the first place (while others were loudly opposing U.S. conduct) clearly calls into question whether someone should be put in charge of a vast nuclear arsenal (where they will have to make lots of decisions like these and evaluate evidence). But you also can’t forgive someone for something they’ve done wrong until they fully admit what it was that they did.
Do those leaders get a pass because they just happen to be Democrats?
posted by Ouverture at 10:10 AM on March 8, 2020 [13 favorites]
A handful of loud leftist voices being mean online gets so much attention and that seems to be enough to discount and disqualify a leader, but where is the moral outrage for the leaders who have the blood and suffering of millions on their hands?
There are lots of us, me included, who will not vote for Biden in the primary specifically because of the Iraq War. It’s why I wouldn’t vote for Hillary in the primary in 2016. It’s a hugely strong point in Bernie’s favor. So why are so many surrogates and huge leftist accounts spending time pushing Weekend at Biden’s jokes instead of talking about this?
posted by sallybrown at 10:14 AM on March 8, 2020 [7 favorites]
There are lots of us, me included, who will not vote for Biden in the primary specifically because of the Iraq War. It’s why I wouldn’t vote for Hillary in the primary in 2016. It’s a hugely strong point in Bernie’s favor. So why are so many surrogates and huge leftist accounts spending time pushing Weekend at Biden’s jokes instead of talking about this?
posted by sallybrown at 10:14 AM on March 8, 2020 [7 favorites]
So why are so many surrogates and huge leftist accounts spending time pushing Weekend at Biden’s jokes instead of talking about this?
Are they? That's really depressing.
If you're asking me, I think it's because very few Americans from across the political spectrum, with the exception of anti-imperialist leftists, actually care about what happens to poor, brown folks far away. It isn't as though Bush, Obama, Kissinger, and the Clintons have been held accountable for their war crimes.
posted by Ouverture at 10:26 AM on March 8, 2020
Are they? That's really depressing.
If you're asking me, I think it's because very few Americans from across the political spectrum, with the exception of anti-imperialist leftists, actually care about what happens to poor, brown folks far away. It isn't as though Bush, Obama, Kissinger, and the Clintons have been held accountable for their war crimes.
posted by Ouverture at 10:26 AM on March 8, 2020
It really does bring to mind the attempts to make support for Corbyn socially unacceptable in the UK.
From my perspective, as someone who has listened to the podcast, I have no quarrel with someone disliking them. Even for fans, there are legitimate criticisms I’m sure. That being said, the caricature painted on here is inaccurate.
We just had someone speaking in support of the Biden campaign on CNN behave in an extremely inappropriate and offensive manner towards a member of the Sanders campaign. And yet we went into excruciating detail to delineate the exact links this person had to the Biden campaign. Yet any rando on the internet is supposed to be part of some blob connected to the rest of the left, even to the Sanders campaign itself, so that immediate statements of disavowal are necessary?
And yes, most of this is extremely online crap that you would be better off not knowing about. We have an entire post on this site right now about how Twitter is a place where people get in random fights about seemingly innocuous things. Sometimes the medium is the message.
posted by eagles123 at 10:59 AM on March 8, 2020 [6 favorites]
From my perspective, as someone who has listened to the podcast, I have no quarrel with someone disliking them. Even for fans, there are legitimate criticisms I’m sure. That being said, the caricature painted on here is inaccurate.
We just had someone speaking in support of the Biden campaign on CNN behave in an extremely inappropriate and offensive manner towards a member of the Sanders campaign. And yet we went into excruciating detail to delineate the exact links this person had to the Biden campaign. Yet any rando on the internet is supposed to be part of some blob connected to the rest of the left, even to the Sanders campaign itself, so that immediate statements of disavowal are necessary?
And yes, most of this is extremely online crap that you would be better off not knowing about. We have an entire post on this site right now about how Twitter is a place where people get in random fights about seemingly innocuous things. Sometimes the medium is the message.
posted by eagles123 at 10:59 AM on March 8, 2020 [6 favorites]
Mod note: comments removed - please do not overgeneralize about other people, please have conversations with people in this thread and don't use it as proxy for fighting with people elsewhere. And wrap up the Chapo conversation unless you want to talk about it and not just rail about/for/against it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:15 AM on March 8, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:15 AM on March 8, 2020 [9 favorites]
Yet any rando on the internet is supposed to be part of some blob connected to the rest of the left
Uhh, welcome to being a PoC, woman, queer, and/or any sort of person that comes from a non-majority community and ends up being the representation of their people.
posted by FJT at 11:30 AM on March 8, 2020 [14 favorites]
Uhh, welcome to being a PoC, woman, queer, and/or any sort of person that comes from a non-majority community and ends up being the representation of their people.
posted by FJT at 11:30 AM on March 8, 2020 [14 favorites]
Great Twitter thread from Brittany Packnett Cunningham, starting with:
Understand this: It’s not that people simply mean “you were rude to me so I won’t vote for your guy.”
It’s that people mean, “your movement doesn’t seem to want me, and your coalition doesn’t seem to be open to me.
I’m worried the execution of your policy will be the same.”
posted by sallybrown at 11:40 AM on March 8, 2020 [25 favorites]
Understand this: It’s not that people simply mean “you were rude to me so I won’t vote for your guy.”
It’s that people mean, “your movement doesn’t seem to want me, and your coalition doesn’t seem to be open to me.
I’m worried the execution of your policy will be the same.”
posted by sallybrown at 11:40 AM on March 8, 2020 [25 favorites]
Or being a white baby-boomer who's assumed to be a centrist or right-winger. No, I'm not claiming to be discriminated against, or denying privilege. Just pointing out that NO labels based on external characteristics define all the people they apply to. So, yes, listen to actual individuals, and don't assume that poll results are definitive.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:17 PM on March 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:17 PM on March 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
If it's recognized, why do a lot of people continue collapsing supporters of other candidates? It happens even here. And It's obviously not helpful for conversation and it definitely doesn't win over support from that other side, yet it's still being done.
And I'm not saying this to target any specific candidate, but just something I've seen happen more and more often.
Maybe I'm being naive and this is actually an effective and winning strategy. Someone tell me.
posted by FJT at 12:40 PM on March 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
And I'm not saying this to target any specific candidate, but just something I've seen happen more and more often.
Maybe I'm being naive and this is actually an effective and winning strategy. Someone tell me.
posted by FJT at 12:40 PM on March 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: I mentioned a week ago to wrap up scrutinizing the health of the candidates. Not asking again.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:53 PM on March 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:53 PM on March 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
Sometimes the medium is the message.
The medium is always the message, far more so than content. That most content pushed through social media is so shitty, speaks clearly to the shittiness of that medium. Not only do social media feeds create epistemic bubbles (i.e., you're only reading what your follows + algorithms push to you) but they are also bubbles of personal projection, the innate solipsism of an individual human consciousness writ large, the self camouflaged as 'they'. So many ferocious tempests in teapots, making perfect the mortal enemy of good.
Kamala Harris endorsed Biden.
Maybe she wants that VP slot? Ambition has never been among Harris' lesser attributes. As one of my senators, this endorsement--especially at this stage of the primary--is problematic to me, because it disregards the voted first choice of her constituents.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:28 PM on March 8, 2020 [3 favorites]
The medium is always the message, far more so than content. That most content pushed through social media is so shitty, speaks clearly to the shittiness of that medium. Not only do social media feeds create epistemic bubbles (i.e., you're only reading what your follows + algorithms push to you) but they are also bubbles of personal projection, the innate solipsism of an individual human consciousness writ large, the self camouflaged as 'they'. So many ferocious tempests in teapots, making perfect the mortal enemy of good.
Kamala Harris endorsed Biden.
Maybe she wants that VP slot? Ambition has never been among Harris' lesser attributes. As one of my senators, this endorsement--especially at this stage of the primary--is problematic to me, because it disregards the voted first choice of her constituents.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:28 PM on March 8, 2020 [3 favorites]
For whatever it's worth, a new piece from Ezra Klein @ Vox.com - What the media missed about Joe Biden’s electability: Political junkies don’t like Joe Biden, but voters do. And there’s a reason for that.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:34 AM on March 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by soundguy99 at 6:34 AM on March 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
I’d be interested to know whether the voters they are counting as first time voters are first time voters for a democratic primary or first time voters for a primary. I am also interested to know where the estimates are coming from. I know that reanalyses of elections after the fact sometimes revise measures of the demographics of an electorate.
To just throw something out there: The fact that there is only one contested primary instead of 2 as in 2016 might have something to do with the increased turnout, especially considering Trump’s unpopularity.
I totally agree with Kline that Trump is in a strong position, though. I seem to remember both Sanders and Clinton polling better against Trump in 2016 than either Biden or Sanders do now.
posted by eagles123 at 8:28 AM on March 9, 2020
To just throw something out there: The fact that there is only one contested primary instead of 2 as in 2016 might have something to do with the increased turnout, especially considering Trump’s unpopularity.
I totally agree with Kline that Trump is in a strong position, though. I seem to remember both Sanders and Clinton polling better against Trump in 2016 than either Biden or Sanders do now.
posted by eagles123 at 8:28 AM on March 9, 2020
I seem to remember both Sanders and Clinton polling better against Trump in 2016 than either Biden or Sanders do now.
CNN this morning:
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:00 AM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
CNN this morning:
General Election: Trump vs. Biden: Biden 53, Trump 43 - Biden +10CNN Feb 24-27, 2016
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders: Sanders 52, Trump 45 - Sanders +7
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton: Clinton 52%, Donald Trump 44% - Clinton + 8CNN March 17-20, 2016
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders: Sanders 58%, Trump 38% - Sanders + 20
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton: Clinton 53%, Trump 41% - Clinton + 12Not stellar but Trump had not had as much consolidation in his Republican base in 2016 compared to today. It's basically everyone against Trump and whatever Republicans are left in 2020.
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders: Sanders 55%, Trump 43% - Sanders + 12
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:00 AM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Biden numbers vs. Trump are real. There is basically nothing to be said or known about Biden that hasn't already been said or known. Absent new developments, and with a modicum of the competence that Clinton's campaign lacked, Biden crushes Trump.
The Sanders numbers vs. Trump are a fantasy. Trump and the independent expenditures haven't even started to get into Sanders 50+ year radical history, and the liberal-leaning corporate and wealth interests that have actively or tacitly supported Democrats back to (Bill) Clinton's re-election in 1996, and were loudly lockstep behind Clinton in 2016 haven't begun the move to neutrality, a third-party candidate or Trump support that their self-interest compels if Trump faces Sanders.
(By the way, I'm not saying that Sanders can't beat Trump. It's definitely possible. It just requires that the $2 or $3 billion that will be spent against him proves to be ineffective because voters, learning of his racialism, decide to embrace it an not reject it. Could happen, but just can't be said to have happened yet and the head-to-head poll numbers mean little.)
posted by MattD at 9:16 AM on March 9, 2020
The Sanders numbers vs. Trump are a fantasy. Trump and the independent expenditures haven't even started to get into Sanders 50+ year radical history, and the liberal-leaning corporate and wealth interests that have actively or tacitly supported Democrats back to (Bill) Clinton's re-election in 1996, and were loudly lockstep behind Clinton in 2016 haven't begun the move to neutrality, a third-party candidate or Trump support that their self-interest compels if Trump faces Sanders.
(By the way, I'm not saying that Sanders can't beat Trump. It's definitely possible. It just requires that the $2 or $3 billion that will be spent against him proves to be ineffective because voters, learning of his racialism, decide to embrace it an not reject it. Could happen, but just can't be said to have happened yet and the head-to-head poll numbers mean little.)
posted by MattD at 9:16 AM on March 9, 2020
Of these two poll results, both from the same time period using the same methodology and the same sample, one is the absolute truth, and the other one is a fantasy.
posted by vibrotronica at 9:38 AM on March 9, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by vibrotronica at 9:38 AM on March 9, 2020 [12 favorites]
Yeah, I’m not confident making absolute statements about anything. Going into 2016, Hillary Clinton has been public figure since the early 90’s, as well as a former Senator, former primary candidate, and a high ranking member of a presidential administration. Even the e-mail scandal was already known. I don’t know how much more we’ll known a candidate could get.
If anything, Biden is a bigger unknown because to this point he’s been more defined by his relationship to Obama than as a politician with an identity of his own.
For most of the primary he was overshadowed, perhaps unjustly, by the other candidates.
posted by eagles123 at 10:10 AM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
If anything, Biden is a bigger unknown because to this point he’s been more defined by his relationship to Obama than as a politician with an identity of his own.
For most of the primary he was overshadowed, perhaps unjustly, by the other candidates.
posted by eagles123 at 10:10 AM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Clinton and her crowd also utterly dropped the ball with their campaign. They were so convinced they had the election won, they didn't bother to take Trump seriously, or Bernie Sanders for that matter. So her early high numbers dropped un-mysteriously.
Using four year old polling numbers to argue current points isn't necessarily one hundred percent wrong, but it does sort of illuminate Mark Twain's old line about "lies, damned lies and statistics".
posted by philip-random at 10:35 AM on March 9, 2020
Using four year old polling numbers to argue current points isn't necessarily one hundred percent wrong, but it does sort of illuminate Mark Twain's old line about "lies, damned lies and statistics".
posted by philip-random at 10:35 AM on March 9, 2020
Would you like a silly slight derail? Why not give your gaming fingers a go at Super Bernie World?
posted by JHarris at 1:04 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 1:04 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
To catch up: Republicans’ various election-year investigations of Joe Biden, Burisma and Democrats, explained (If the Burisma non-scandal still hasn't caught fire by May, I expect Biden/his vice-presidency to be tied tightly to H. Clinton/her term as Sec'y of State, with some b.s. 'bombshell' released by a gov't entity in the week before the election.)
Oh, no kidding, when I went off to Google any countries Biden & Clinton visited together during that period, up popped: Hillary Clinton may be angling to be Biden's VP: John Sununu (FOXNews, March 9, 2020) "There is still a long time for public debate between Biden and Sanders," Sununu said. "And if Biden begins to fall apart even more than he has fallen apart with his gaffes to date, the party is desperately going to be looking for a third alternative and that's what she is counting on -- either being the alternative at the top of the ticket or being the alternative as number two." (Not just "angling" for the VP slot, but offering an 'alternative' Dem candidate when B & B don't work out.) It's already happening.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:53 PM on March 9, 2020
Oh, no kidding, when I went off to Google any countries Biden & Clinton visited together during that period, up popped: Hillary Clinton may be angling to be Biden's VP: John Sununu (FOXNews, March 9, 2020) "There is still a long time for public debate between Biden and Sanders," Sununu said. "And if Biden begins to fall apart even more than he has fallen apart with his gaffes to date, the party is desperately going to be looking for a third alternative and that's what she is counting on -- either being the alternative at the top of the ticket or being the alternative as number two." (Not just "angling" for the VP slot, but offering an 'alternative' Dem candidate when B & B don't work out.) It's already happening.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:53 PM on March 9, 2020
"And if Biden begins to fall apart even more than he has fallen apart with his gaffes to date, the party is desperately going to be looking for a third alternative and that's what she is counting on"
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
God, these people are obsessed. In thirty years we're going to still be hearing about how the re-animated corpse of Hillary Clinton is going to be plotting in a pizza parlor bunker to take their guns and run a secret satanic zombie lesbian coup.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:16 PM on March 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
God, these people are obsessed. In thirty years we're going to still be hearing about how the re-animated corpse of Hillary Clinton is going to be plotting in a pizza parlor bunker to take their guns and run a secret satanic zombie lesbian coup.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 5:16 PM on March 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
There is hard data that shows "Bernie Bros" are a myth.
posted by kafziel at 6:20 PM on March 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by kafziel at 6:20 PM on March 9, 2020 [5 favorites]
That's just the sort of the thing a bernie brother would say
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:03 PM on March 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:03 PM on March 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
Too bad the conclusion of the article doesn't actually agree with the headline.
And on a more general note, "we have mathematically proven your experiences with people who support my guy didn't happen" is not a particularly persuasive argument.
posted by tocts at 7:09 PM on March 9, 2020 [17 favorites]
Is there actually any difference between different candidates' supporters online behavior, based on this?Even if you accept the premise that a shotgun approach using natural language models that are largely used for companies to measure sentiment of consumers as they talk about products (vs. interact with each other) and are known to have trouble with sarcasm, negations, references, less obvious jokes, etc, could be valid, the guy who did the analysis doesn't actually think it proves anything.
As a data scientist, I am usually skeptical of any result. So I'll say maybe not or at least much less than claimed.
I still would like to dig deeper into this. This analysis looks at all tweets. I would like to look just at twitter interactions between candidate's supporters, look at tweets responding or mentioning media professionals. I want to use some algorithms in the research that evaluate hate speech, racism, sexism. I'd like to look at specific topics of discussion, and possibly evaluate the influence of negative tweets (eg. retweets and number of followers who could see a tweet/retweet).
And on a more general note, "we have mathematically proven your experiences with people who support my guy didn't happen" is not a particularly persuasive argument.
posted by tocts at 7:09 PM on March 9, 2020 [17 favorites]
And the gaslighting continues.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 7:17 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
The plural of anecdote is not data.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 7:17 PM on March 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
No study “proves anything “, that’s an absurd bar to clear. Also sarcasm and references don’t really constitute abusive behavior. Also sentiment analysis is commonly used in studies of politics communication.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:19 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:19 PM on March 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Let's all take a pause to remember our mutual opponent has supporters marching with torches yelling "JEWS.. WILL NOT... REPLACE US!"
Meanwhile we are doing sentiment analysis to aim the circular firing squad's guns.
posted by benzenedream at 7:25 PM on March 9, 2020 [13 favorites]
Meanwhile we are doing sentiment analysis to aim the circular firing squad's guns.
posted by benzenedream at 7:25 PM on March 9, 2020 [13 favorites]
Mod note: A couple comments deleted. This is where I start handing out 24 hour bans for continuing this same old junk.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:48 PM on March 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:48 PM on March 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
Bernie Sanders and the failure of the youth vote strategy
Check out these numbers:posted by tonycpsu at 12:57 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]@SteveKornacki: 2016 vs. 2020: Share of Dem primary/caucus electorate under 30Based on exit poll data, the percentage of the total Democratic primary/caucus turnout made up of voters under 30 declined in the ten of the eleven states where this could be measured [...]
IA 18% ('16) => 24% ('20)
NH 19% => 13%
NV 18% => 17%
SC 15% => 11%
AL 14% => 10%
MA 19% => 16%
NC 18% => 14%
TN 15% => 11%
TX 20% => 15%
VA 16% => 13%
VT 15% => 11%
Nationally speaking, Sanders was a relative political unknown in 2015; four years later he was one of the half dozen best-known politicians in America, and his message of revolutionary reform, or reformist revolution, seemed well suited to bring out young alienated Gen Y/Z first-time voters. [...]
It hasn’t happened, to put it mildly. Note the explanation “young people don’t vote” doesn’t work here, because they did vote in large numbers for Sanders four years ago. Why isn’t it happening this time around? (I don’t know to what extent these percentages reflect lower absolute numbers of young voters, and/or higher numbers of older voters).
Not sure what demographic Biden is going for with this one. "Don't tell me that, pal, or I'm going to go out and slap you in the face."
posted by clawsoon at 1:19 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:19 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
"I don’t know to what extent these percentages reflect lower absolute numbers of young voters, and/or higher numbers of older voters"
So what's the answer to that, because it's easy to see that people online are heatedly arguing the turnout talking point without this key piece of information. I saw a comment assert without backup that more millennials voted vs 2016, but even more old people voted.
posted by polymodus at 1:30 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
So what's the answer to that, because it's easy to see that people online are heatedly arguing the turnout talking point without this key piece of information. I saw a comment assert without backup that more millennials voted vs 2016, but even more old people voted.
posted by polymodus at 1:30 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure the difference is really so important. Like, it matters for deciding whether The Kids really are too lazy to get out and vote, as most people seem to have assumed/implied, but for the purposes of winning in the general election, the important thing is not how motivated each candidate's supporters are in absolute terms, but whose supporters are more motivated in relative terms. As I see it, if the share of older voters is even higher in this election than it was in 2016, that is bad news not just for Bernie, but for anyone running against Trump.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 1:39 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by J.K. Seazer at 1:39 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
I see the percentage vs. absolute number of voters argument as moot. Demographics can't have changed in just four years across all of those states to a degree large enough to mask the huge increase in turnout among youth voters that was supposed to be key to Sanders' electoral strategy.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:40 PM on March 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:40 PM on March 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
Youth voters apparently are defined as 18 - 29 in these surveys. That leaves 30 - 85+ as the rest of the electorate. Really the distribution is probably more ... bimodal? because millennials and boomers are larger than X. Either way, the implications for the proportion of young voters should be obvious.
As to why, the lack of a contested Republican primary, an unpopular incumbent, and more Democrats running surely offer at least part of an explanation.
What it means for the general, I have no idea. Democrats were helped at least in part by higher millennial turnout in the midterms.
posted by eagles123 at 2:24 PM on March 10, 2020
As to why, the lack of a contested Republican primary, an unpopular incumbent, and more Democrats running surely offer at least part of an explanation.
What it means for the general, I have no idea. Democrats were helped at least in part by higher millennial turnout in the midterms.
posted by eagles123 at 2:24 PM on March 10, 2020
If you can find the total number of votes for each state in 2016 and 2020 you should be able to combine that with the data in the table above to get there.
Wikipedia says there were 253,062 votes cast for the 2016 NH dem primary and 19% of those were under 30 so that should account for 48,082 votes. The same numbers in 2020 were 298,523 total votes, 13% were under 30 so there were 38,808 votes cast by voters under 30.
I don't have time to gather the numbers for the every state but finding that info should be the hard part if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
posted by VTX at 2:33 PM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Wikipedia says there were 253,062 votes cast for the 2016 NH dem primary and 19% of those were under 30 so that should account for 48,082 votes. The same numbers in 2020 were 298,523 total votes, 13% were under 30 so there were 38,808 votes cast by voters under 30.
I don't have time to gather the numbers for the every state but finding that info should be the hard part if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
posted by VTX at 2:33 PM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Note the explanation “young people don’t vote” doesn’t work here, because they did vote in large numbers for Sanders four years ago.
Well, only if you insist on taking it to mean they NEVER vote. If they vote when they happen to feel particularly inspired to do so, but, if not, they blow it off, that seems different enough from cohorts who consider missing an election to be completely unacceptable that it's not very misleading rhetoric to say they "don't vote".
posted by thelonius at 2:40 PM on March 10, 2020
Well, only if you insist on taking it to mean they NEVER vote. If they vote when they happen to feel particularly inspired to do so, but, if not, they blow it off, that seems different enough from cohorts who consider missing an election to be completely unacceptable that it's not very misleading rhetoric to say they "don't vote".
posted by thelonius at 2:40 PM on March 10, 2020
Not sure what demographic Biden is going for with this one. "Don't tell me that, pal, or I'm going to go out and slap you in the face."
At the very least, the debates between Trump and Biden at the twilight of the Anthropocene will be quite entertaining.
posted by Ouverture at 2:49 PM on March 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
At the very least, the debates between Trump and Biden at the twilight of the Anthropocene will be quite entertaining.
posted by Ouverture at 2:49 PM on March 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
I mean, the Democrats are going to need surges of voters from all age groups to overcome Trump in the general. The Democrats did see increases of young voters and moderates in the suburbs during the midterms, but Trump saw concomitant increases in rural areas. Extrapolations of house election results to the general won’t necessarily capture that dynamic.
Unfortunately, Biden doesn’t exactly have the personality to unite broad coalitions. Being from eastern PA, I’m familiar with his political style. He still thinks it’s the early 90’s, and he is constitutionally incapable of reminding people of that fact. Very alienating.
On the other hand, COVID-19 is a huge wildcard. To me, that is the most interesting l (and scary) factor at the moment.
posted by eagles123 at 3:05 PM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately, Biden doesn’t exactly have the personality to unite broad coalitions. Being from eastern PA, I’m familiar with his political style. He still thinks it’s the early 90’s, and he is constitutionally incapable of reminding people of that fact. Very alienating.
On the other hand, COVID-19 is a huge wildcard. To me, that is the most interesting l (and scary) factor at the moment.
posted by eagles123 at 3:05 PM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
I honestly don't think we're going to see trump doing any more debates. He will probably stick to doing large hate rallies and will claim that his opponent only wants to hold a debate because he himself can't sell out an arena and wants to ride trump's coattails to huge TV ratings.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:11 PM on March 10, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:11 PM on March 10, 2020 [5 favorites]
I saw a comment assert without backup that more millennials voted vs 2016, but even more old people voted.
AFAICT from raw numbers, this is true. There's been an increase in enthusiasm among young voters. But there's been an even larger increase in enthusiasm among older voters.
This isn't necessarily a good thing for Trump, as another poster asserted, because it seems like the enthusiasm boost has been pretty partisan. We have a hotly contested primary, one which feels far less like a foregone conclusion than 2016, and one against an unpopular president. Democrats (across age groups) are turning out in force and highly invested for those reasons, and those same reasons don't apply across the partisan divide.
posted by jackbishop at 3:32 PM on March 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
AFAICT from raw numbers, this is true. There's been an increase in enthusiasm among young voters. But there's been an even larger increase in enthusiasm among older voters.
This isn't necessarily a good thing for Trump, as another poster asserted, because it seems like the enthusiasm boost has been pretty partisan. We have a hotly contested primary, one which feels far less like a foregone conclusion than 2016, and one against an unpopular president. Democrats (across age groups) are turning out in force and highly invested for those reasons, and those same reasons don't apply across the partisan divide.
posted by jackbishop at 3:32 PM on March 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
The obvious answer to why the youth vote is low is voter suppression. The lines at TCU were super long, as are the lines at MSU in Michigan today. Hour long waits. We don’t know how big an impact this has, but it’s a real thing and needs to be fixed.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:03 PM on March 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:03 PM on March 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
You know who I want as the leader of the free world during a time of pandemic, economic crisis, political crisis, and environmental crisis, a guy who a apparently can’t go out in public without getting into a shouting match with someone.
Bah, a segment of voters probably finds it authentic and endearing. Democrats should just run an erect penis and be done with it.
posted by eagles123 at 4:22 PM on March 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
Bah, a segment of voters probably finds it authentic and endearing. Democrats should just run an erect penis and be done with it.
posted by eagles123 at 4:22 PM on March 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
> The obvious answer to why the youth vote is low is voter suppression. The lines at TCU were super long, as are the lines at MSU in Michigan today. Hour long waits. We don’t know how big an impact this has, but it’s a real thing and needs to be fixed.
If it's the "obvious answer", then we would know how big an impact it has. Any electoral strategy that didn't meaningfully address attempts to suppress the vote was not a winning one.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:23 PM on March 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
If it's the "obvious answer", then we would know how big an impact it has. Any electoral strategy that didn't meaningfully address attempts to suppress the vote was not a winning one.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:23 PM on March 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
It's also not a sufficient explanation. The most suppressed vote by a wide margin are African Americans in red/purple states. And yet, for example, AA women vote like their lives depend on it (because they understand that it might). They turn-out in huge numbers, year after year, despite massive lines, voter purges, and all sorts of discrimination.
It's true that it could be easier to vote. But the youth vote is not low because of suppression. It's never been high, it probably will never be high.
posted by Justinian at 4:31 PM on March 10, 2020 [17 favorites]
It's true that it could be easier to vote. But the youth vote is not low because of suppression. It's never been high, it probably will never be high.
posted by Justinian at 4:31 PM on March 10, 2020 [17 favorites]
Michigan, Mississippi and Missouri have all been called for Biden. He's winning by double digits in all three and by as much as 65 points in Mississippi.
posted by octothorpe at 6:44 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:44 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
You know who I want as the leader of the free world during a time of pandemic, economic crisis, political crisis, and environmental crisis, a guy who a apparently can’t go out in public without getting into a shouting match with someone.
the Canadian Prime Minister who pretty much single handedly kept Canada out of the 2003 (and beyond) Iraq clusterfuck in action ...
posted by philip-random at 6:59 PM on March 10, 2020
the Canadian Prime Minister who pretty much single handedly kept Canada out of the 2003 (and beyond) Iraq clusterfuck in action ...
posted by philip-random at 6:59 PM on March 10, 2020
Of these two poll results, both from the same time period using the same methodology and the same sample, one is the absolute truth, and the other one is a fantasy.
Yeah I don't buy that comment at all. Biden and Sanders are both pretty well known quantities. Nobody is going to dig up anything about Bernie that doesn't say exactly the same things about him thatare already widely known. Joe's whole political career is right there. Joe is probably at a somewhat greater risk of saying something now that highlights a weakness of his record or makes people question his suitability for office but that's also built into "Joe being Joe" in a way.
I think the biggest thing that Joe Biden has going for him right now is that people seem to have decided that they hardly give a shit about him or his history or his platform - they just want a recognizable and nonthreatening non-Trump. I am still very pessimistic about his chances in a general election but so many things are so crazy right this second that what knows, he might win.
posted by atoxyl at 7:10 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yeah I don't buy that comment at all. Biden and Sanders are both pretty well known quantities. Nobody is going to dig up anything about Bernie that doesn't say exactly the same things about him thatare already widely known. Joe's whole political career is right there. Joe is probably at a somewhat greater risk of saying something now that highlights a weakness of his record or makes people question his suitability for office but that's also built into "Joe being Joe" in a way.
I think the biggest thing that Joe Biden has going for him right now is that people seem to have decided that they hardly give a shit about him or his history or his platform - they just want a recognizable and nonthreatening non-Trump. I am still very pessimistic about his chances in a general election but so many things are so crazy right this second that what knows, he might win.
posted by atoxyl at 7:10 PM on March 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
(Which is to say I have a suspicion that both numbers are fantasy. Pre-coronavirus I would have also meant "and Trump's a stronger opponent than anybody wants to think" but now I just have no idea.)
posted by atoxyl at 7:14 PM on March 10, 2020
posted by atoxyl at 7:14 PM on March 10, 2020
10% of Trump 2016 voters might not vote for him in 2020
As many as one in 10 Trump voters is considering voting for somebody else in 2020, according to our analysis of data from the 2019 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey.posted by kirkaracha at 7:24 PM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
These voters are individuals who neither strongly approve nor strongly disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president. If Democrats want to win over these voters, they’ll have to choose their message wisely.
Aww are we going to have to fight over them again? I thought 2020 was about increasing partisan turnout.
posted by Selena777 at 7:40 PM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 7:40 PM on March 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
I heard Means TV is starting up. It might be good to have a list of left wing media projects. Sanders raised a lot of money, as did Warren; hopefully some of those funds can be transferred to other candidates.
posted by eagles123 at 4:57 AM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 4:57 AM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Off the top of my head:
Means TV (which is now live and someone should make a post about it, but I can't cuz I have 2 films on there)
The Majority Report
Democracy at Work
Current Affairs Magazine
Bread Tube (the colloquial name for the conglomeration of leftist producers on youtube)
Chapo Trap House and 1,000 other leftist podcasts
There are a ton more out there that I'm less familiar with too.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:02 AM on March 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
Means TV (which is now live and someone should make a post about it, but I can't cuz I have 2 films on there)
The Majority Report
Democracy at Work
Current Affairs Magazine
Bread Tube (the colloquial name for the conglomeration of leftist producers on youtube)
Chapo Trap House and 1,000 other leftist podcasts
There are a ton more out there that I'm less familiar with too.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 5:02 AM on March 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
The most suppressed vote by a wide margin are African Americans in red/purple states. And yet, for example, AA women vote like their lives depend on it (because they understand that it might). They turn-out in huge numbers, year after year, despite massive lines, voter purges, and all sorts of discrimination.
This. I believe that people have the wrong idea when it comes to voter suppression. Voter suppression is a function of persistence not a wall. Like thelonius said up thread, young voters just blow it off if it's too much of a hassle. Even in states where voting has a million different avenues, the youth vote still sucks compared to other age groups. As you get older you become more persistent in voting.
Don't get me wrong, it's still greatly unfair and accomplishes the same thing in practice, but if the youth persisted (pun intended) and turned out at the same rate as all other age groups the political landscape in this country would entirely shift. Especially if the youth ran for, primaried, turned out to, and took some seats in every open political position. You don't have to muster 16K people like AOC. There are large swaths of effectively abandoned Democratic parties outside of Democratic stongholds just ripe for takeover and once taken over the people who take them over will have clout at the national level. It's how we have jackasses from Tennessee on the DNC publicly threatening to hijack Democratic Party process to install Biden over Bernie.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:48 AM on March 11, 2020 [11 favorites]
This. I believe that people have the wrong idea when it comes to voter suppression. Voter suppression is a function of persistence not a wall. Like thelonius said up thread, young voters just blow it off if it's too much of a hassle. Even in states where voting has a million different avenues, the youth vote still sucks compared to other age groups. As you get older you become more persistent in voting.
Don't get me wrong, it's still greatly unfair and accomplishes the same thing in practice, but if the youth persisted (pun intended) and turned out at the same rate as all other age groups the political landscape in this country would entirely shift. Especially if the youth ran for, primaried, turned out to, and took some seats in every open political position. You don't have to muster 16K people like AOC. There are large swaths of effectively abandoned Democratic parties outside of Democratic stongholds just ripe for takeover and once taken over the people who take them over will have clout at the national level. It's how we have jackasses from Tennessee on the DNC publicly threatening to hijack Democratic Party process to install Biden over Bernie.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:48 AM on March 11, 2020 [11 favorites]
As many as one in 10 Trump voters is considering voting for somebody else in 2020, according to our analysis of data from the 2019 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey. ... If Democrats want to win over these voters, they’ll have to choose their message wisely.Or -- allow me to present the more likely scenario which is that, after the entire legacy media landscape hammers HUNTER BIDEN BURISMA DEMENTIA CORRUPTION BURISMA DID WE SAY HUNTER BIDEN for six solid months, those 1 in 10 Trump voters will find they have no choice but to reluctantly vote for Trump again, because the alternative is a corrupt, aging, self-dealing, nepotistic, gaffe prone... Democrat. And that it never actually mattered what messaging the Dems chose because anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 had all the facts then and has all the facts now and will most likely continue to be an ignorant and racist dumbass.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 7:00 AM on March 11, 2020 [16 favorites]
Chapo Trap House and 1,000 other leftist podcasts
Can we not use CTH as the go-to name for leftist podcasts? This is what I was talking about when was talking about booting out misogynistic elements - when groups that have serious problems with misogyny are the ones that people get directed to, it signals that people don't actually have a problem with it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:09 AM on March 11, 2020 [20 favorites]
Can we not use CTH as the go-to name for leftist podcasts? This is what I was talking about when was talking about booting out misogynistic elements - when groups that have serious problems with misogyny are the ones that people get directed to, it signals that people don't actually have a problem with it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:09 AM on March 11, 2020 [20 favorites]
Or maybe let people make up their own minds. I respect the viewpoints of those who view CTH as misogynistic, please respect others who don’t share that view. I recognize this is a minority viewpoint on this site. I say this out of respect to a poster who took the time to respond to a post of mine requesting information.
posted by eagles123 at 8:57 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by eagles123 at 8:57 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
I respect the viewpoints of those who view CTH as misogynistic, please respect others who don’t share that view.
I will do no such thing, and find such a request to be revolting. Bigotry of any stripe - racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc. - is not something that I will ever "agree to disagree" on, because bigotry harms people, and thus I want to fight it and excise it from society, to make it not acceptable.
People have not randomly decreed that CTH is misogynistic - they have done so after seeing repeated misogynistic behavior from them. If you want to argue that they're not, then argue the case - but don't demand that people turn a blind eye to bigotry because you're trying to frame it as a difference of opinion and dismissing the evidence that they are pointing to.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:11 AM on March 11, 2020 [19 favorites]
I will do no such thing, and find such a request to be revolting. Bigotry of any stripe - racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc. - is not something that I will ever "agree to disagree" on, because bigotry harms people, and thus I want to fight it and excise it from society, to make it not acceptable.
People have not randomly decreed that CTH is misogynistic - they have done so after seeing repeated misogynistic behavior from them. If you want to argue that they're not, then argue the case - but don't demand that people turn a blind eye to bigotry because you're trying to frame it as a difference of opinion and dismissing the evidence that they are pointing to.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:11 AM on March 11, 2020 [19 favorites]
I make no demands. I have no doubt many share your view - others do not. Anyway, I am done with this exchange. Have fun with your attempts to purge. Just be careful you don’t find your circle smaller than you think. I trust you’ve performed a similar audit if your own cultural consumption - wouldn’t want to cast a stone in a glass house.
posted by eagles123 at 9:24 AM on March 11, 2020
posted by eagles123 at 9:24 AM on March 11, 2020
I make no demands.
Of course you make demands. You make the demand that people respect you in spite of your choices. You say it literally right here:
When people talk about something being [x] it's so people can weigh up their choices against their own values using data that they may not have noticed or perspectives they may not have experienced or empathized with. Some people will think the other person is incorrect. Some people won't consider it abhorrent to their values. Some people will. Some might see value in some parts of what's on offer. Some will consume as a sanity check. Some people will judge other people and those other people may lose respect for their choices.
Not everybody will have a positive opinion of you. You can't demand or control what people think of you. That's their sole right as agents of their own destiny. What matters is that the people who have the values that you value have a positive opinion of you. If you find people you share values with losing respect for you over your choices, it may be time to reevaluate the choices you make. It's like how Fox News doesn't say they're racist but are #1 with racists.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:47 AM on March 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
Of course you make demands. You make the demand that people respect you in spite of your choices. You say it literally right here:
please respect others who don’t share that viewI trust you’ve performed a similar audit if your own cultural consumption - wouldn’t want to cast a stone in a glass house.
"Remember that it's both possible and even necessary to simultaneously enjoy media while being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects." -- Anita SarkeesianI know I have shitty parts of cultural consumption. But I own my choices and I recognize both the failings of my choices as well as my ability to respond to changes in my values. For instance I used to be a fan of the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother" but due to my own changing values over time I'm unable to watch it given how grossly sexist it actually is in the new context of my experiences.
When people talk about something being [x] it's so people can weigh up their choices against their own values using data that they may not have noticed or perspectives they may not have experienced or empathized with. Some people will think the other person is incorrect. Some people won't consider it abhorrent to their values. Some people will. Some might see value in some parts of what's on offer. Some will consume as a sanity check. Some people will judge other people and those other people may lose respect for their choices.
Not everybody will have a positive opinion of you. You can't demand or control what people think of you. That's their sole right as agents of their own destiny. What matters is that the people who have the values that you value have a positive opinion of you. If you find people you share values with losing respect for you over your choices, it may be time to reevaluate the choices you make. It's like how Fox News doesn't say they're racist but are #1 with racists.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:47 AM on March 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
DNC announces no audience for the debate Sunday in Phoenix. So that should be interesting. No cheering and booing. Just two people. Maybe the first real debate.
posted by JackFlash at 9:51 AM on March 11, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 9:51 AM on March 11, 2020 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Oh my god go argue about Chapo Trap House somewhere else.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:54 AM on March 11, 2020 [31 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:54 AM on March 11, 2020 [31 favorites]
Predicting now that the political tabloids will shift from focusing on Hunter Biden, to more on James Biden, the brother.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:20 AM on March 11, 2020
posted by Apocryphon at 10:20 AM on March 11, 2020
People have been puzzling about the Sanders collapse compared to 2016, the youth vote, etc. It could be that he was never that popular to begin with. In 2016 a lot of Sanders support may have just been anti-Clinton sentiment. Now that Sanders is not running against Clinton, the his anti-Clinton support has faded away and we are now seeing Sanders' real numbers. His real support in the Democratic party today seems to be around 30%.
posted by JackFlash at 10:35 AM on March 11, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 10:35 AM on March 11, 2020 [5 favorites]
It doesn't have to be one thing to the exclusion of all others. Population trends, his novelty wearing off, increased voter suppression, his more advanced age, the lack of a "centrist" female villain to vote against... These are all likely in play to some extent, and are all things his campaign team should have seen coming and had plans to address.
Instead, they seemed to believe that a divide-and-conquer strategy could get them to the convention with just 30% of the vote. Maybe they had contingency plans for when that did not happen, but those plans did not lead to the desired outcome. Whether that's because he was drawing dead by going against anti-socialist sentiments in the Democratic normiesphere or whether a quick pivot could have led to more wins and increased delegate shares is an open question, but, at this point, an academic one.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:43 AM on March 11, 2020 [9 favorites]
Instead, they seemed to believe that a divide-and-conquer strategy could get them to the convention with just 30% of the vote. Maybe they had contingency plans for when that did not happen, but those plans did not lead to the desired outcome. Whether that's because he was drawing dead by going against anti-socialist sentiments in the Democratic normiesphere or whether a quick pivot could have led to more wins and increased delegate shares is an open question, but, at this point, an academic one.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:43 AM on March 11, 2020 [9 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. Please don't relitigate 2016; if only sanders supporters had acted differently in 2016 or if only Clinton hadn't been the candidate or misogyny, classism, generational divide etc, we've been over these things so, so many times. If your point is strategies for the future, that needs to really be the focus of the actual text in the comment; when you see the road sign that says "2016 postmortem" please put on the brakes and reverse back out of there.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:11 AM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:11 AM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
DNC announces no audience for the debate Sunday in Phoenix. So that should be interesting. No cheering and booing. Just two people. Maybe the first real debate.
A friend was able to get us tickets, and I was so excited! Then again, this was back when I thought Warren was going to be on the stage, along with a bunch of other people. So I'm less disappointed than I might have been at not being able to attend.
posted by Superplin at 11:27 AM on March 11, 2020
A friend was able to get us tickets, and I was so excited! Then again, this was back when I thought Warren was going to be on the stage, along with a bunch of other people. So I'm less disappointed than I might have been at not being able to attend.
posted by Superplin at 11:27 AM on March 11, 2020
To me Biden’s relative success demonstrates how irrational the hatred of Clinton really was. To me, they seem like the same kind of politician in terms of philosophy and backing.
posted by eagles123 at 12:31 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 12:31 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
It doesn't have to be one thing to the exclusion of all others. Population trends, his novelty wearing off, increased voter suppression . . .
I don't think the voter suppression argument really holds water, and it's such an incredibly serious allegation that it shouldn't pass without some support. Voter suppression is a huge problem for democrats in general, but I don't understand the support for the idea that Bernie in particular suffers from it worse than Biden. Given that we know of one huge voter-suppressing tactic still in place in this race is the continued use of caucuses instead of primaries (states that switched from primaries in 2016 to caucuses in 2020 saw surges in turnout), and the fact that Bernie doesn't seem to suffer from this tactic, I think the opposite is more likely to be true.
Bernie's results in 2020 Caucuses:
Iowa: 26.1%, 1st place tie
Nevada: 46.8%, 1st place blowout
North Dakota: 53%, 1st place blowout
Bernie's results in key 2020 Primaries:
New Hampshire: 25.7%, 1st place narrowly
South Carolina: 19.8%, 2nd place blowout
California: 34.2%, 1st place by a good bit
Texas: 29.9%, 2nd place by a good bit
(not pictured: Wins in Colorado, Utah and Vermont, coupled with a bunch of losses to Biden)
Bernie's results in 2020 primaries that used to be caucuses:
Colorado: 36.8%, 1st place blowout (59% in 2016, turnout sextupled in 2020)
Maine: 32.9%, 2nd place by a good bit (64% in 2016, turnout sextupled in 2020)
Minnesota: 29.9%, 2nd place by a good bit (61% in 2016, turnout quadrupled in 2020)
Utah: 34.8%, 1st place blowout (79.3% in 2016, turnout only double in 2020)
Of course the 2016 and 2020 races are significantly different, but states that went from a caucus to a primary saw Bernie's percentages plunge, and he's done very, very well in 2020 states that put in signifcant barriers to voting (that is, holding a caucus instead of a primary). It seems like he'd be have an excellent shot at the nomination if all we did is caucuses. Primaries (that is, elections with much higher turnout) aren't so great for him. How anyone can square that with a voter suppression conclusion is not clear to me. I have now voted for Bernie in two primaries for what it's worth, but I think the the unfortunate fact is that the democratic party's electorate prefers Biden, for whatever reason.
posted by skewed at 12:43 PM on March 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
I don't think the voter suppression argument really holds water, and it's such an incredibly serious allegation that it shouldn't pass without some support. Voter suppression is a huge problem for democrats in general, but I don't understand the support for the idea that Bernie in particular suffers from it worse than Biden. Given that we know of one huge voter-suppressing tactic still in place in this race is the continued use of caucuses instead of primaries (states that switched from primaries in 2016 to caucuses in 2020 saw surges in turnout), and the fact that Bernie doesn't seem to suffer from this tactic, I think the opposite is more likely to be true.
Bernie's results in 2020 Caucuses:
Iowa: 26.1%, 1st place tie
Nevada: 46.8%, 1st place blowout
North Dakota: 53%, 1st place blowout
Bernie's results in key 2020 Primaries:
New Hampshire: 25.7%, 1st place narrowly
South Carolina: 19.8%, 2nd place blowout
California: 34.2%, 1st place by a good bit
Texas: 29.9%, 2nd place by a good bit
(not pictured: Wins in Colorado, Utah and Vermont, coupled with a bunch of losses to Biden)
Bernie's results in 2020 primaries that used to be caucuses:
Colorado: 36.8%, 1st place blowout (59% in 2016, turnout sextupled in 2020)
Maine: 32.9%, 2nd place by a good bit (64% in 2016, turnout sextupled in 2020)
Minnesota: 29.9%, 2nd place by a good bit (61% in 2016, turnout quadrupled in 2020)
Utah: 34.8%, 1st place blowout (79.3% in 2016, turnout only double in 2020)
Of course the 2016 and 2020 races are significantly different, but states that went from a caucus to a primary saw Bernie's percentages plunge, and he's done very, very well in 2020 states that put in signifcant barriers to voting (that is, holding a caucus instead of a primary). It seems like he'd be have an excellent shot at the nomination if all we did is caucuses. Primaries (that is, elections with much higher turnout) aren't so great for him. How anyone can square that with a voter suppression conclusion is not clear to me. I have now voted for Bernie in two primaries for what it's worth, but I think the the unfortunate fact is that the democratic party's electorate prefers Biden, for whatever reason.
posted by skewed at 12:43 PM on March 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
To me Biden’s relative success demonstrates how irrational the hatred of Clinton really was.
I won't argue the irrational hatred, but Biden's success is also, I believe, an example of lesson-learned. This time around, the more central (or whatever you want to call them) Dems are not remotely as arrogant (or perhaps I should say overconfident). They're not taking victory for granted. They're not underestimating their opponents. They're diligently working their considerable machine from the ground up and so far getting results.
posted by philip-random at 1:00 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
I won't argue the irrational hatred, but Biden's success is also, I believe, an example of lesson-learned. This time around, the more central (or whatever you want to call them) Dems are not remotely as arrogant (or perhaps I should say overconfident). They're not taking victory for granted. They're not underestimating their opponents. They're diligently working their considerable machine from the ground up and so far getting results.
posted by philip-random at 1:00 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Hopefully that lesson translates to the general..,.
posted by eagles123 at 1:03 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 1:03 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
They're diligently working their considerable machine from the ground up and so far getting results.
What machine? Half the states Diamond Joe has won he hasn't even campaigned in.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2020 [5 favorites]
What machine? Half the states Diamond Joe has won he hasn't even campaigned in.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2020 [5 favorites]
They're diligently working their considerable machine from the ground up and so far getting results.
What machine? Half the states Diamond Joe has won he hasn't even campaigned in.
That's the point of the machine. The candidate doesn't have to campaign in a place where the local people are already on his side. Political machines aren't about Boss Biden chomping on a cigar as he calls up someone in Mississippi and says "I don't care whether they want to vote for me, by gum! You make them vote for me!". They're about having been allies with that person in Mississippi for years, decades even. You give Biloxi Bill a vote on something you and your constituents maybe don't give a shit about, and a decade later, Bill's been telling everyone in Biloxi what a great guy ol' Diamond Joe is, and they remember that when they go to the polls.
posted by Etrigan at 1:53 PM on March 11, 2020 [9 favorites]
What machine? Half the states Diamond Joe has won he hasn't even campaigned in.
That's the point of the machine. The candidate doesn't have to campaign in a place where the local people are already on his side. Political machines aren't about Boss Biden chomping on a cigar as he calls up someone in Mississippi and says "I don't care whether they want to vote for me, by gum! You make them vote for me!". They're about having been allies with that person in Mississippi for years, decades even. You give Biloxi Bill a vote on something you and your constituents maybe don't give a shit about, and a decade later, Bill's been telling everyone in Biloxi what a great guy ol' Diamond Joe is, and they remember that when they go to the polls.
posted by Etrigan at 1:53 PM on March 11, 2020 [9 favorites]
That 'swing voter' story is the usual van Pelt football: "In November 2019, the survey interviewed 18,000 American adults who had been interviewed in 2016 about their vote, asking them how they planned to vote in 2020. They found that most of Trump’s voters plan to stick with him: Ninety percent of those who voted for Trump in 2016 say they plan to vote for him again. But 10 percent seem to be up for grabs. Four percent are already planning to vote for the Democratic candidate, and another 6 percent say that they are still undecided. By contrast, 94 percent of Clinton voters are already committed to the Democrats: just 2 percent of Clinton’s 2016 voters are planning to vote for Trump in 2020, with another 4 percent undecided." (Vox, March 10, 2020)
Btw, Andrew Yang is endorsing Biden. (CNN, March 11, 2020)
“I cannot tell you how many people our campaign has spoken to who have said, ‘I like what your campaign stands for, I agree with what your campaign stands for, but I’m gonna vote for Joe Biden because I think Joe is the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump,” Sanders said.“Needless to say, I strongly disagree with that assertion. But that is what millions of Democrats and Independents today believe.” (The Slot, Jezebel, March 11, 2020)
Thanks, Nern; that's certainly food for thought.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:10 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Btw, Andrew Yang is endorsing Biden. (CNN, March 11, 2020)
“I cannot tell you how many people our campaign has spoken to who have said, ‘I like what your campaign stands for, I agree with what your campaign stands for, but I’m gonna vote for Joe Biden because I think Joe is the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump,” Sanders said.“Needless to say, I strongly disagree with that assertion. But that is what millions of Democrats and Independents today believe.” (The Slot, Jezebel, March 11, 2020)
Thanks, Nern; that's certainly food for thought.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:10 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
The tenor of the Sanders fundraiser e-mails (which are sent incessantly) sounds like they are waiving the white flag. The emphasis is on victories of ideas and holding Biden accountable so he will be stronger for the general. Personally, I think whether or not the US Coronavirus response ends up being uniquely bad on a global scale will matter more in the end, if anything does.
Overall it seems like this election demonstrates a clear demarcation of boundaries between cohorts in terms of economic experiences and media consumption. I’m pretty sure labels like “millennials” and “boomers” are somewhat scorned by serious political scientists, but I do think cohorts can form based on shared economic and technological experience. Someone who turned 18 in 2008 is 30 for this election. Someone who was 22 in 2008 and entering the job market during the recession is 34. Similarly, someone who was 12 when Twitter and other forms of social media saw mass adoption around 2010 is 22 today. Give or take a few years for all of those.
That cohort of voters has a shared set of economic experiences and media consumption habits distinct from older cohorts. They appear to vote accordingly. Nevertheless, they are outnumbered by voters outside those cohorts. The challenge for Democrats going forward is that they need to speak to the concerns of that cohort because Democrats still need those votes to win. Perhaps hatred of Trump and crisis will be enough to unite them with older voters in this election.
posted by eagles123 at 4:13 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Overall it seems like this election demonstrates a clear demarcation of boundaries between cohorts in terms of economic experiences and media consumption. I’m pretty sure labels like “millennials” and “boomers” are somewhat scorned by serious political scientists, but I do think cohorts can form based on shared economic and technological experience. Someone who turned 18 in 2008 is 30 for this election. Someone who was 22 in 2008 and entering the job market during the recession is 34. Similarly, someone who was 12 when Twitter and other forms of social media saw mass adoption around 2010 is 22 today. Give or take a few years for all of those.
That cohort of voters has a shared set of economic experiences and media consumption habits distinct from older cohorts. They appear to vote accordingly. Nevertheless, they are outnumbered by voters outside those cohorts. The challenge for Democrats going forward is that they need to speak to the concerns of that cohort because Democrats still need those votes to win. Perhaps hatred of Trump and crisis will be enough to unite them with older voters in this election.
posted by eagles123 at 4:13 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
The tenor of the Sanders fundraiser e-mails (which are sent incessantly) sounds like they are waiving the white flag. The emphasis is on victories of ideas and holding Biden accountable so he will is stronger for the general. Personally, I think whether or not the US Coronavirus response ends up being uniquely bad on a global scale will matter more in the end, if anything do
I do wanna see 'em debate one-on-one this once, just to remind people what the difference is and what the stakes are. I just wish that chance had come before Michigan.
In spite of the reputation of his supporters as being aggressive, I feel like Sanders is always pretty reluctant to go on the offensive against other candidates, though, sometimes to his detriment.
posted by atoxyl at 4:22 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
I do wanna see 'em debate one-on-one this once, just to remind people what the difference is and what the stakes are. I just wish that chance had come before Michigan.
In spite of the reputation of his supporters as being aggressive, I feel like Sanders is always pretty reluctant to go on the offensive against other candidates, though, sometimes to his detriment.
posted by atoxyl at 4:22 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think if it had been just Sanders and Biden all along you might have seen a different and more aggressive campaign. With so many other people running, things were more muddled. I have to say, though, I’m not sure attacking tends to help candidates. Sanders would have needed to be careful and targeted. Better to let your opponent through the first punch in my opinion.
Also, regarding the debate, my understanding is that it is more designed to be a town hall and that rebuttals and direct engagement won’t be allowed. I’m not sure I mind. Sanders seems to do well in town halls.
posted by eagles123 at 4:29 PM on March 11, 2020
Also, regarding the debate, my understanding is that it is more designed to be a town hall and that rebuttals and direct engagement won’t be allowed. I’m not sure I mind. Sanders seems to do well in town halls.
posted by eagles123 at 4:29 PM on March 11, 2020
Given the votes last night, and what is left, does Sanders have any chance?
posted by Windopaene at 4:55 PM on March 11, 2020
posted by Windopaene at 4:55 PM on March 11, 2020
Not really. From 538:
Sanders needs something like a 20-point surge within the next week just to remain competitive for the nomination, and even then it would still be an uphill battle for him. And he needs it at a time when Biden potentially stands to gain more ground because of his strong results last night; states such as Michigan could potentially give Biden a further bounce in the polls. Thus, even a strong debate on Sunday for Sanders might not be enough and just merely offset further momentum Biden gained from Tuesday.posted by octothorpe at 5:08 PM on March 11, 2020
No, Sanders doesn't stand a chance.
He should stay in the race, at least until the next debate, to hammer Biden on healthcare and make the case that M4A is a morally necessary thing to do. The goal now is to try and hold Biden's feet to the fire so to speak.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:36 PM on March 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
He should stay in the race, at least until the next debate, to hammer Biden on healthcare and make the case that M4A is a morally necessary thing to do. The goal now is to try and hold Biden's feet to the fire so to speak.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:36 PM on March 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
When people say that M4A is a morally necessary thing to do, do they mean that universal healthcare which doesn't impose a financial burden is a morally necessary thing to do, or literally that M4A and only M4A is morally required? I feel like those two positions get lumped together and they're very different things.
posted by Justinian at 5:52 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:52 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
I mean, I'd take full nationalization of healthcare (along with making medical school free), but M4A seems like an okay compromise to start. (Coming from the other direction, regulating insurance companies so that they don't charge copays and deductibles, don't have lifetime caps, are taken out of the hands of employers, and have subsidized premiums, seems like kind of a reach, but I'd be willing to give it a try.)
posted by mittens at 6:13 PM on March 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by mittens at 6:13 PM on March 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
Given the votes last night, and what is left, does Sanders have any chance?
Not really unless Biden utterly collapses. I think Joe Biden has a higher chance of doing that than the average candidate though which is why I think Bernie ought to give it another week.
When people say that M4A is a morally necessary thing to do, do they mean that universal healthcare which doesn't impose a financial burden is a morally necessary thing to do, or literally that M4A and only M4A is morally required?
The former in principle, but I think M4A is the most plausible way to achieve "without financial burden" in a meaningful sense.
posted by atoxyl at 6:21 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
Not really unless Biden utterly collapses. I think Joe Biden has a higher chance of doing that than the average candidate though which is why I think Bernie ought to give it another week.
When people say that M4A is a morally necessary thing to do, do they mean that universal healthcare which doesn't impose a financial burden is a morally necessary thing to do, or literally that M4A and only M4A is morally required?
The former in principle, but I think M4A is the most plausible way to achieve "without financial burden" in a meaningful sense.
posted by atoxyl at 6:21 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
When people say that M4A is a morally necessary thing to do, do they mean that universal healthcare which doesn't impose a financial burden is a morally necessary thing to do, or literally that M4A and only M4A is morally required? I feel like those two positions get lumped together and they're very different things.
What does "universal healthcare that does impose a financial burden" even look like?
posted by Ouverture at 7:47 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
What does "universal healthcare that does impose a financial burden" even look like?
posted by Ouverture at 7:47 PM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
What does "universal healthcare that does impose a financial burden" even look like?
Medicare. It has a premium and 20% coinsurance along with steep daily coinsurance for extended (>60 days) hospital stays.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:00 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
Medicare. It has a premium and 20% coinsurance along with steep daily coinsurance for extended (>60 days) hospital stays.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:00 PM on March 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
He should stay in the race, at least until the next debate, to hammer Biden on healthcare and make the case that M4A is a morally necessary thing to do. The goal now is to try and hold Biden's feet to the fire so to speak.
Not really unless Biden utterly collapses. I think Joe Biden has a higher chance of doing that than the average candidate though which is why I think Bernie ought to give it another week.
With the NBA having just suspended their season after one of their players tested positive for the coronavirus, it's becoming increasingly apparent that this pandemic is going to be the central issue of the campaign, barring some miracle. The social and economic effects of the virus are potentially so wide ranging that it could hardly be elsewise. Things so many Americans take for granted, like major sporting events and their TV coverage or any other kind of event or major social space interactions being curtailed, changed or cancelled is going to bring home the ramifications of political choices on people who may have tended to ignore such things or felt themselves insulated from the consequences of their choices. That, obviously, will include many Trump supporters who will now have to look more closely at the decisions, or lack thereof, the administration is making.
That means there is still a real need for someone to provide a compelling narrative on the situation and provide better alternatives for addressing it than Trump or possibly Biden will do on their own, if Biden is as tuned out to the moment as he often appears to be. This is potentially like an amplified version of McCain's complete failure in addressing the seriousness of financial collapse when he was running against Obama. With it likely that events will prove ever more unfamiliar and changeable, the need for someone who can speak with clarity and confidence over how to address the situation is acute. At the least that means Sanders should stay in longer and maybe that something even more may be needed if Biden doesn't appear up to the task.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:25 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
Not really unless Biden utterly collapses. I think Joe Biden has a higher chance of doing that than the average candidate though which is why I think Bernie ought to give it another week.
With the NBA having just suspended their season after one of their players tested positive for the coronavirus, it's becoming increasingly apparent that this pandemic is going to be the central issue of the campaign, barring some miracle. The social and economic effects of the virus are potentially so wide ranging that it could hardly be elsewise. Things so many Americans take for granted, like major sporting events and their TV coverage or any other kind of event or major social space interactions being curtailed, changed or cancelled is going to bring home the ramifications of political choices on people who may have tended to ignore such things or felt themselves insulated from the consequences of their choices. That, obviously, will include many Trump supporters who will now have to look more closely at the decisions, or lack thereof, the administration is making.
That means there is still a real need for someone to provide a compelling narrative on the situation and provide better alternatives for addressing it than Trump or possibly Biden will do on their own, if Biden is as tuned out to the moment as he often appears to be. This is potentially like an amplified version of McCain's complete failure in addressing the seriousness of financial collapse when he was running against Obama. With it likely that events will prove ever more unfamiliar and changeable, the need for someone who can speak with clarity and confidence over how to address the situation is acute. At the least that means Sanders should stay in longer and maybe that something even more may be needed if Biden doesn't appear up to the task.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:25 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
Conversely; if Biden does appear up to the task, making people wait in lines in large groups in order to vote in a quixotic and doomed quest would be... problematic.
posted by Justinian at 1:52 AM on March 12, 2020
posted by Justinian at 1:52 AM on March 12, 2020
Yes, there are some fears there as well, not the least of which is the administration trying to use the coronavirus to prevent a fair election should it continue to be a problem, so there are concerns beyond the primaries.
If Sanders drops out, then a lot will be riding on Biden's ability to communicate his plans and resolve against Trump, something that might be better tested before nominating him as the candidate, which debates with Sanders will hopefully help do. I'd rather there were more options myself, which there could be if Biden doesn't win the nomination outright. Until then I want to see him respond to pressure before it's with the election on the line.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:16 AM on March 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
If Sanders drops out, then a lot will be riding on Biden's ability to communicate his plans and resolve against Trump, something that might be better tested before nominating him as the candidate, which debates with Sanders will hopefully help do. I'd rather there were more options myself, which there could be if Biden doesn't win the nomination outright. Until then I want to see him respond to pressure before it's with the election on the line.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:16 AM on March 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
making people wait in lines in large groups in order to vote in a quixotic and doomed quest would be... problematic.
Oh god, that looks like an excuse to suspend the election. Let it not be so.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:54 AM on March 12, 2020 [8 favorites]
Oh god, that looks like an excuse to suspend the election. Let it not be so.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:54 AM on March 12, 2020 [8 favorites]
In the worst case we could do mail-in. It’s take some doing and create a lot of drama, but it’s the more legal alternative to suspending elections. In my state they are already talking about moving the primary to mail-in.
posted by eagles123 at 5:15 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 5:15 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
Tuesday there are 500 delegates up for grabs in Florida, Ohio and Illinois. Polls are showing that Sanders is going to get clobbered. I'm guessing that Sunday may be the last debate. There is no point in Biden showing up for more debates if he doesn't need to.
posted by JackFlash at 8:52 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 8:52 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
Biden's coronavirus speech was pretty good! I don't expect it will stop the usual suspects from spreading the mental acuity smears but everybody else should probably feel re-assured.
I expect the primary will be over in 5 days or less.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on March 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
I expect the primary will be over in 5 days or less.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on March 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
The mental acuity stuff was always a red herring. Biden’s weaknesses, such as his tendency to flip out and argue with people and inability to show empathy or openness, were always with him. He was challenging people to IQ tests in the 1980’s as a much younger man. He is who he always was, for better or worse.
A lot of people voted for him in the primary ... and, a lot of people voted for someone else, and they are not happy he won.
I agree the primary should end sooner than later though, on public health grounds if nothing else.
posted by eagles123 at 4:51 PM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
A lot of people voted for him in the primary ... and, a lot of people voted for someone else, and they are not happy he won.
I agree the primary should end sooner than later though, on public health grounds if nothing else.
posted by eagles123 at 4:51 PM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
The Biden and Sanders campaigns close offices and tell staff to work from home (NYT, March 12, 2020)
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidential campaign told staff members to work from home, closed all its offices to the public and said it would begin holding smaller events and virtual fund-raisers, according to an internal campaign memo released Thursday.
Mr. Biden’s main rival in the Democratic primary, Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, took similar precautions. Mr. Sanders’s campaign said that it had asked all staff members to work from home and that it would no longer hold large events or door-to-door canvasses, focusing on digital outreach instead.
Mr. Biden — who has a famously tactile campaigning style — acknowledged in a speech on Thursday the need for “radical changes in our personal behaviors” that could affect “deeply ingrained behavior like handshakes and hugs.”
Mr. Biden’s campaign said Wednesday events in Chicago and Miami would be transformed into “virtual events” before next Tuesday’s primaries in Illinois, Florida and several other large, delegate-rich states.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:06 PM on March 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidential campaign told staff members to work from home, closed all its offices to the public and said it would begin holding smaller events and virtual fund-raisers, according to an internal campaign memo released Thursday.
Mr. Biden’s main rival in the Democratic primary, Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, took similar precautions. Mr. Sanders’s campaign said that it had asked all staff members to work from home and that it would no longer hold large events or door-to-door canvasses, focusing on digital outreach instead.
Mr. Biden — who has a famously tactile campaigning style — acknowledged in a speech on Thursday the need for “radical changes in our personal behaviors” that could affect “deeply ingrained behavior like handshakes and hugs.”
Mr. Biden’s campaign said Wednesday events in Chicago and Miami would be transformed into “virtual events” before next Tuesday’s primaries in Illinois, Florida and several other large, delegate-rich states.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:06 PM on March 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
I know this is all getting lost in the coronavirus shuffle, but I think it's worth noting how well the former contenders for the nomination are coming together to defeat Trump and deal with the pandemic. Warren is doing what she does best and has released a strategy for dealing with the virus and Sanders has all but conceded yet is sticking in the race just to push Biden on healthcare and some of the other major issues he's been most concerned with in his campaign.
That's exactly what needs to happen to both make sure Trump faces the toughest possible challenge and that Biden, should he win, is held to progressive values in his presidency. Sanders is giving Biden the questions he's going to ask in the debate to give Biden the best chance to prepare a response and hopefully allow for Sanders to fully support his likely nomination when Biden agrees that he would sign any progressive bill that came before him.
That Biden will be doing mostly virtual events seems like a potential plus as well, especially when matched against our narcissistic overlord being either unable to hold his rallies or holding them in spite of CDC recommendations, which I wouldn't put past the egomaniac, but if he does they it will only be more apparent how grossly unfit he is for office. Unity is the best path to defeat the idiocy of this administration.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:56 AM on March 13, 2020 [10 favorites]
That's exactly what needs to happen to both make sure Trump faces the toughest possible challenge and that Biden, should he win, is held to progressive values in his presidency. Sanders is giving Biden the questions he's going to ask in the debate to give Biden the best chance to prepare a response and hopefully allow for Sanders to fully support his likely nomination when Biden agrees that he would sign any progressive bill that came before him.
That Biden will be doing mostly virtual events seems like a potential plus as well, especially when matched against our narcissistic overlord being either unable to hold his rallies or holding them in spite of CDC recommendations, which I wouldn't put past the egomaniac, but if he does they it will only be more apparent how grossly unfit he is for office. Unity is the best path to defeat the idiocy of this administration.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:56 AM on March 13, 2020 [10 favorites]
When there's no basis for that, yes.
posted by Justinian at 5:55 AM on March 13, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:55 AM on March 13, 2020 [7 favorites]
Joe Biden addresses the nation on confronting the coronavirus pandemic. (Joe Biden YouTube ... audio is low and it looks like it was filmed off a screen).
-This is a better raw video Joe Biden Gives Speech On Coronavirus Pandemic | NBC News (Live Stream Recording) (YouTube video)
- And a good transcript. (Because I didn't fully understand what Biden was reading off the teleprompter, by times).
The president should order FEMA to prepare of the capacity with local authorities to establish temporary hospitals with hundreds of beds in short notice. The Department of Defense should be planning now should have been planning to prepare for the potential deployment of the resources provided. Medical facility capacity on logistics support that only they can do. And a week from now, a month from now, we can need an instant 500 bed hospital to isolate and treat patients in any city in this country.
Bernie Addresses the Nation on the Health and Economic Crisis (Bernie Sanders YouTube ... first 12 minutes is waiting so linked to actual start)
Both Biden and Sanders speak for about 20 minutes.
posted by phoque at 6:35 AM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
-This is a better raw video Joe Biden Gives Speech On Coronavirus Pandemic | NBC News (Live Stream Recording) (YouTube video)
- And a good transcript. (Because I didn't fully understand what Biden was reading off the teleprompter, by times).
The president should order FEMA to prepare of the capacity with local authorities to establish temporary hospitals with hundreds of beds in short notice. The Department of Defense should be planning now should have been planning to prepare for the potential deployment of the resources provided. Medical facility capacity on logistics support that only they can do. And a week from now, a month from now, we can need an instant 500 bed hospital to isolate and treat patients in any city in this country.
Bernie Addresses the Nation on the Health and Economic Crisis (Bernie Sanders YouTube ... first 12 minutes is waiting so linked to actual start)
Both Biden and Sanders speak for about 20 minutes.
posted by phoque at 6:35 AM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
When there's no basis for that, yes.
I could post a hour-long montage supporting this. Regardless of whether its real or not (it is), it looks like something is happening to Biden. I don't know what it is, but he isn't who he was. One reason that this could be a big problem is that a lot of people know Joe and what he looks like and how he speaks. He's different.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:36 AM on March 13, 2020 [4 favorites]
I could post a hour-long montage supporting this. Regardless of whether its real or not (it is), it looks like something is happening to Biden. I don't know what it is, but he isn't who he was. One reason that this could be a big problem is that a lot of people know Joe and what he looks like and how he speaks. He's different.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:36 AM on March 13, 2020 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, please stop turning in circles on the armchair diagnosis stuff.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:37 AM on March 13, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:37 AM on March 13, 2020 [11 favorites]
Louisiana has postponed its democratic primary until June 20.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 10:45 AM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Ahmad Khani at 10:45 AM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
Wyoming Democrats suspend in-person voting for caucuses as election officials face coronavirus fears (WaPo, March 13, 2020, 12:44 pm) The Wyoming Democratic Party says it is suspending the in-person part of its April 4 presidential caucuses as election officials around the country confront the risk of the novel coronavirus. The party said on Facebook that it is also suspending all county conventions. [...]
Voters are being encouraged to vote by mail, the party said, adding that, as of now, ballot drop-off locations will be open on March 28 and April 4. Mail-in ballots must be postmarked by March 20.
Louisiana leaders on Friday announced they are delaying the state’s primary until the summer, while election officials in the four states slated to hold primaries Tuesday — Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio — said in a joint statement that they remain confident voters can “safely and securely cast their ballots in this election.” They encouraged “otherwise healthy” poll workers to carry out their duties.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:03 PM on March 13, 2020
Voters are being encouraged to vote by mail, the party said, adding that, as of now, ballot drop-off locations will be open on March 28 and April 4. Mail-in ballots must be postmarked by March 20.
Louisiana leaders on Friday announced they are delaying the state’s primary until the summer, while election officials in the four states slated to hold primaries Tuesday — Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio — said in a joint statement that they remain confident voters can “safely and securely cast their ballots in this election.” They encouraged “otherwise healthy” poll workers to carry out their duties.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:03 PM on March 13, 2020
-This is a better raw video Joe Biden Gives Speech On Coronavirus Pandemic | NBC News (Live Stream Recording) (YouTube video)
Finally getting around to watching this. It's really a good speech. He obviously has a very good staff who consulted with people who know what they're talking about before writing the speech; the comparison to Trump's flailing around is pretty stark. He was probably my fifth choice during the primaries but I wish he was president now.
posted by octothorpe at 1:54 PM on March 14, 2020 [3 favorites]
Finally getting around to watching this. It's really a good speech. He obviously has a very good staff who consulted with people who know what they're talking about before writing the speech; the comparison to Trump's flailing around is pretty stark. He was probably my fifth choice during the primaries but I wish he was president now.
posted by octothorpe at 1:54 PM on March 14, 2020 [3 favorites]
Lessons from the coronavirus: Bernie Sanders addresses the nation. (YouTube linked to start of speech. Sanders speaks for about 14 minutes and takes questions for 12 minutes).
Once again Sanders used his campaign platform to talk about needs and solutions for dealing with the coronavirus. It was a rare instance of Sanders using a teleprompter rather than notes (the last time was for his State of the Union rebuttal), so it usually portend something important. But it is also refreshing to see awareness of what the idea is and where the sentence will end when started. And is using it as a guide rather than deciphering and discovering as the words scroll by. Trump seems surprised by every word he has tried to read in his response to the crisis.
Which reminds me;
I was watching the set up of the Republican convention in 2016. It was the day before so there was nothing much going on, it was just a CSPAN camera showing the stage and room as people milled around preparing the place. There were some dress rehearsals. Then at one point Trump came out on stage with a small contingent of people, including Ivanka, to see the podium and teleprompters. The big thing Trump wanted to know was if the teleprompter could display a different font for Ivanka's speech. Because he liked a different one than her. The thing that stuck me was that nobody could see the font but him. It should have been one of the least important things at the time. So the focus on a detail so insignificant and to know he spent time thinking about it and discussing it as a problem ... it was a little capsule of self absorption and inability to self inform.
Anyway, I still like Sanders reading his notes type presentations better than teleprompter. Even if he has his head down, he is more in touch with his words. And it gives him more to do with his hands. But he may be practicing looking at the camera more, as he may need to do more live streaming events without audience.
He was asked about the campaign approach going forward without rallies and everyone working from home and how he would get his message out. He admitted it is a challenge and gave a wink and said that is one reason he invited them (the press) to the event. And that the campaign is still doing outreach and organizing as best it can and will try to step up online events.
Sanders also took a bunch of questions from the press where he discussed whether voting should be delayed. (Sanders believes more or less yes ... if voting isn't safe or poses an undue risk based on current medical emergency (as determined by health officials and no one else) then it would be appropriate to reschedule).
Sanders hasn't been tested, as he has no symptoms and has had no contact with any known carrier, to the best of his knowledge. And that he doesn't want to jump ahead of any line. He believes the President should be tested, based on his having had contact with people who tested positive for the virus and if he has been tested the results should be made public. (The answer had a slight indication or was hedging that the President may have been tested and is just not saying so).
Sanders was asked if he was frustrated hearing Biden's statement the previous day that; "We must do whatever it takes, spend whatever it takes to deliver for our families and ensure the stability of our economy.", but claims Medicare for all can't be afforded. He laughed and said they would hopefully discuss that at the debate.
---
Biden hosted a virtual town hall that suffered many technical glitches.
Technical trouble spoils Joe Biden's first 'virtual town hall' By Eric Bradner (CNN article)
But Biden's team put up an edited version or what could be salvaged.
Illinois Virtual Town Hall | Joe Biden For President (Joe Biden YouTube 18min)
Biden gives 4 minutes of his previous corona virus speech, then introduces his medical advisor who talks about the virus for 4 minutes then Biden takes some questions from call participants. One thing I found a bit disconcerting was him repeating how everyone was coming together and working together to fight the virus and how Americans are resilient and what not ... I watched the recent hearings on CSPAN (I don't actually watch, I just listen while I play video games, but I know most people by voice so see them in my mind) and ... holy fuck. The virus is partisan. Every critique or question is a partisan hunt to discredit Trump, according to Republicans ... it is nuts, I listen to their posturing all the time and thought some of it would be dropped out of shared self interest or even self preservation in this moment. But no.
Biden was asked how he would win over Sanders supporters. He said he and Bernie agree on many things like climate, education and healthcare. They both agree health care should be affordable and free for those who can't afford it. He said he would work with Bernie. And that Bernie agrees with him on things like students loan debt and said he (Biden) endorsed Warren's plans that allows people to discharge their student loan debt through bankruptcy. He ended by pointing out that while people might not agree with his proposals he is no where near Trump.
He was asked about healthcare and how it would affect drug prices and prescription drugs. He said people who can't afford their medicine and are on the public option there will be no co-pays, and they will look at bio medicines as opposed to chemical drugs and allow those companies to set prices that then could not be increase them beyond the cost of medical inflation. And Medicare would be allowed to negotiate with drug companies and that would drive down the price.
He was asked how his health care plan would work for the current crisis. Biden started to answer but then just pivoted to stump answer of I'm the guy, Obama care, improvements and I can get it passed.
He was asked about the endangered species act and he closed his eyes and began talking about sponsoring the legislation and proceeded to wandered off camera and back before the Biden blue screen went up until he finished. He said he would rally the world and tell Brazil to stop burning the rain forest and then pay them 20 billion dollars to compensate them for the loss of potential agricultural land. Because the Amazon absorbs more carbon from the air than the USA produces on a daily basis. He also said that the USA was only responsible for 15% of the problem with climate change and the rest of the world is 85% responsible. But all in all he supports endangered species and the climate.
posted by phoque at 4:54 PM on March 14, 2020 [1 favorite]
Once again Sanders used his campaign platform to talk about needs and solutions for dealing with the coronavirus. It was a rare instance of Sanders using a teleprompter rather than notes (the last time was for his State of the Union rebuttal), so it usually portend something important. But it is also refreshing to see awareness of what the idea is and where the sentence will end when started. And is using it as a guide rather than deciphering and discovering as the words scroll by. Trump seems surprised by every word he has tried to read in his response to the crisis.
Which reminds me;
I was watching the set up of the Republican convention in 2016. It was the day before so there was nothing much going on, it was just a CSPAN camera showing the stage and room as people milled around preparing the place. There were some dress rehearsals. Then at one point Trump came out on stage with a small contingent of people, including Ivanka, to see the podium and teleprompters. The big thing Trump wanted to know was if the teleprompter could display a different font for Ivanka's speech. Because he liked a different one than her. The thing that stuck me was that nobody could see the font but him. It should have been one of the least important things at the time. So the focus on a detail so insignificant and to know he spent time thinking about it and discussing it as a problem ... it was a little capsule of self absorption and inability to self inform.
Anyway, I still like Sanders reading his notes type presentations better than teleprompter. Even if he has his head down, he is more in touch with his words. And it gives him more to do with his hands. But he may be practicing looking at the camera more, as he may need to do more live streaming events without audience.
He was asked about the campaign approach going forward without rallies and everyone working from home and how he would get his message out. He admitted it is a challenge and gave a wink and said that is one reason he invited them (the press) to the event. And that the campaign is still doing outreach and organizing as best it can and will try to step up online events.
Sanders also took a bunch of questions from the press where he discussed whether voting should be delayed. (Sanders believes more or less yes ... if voting isn't safe or poses an undue risk based on current medical emergency (as determined by health officials and no one else) then it would be appropriate to reschedule).
Sanders hasn't been tested, as he has no symptoms and has had no contact with any known carrier, to the best of his knowledge. And that he doesn't want to jump ahead of any line. He believes the President should be tested, based on his having had contact with people who tested positive for the virus and if he has been tested the results should be made public. (The answer had a slight indication or was hedging that the President may have been tested and is just not saying so).
Sanders was asked if he was frustrated hearing Biden's statement the previous day that; "We must do whatever it takes, spend whatever it takes to deliver for our families and ensure the stability of our economy.", but claims Medicare for all can't be afforded. He laughed and said they would hopefully discuss that at the debate.
---
Biden hosted a virtual town hall that suffered many technical glitches.
Technical trouble spoils Joe Biden's first 'virtual town hall' By Eric Bradner (CNN article)
But Biden's team put up an edited version or what could be salvaged.
Illinois Virtual Town Hall | Joe Biden For President (Joe Biden YouTube 18min)
Biden gives 4 minutes of his previous corona virus speech, then introduces his medical advisor who talks about the virus for 4 minutes then Biden takes some questions from call participants. One thing I found a bit disconcerting was him repeating how everyone was coming together and working together to fight the virus and how Americans are resilient and what not ... I watched the recent hearings on CSPAN (I don't actually watch, I just listen while I play video games, but I know most people by voice so see them in my mind) and ... holy fuck. The virus is partisan. Every critique or question is a partisan hunt to discredit Trump, according to Republicans ... it is nuts, I listen to their posturing all the time and thought some of it would be dropped out of shared self interest or even self preservation in this moment. But no.
Biden was asked how he would win over Sanders supporters. He said he and Bernie agree on many things like climate, education and healthcare. They both agree health care should be affordable and free for those who can't afford it. He said he would work with Bernie. And that Bernie agrees with him on things like students loan debt and said he (Biden) endorsed Warren's plans that allows people to discharge their student loan debt through bankruptcy. He ended by pointing out that while people might not agree with his proposals he is no where near Trump.
He was asked about healthcare and how it would affect drug prices and prescription drugs. He said people who can't afford their medicine and are on the public option there will be no co-pays, and they will look at bio medicines as opposed to chemical drugs and allow those companies to set prices that then could not be increase them beyond the cost of medical inflation. And Medicare would be allowed to negotiate with drug companies and that would drive down the price.
He was asked how his health care plan would work for the current crisis. Biden started to answer but then just pivoted to stump answer of I'm the guy, Obama care, improvements and I can get it passed.
He was asked about the endangered species act and he closed his eyes and began talking about sponsoring the legislation and proceeded to wandered off camera and back before the Biden blue screen went up until he finished. He said he would rally the world and tell Brazil to stop burning the rain forest and then pay them 20 billion dollars to compensate them for the loss of potential agricultural land. Because the Amazon absorbs more carbon from the air than the USA produces on a daily basis. He also said that the USA was only responsible for 15% of the problem with climate change and the rest of the world is 85% responsible. But all in all he supports endangered species and the climate.
posted by phoque at 4:54 PM on March 14, 2020 [1 favorite]
Georgia Postpones Its Primary as Virus Upends Voting (NYTimes, March 14, 2020) Georgia will postpone its March 24 presidential primary for nearly two months, officials said Saturday, becoming the second state to delay voting in response to the coronavirus outbreak.
The move comes as officials in the next four states scheduled to vote in the primary — Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio — have all indicated they intend to hold their elections on Tuesday as planned, issuing a joint statement on Friday expressing confidence that ballots can be safely cast.
[From November 20, 2019: Democrats look to Stacey Abrams as they try to make Georgia a 2020 swing state (CNN) For the first time in a generation, Democrats have reason to believe that Georgia could be a true swing state in the coming presidential contest.]
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:15 PM on March 14, 2020 [1 favorite]
The move comes as officials in the next four states scheduled to vote in the primary — Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio — have all indicated they intend to hold their elections on Tuesday as planned, issuing a joint statement on Friday expressing confidence that ballots can be safely cast.
[From November 20, 2019: Democrats look to Stacey Abrams as they try to make Georgia a 2020 swing state (CNN) For the first time in a generation, Democrats have reason to believe that Georgia could be a true swing state in the coming presidential contest.]
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:15 PM on March 14, 2020 [1 favorite]
The debate is gonna seem super petty under these circumstances. I hope Biden and Sanders do nothing but tag team teeing off on Trump's incompetence and malfeasance for several hours.
posted by Justinian at 2:40 AM on March 15, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:40 AM on March 15, 2020 [7 favorites]
The debate is gonna seem super petty under these circumstances. I hope Biden and Sanders do nothing but tag team teeing off on Trump's incompetence and malfeasance for several hours.
Why? I think a crisis like this is exactly the perfect time to highlight the vast differences between the two candidates and their ideologies.
Moreover, I would love to hear more about Biden's thoughts on why he would veto M4A if it somehow made it past the House and Senate and why he has continued to lie about his support for the Iraq War.
posted by Ouverture at 6:48 AM on March 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
Why? I think a crisis like this is exactly the perfect time to highlight the vast differences between the two candidates and their ideologies.
Moreover, I would love to hear more about Biden's thoughts on why he would veto M4A if it somehow made it past the House and Senate and why he has continued to lie about his support for the Iraq War.
posted by Ouverture at 6:48 AM on March 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
We'll see, I suspect you guys are going to be disappointed. Sanders likely recognizes the writing on the wall here.
posted by Justinian at 7:17 AM on March 15, 2020
posted by Justinian at 7:17 AM on March 15, 2020
Living in America is an object lesson in being disappointed, especially when it comes to poor people and people of color; my expectations have been appropriately managed for decades. Sanders is also not immune to collegiality, sadly.
posted by Ouverture at 7:23 AM on March 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Ouverture at 7:23 AM on March 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Why? I think a crisis like this is exactly the perfect time to highlight the vast differences between the two candidates and their ideologies.
Exactly. For Berniecrats to suppress their politics in times of disaster -- especially when one of their signature policies would have done a great deal to mitigate it -- is politically irresponsible. Social calamity often provides the possibility for progressive policies to burst forth, and someone else might seize that window of opportunity if left forces do not.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:50 AM on March 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
Exactly. For Berniecrats to suppress their politics in times of disaster -- especially when one of their signature policies would have done a great deal to mitigate it -- is politically irresponsible. Social calamity often provides the possibility for progressive policies to burst forth, and someone else might seize that window of opportunity if left forces do not.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:50 AM on March 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
New national polling:
Biden: 61%
Sanders: 32%
Gabbard: 4%
In February's NBC/WSJ poll, the Dem horserace was:
Sanders: 27%
Biden: 15%
Bloomberg 14%
Warren: 14%
Buttigieg: 13%
Klobuchar: 7%
I remember the 538 folks talking about Sanders having a ceiling of popularity and it looks like they were correct.
posted by octothorpe at 8:33 AM on March 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Biden: 61%
Sanders: 32%
Gabbard: 4%
In February's NBC/WSJ poll, the Dem horserace was:
Sanders: 27%
Biden: 15%
Bloomberg 14%
Warren: 14%
Buttigieg: 13%
Klobuchar: 7%
I remember the 538 folks talking about Sanders having a ceiling of popularity and it looks like they were correct.
posted by octothorpe at 8:33 AM on March 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think a crisis like this is exactly the perfect time to highlight the vast differences between the two candidates and their ideologies.
No. Completely disagree. The time to discuss these differences is post-emergency, not in the middle of it. This feels like two different factions in the fire department stopping to argue stragegy/tactics while the f***ing building is exploding around them (sorry for the hyperbole).
posted by philip-random at 9:07 AM on March 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
No. Completely disagree. The time to discuss these differences is post-emergency, not in the middle of it. This feels like two different factions in the fire department stopping to argue stragegy/tactics while the f***ing building is exploding around them (sorry for the hyperbole).
posted by philip-random at 9:07 AM on March 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
Tulsi Gabbard at 4%? Still. She's going to do her best to give Trump a second term, isn't she.
posted by JackFlash at 9:28 AM on March 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 9:28 AM on March 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
No. Completely disagree. The time to discuss these differences is post-emergency, not in the middle of it. This feels like two different factions in the fire department stopping to argue stragegy/tactics while the f***ing building is exploding around them (sorry for the hyperbole).
If we have to wait until "post-emergency", then there will never be time to discuss these differences because there will always be another emergency (due to the lack of structural interventions that would actually provide some bulwark against these calamities).
And if these firefighters think the building is only now exploding, then I would strongly suggest those firefighters consider the advantages and privileges they have enjoyed up until this point because the world has been burning for a very long time (and mostly with their consent).
posted by Ouverture at 10:14 AM on March 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
If we have to wait until "post-emergency", then there will never be time to discuss these differences because there will always be another emergency (due to the lack of structural interventions that would actually provide some bulwark against these calamities).
And if these firefighters think the building is only now exploding, then I would strongly suggest those firefighters consider the advantages and privileges they have enjoyed up until this point because the world has been burning for a very long time (and mostly with their consent).
posted by Ouverture at 10:14 AM on March 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
Honestly, I'm not even sure if many people will even pay attention to the debates at all at this point. Most people will be busy preparing for their own needs and those around them, and watching a debate for a primary that's already mostly decided and where states are delaying future contests seems not a priority for most people right now.
But I do agree that it would look bad if this debate looks as fight-y as the previous two debates. It would make it seem that neither of them understands the gravity of the situation. So, they can still have differences, but they kind of have to present their differences a little differently. A little more in the sense of being constructive and helpful rather than trying to tear each other down.
But Sanders' has a few roles to play. He does of course need to push Biden to have a more ambitious pandemic health and economic recovery policies if the pandemic continues or worsens. Because that is most likely what a new president will face with when inaugurated (probably with no crowds in front of the Capitol Building) in January.
Also important is that Sanders' realizes that he's now kind of an understudy nominee if something happens to Biden. So, though of course both have differences, they both will at least need to come to some kind of mutual recognition on how to go forward at least in the first days of a new administration. And this is not only if something happens to Biden, but if something happens to both of them and someone else becomes the nominee (which I don't know who. Would it be Gabbard? Bloomberg?). Having these plans is important to show the American people that any new administration would have a smooth transition to power, both because it benefits the American people, but it also reassures them that they're not putting themselves and their family in further danger if they vote to change administration during a crisis.
posted by FJT at 11:41 AM on March 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
But I do agree that it would look bad if this debate looks as fight-y as the previous two debates. It would make it seem that neither of them understands the gravity of the situation. So, they can still have differences, but they kind of have to present their differences a little differently. A little more in the sense of being constructive and helpful rather than trying to tear each other down.
But Sanders' has a few roles to play. He does of course need to push Biden to have a more ambitious pandemic health and economic recovery policies if the pandemic continues or worsens. Because that is most likely what a new president will face with when inaugurated (probably with no crowds in front of the Capitol Building) in January.
Also important is that Sanders' realizes that he's now kind of an understudy nominee if something happens to Biden. So, though of course both have differences, they both will at least need to come to some kind of mutual recognition on how to go forward at least in the first days of a new administration. And this is not only if something happens to Biden, but if something happens to both of them and someone else becomes the nominee (which I don't know who. Would it be Gabbard? Bloomberg?). Having these plans is important to show the American people that any new administration would have a smooth transition to power, both because it benefits the American people, but it also reassures them that they're not putting themselves and their family in further danger if they vote to change administration during a crisis.
posted by FJT at 11:41 AM on March 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
If Sanders can get Biden to make even a couple more promises than he otherwise would have, that would be a substantial achievement for the debate. Politicians generally attempt to keep their promises, even the ones they were bullied into, so if Sanders can push Biden to make a few more promises in light of coronavirus that would be a success. Nothing outlandish like M4A, but there are lots of smaller substantial things that Biden can either commit to, or commit more publicly to, eg guaranteed paid sick leave, a highly-subsidized public option, prescription drug control, medicaid expansion, lowering the medicare age, well-subsidized pre-K, food stamp expansion, an across-the-board economic stimulus plan, and lots more. Biden has official policies on many of these already, but the more he is publicly on the record calling for them, the more likely they are to actually pass in 2020. So that's a good reason for Sanders to keep pressing -- politely but firmly -- on this stuff.
posted by chortly at 11:49 AM on March 15, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by chortly at 11:49 AM on March 15, 2020 [10 favorites]
Mod note: ||||||| Here's the relitigation wall. Do not attempt to scale. ||||||||
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:19 PM on March 15, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:19 PM on March 15, 2020 [22 favorites]
CNN has op-eds from both candidates in preparation for tonight's debate:
Joe Biden: The virus lays bare the shortcomings of the Trump administration
Bernie Sanders: Coronavirus highlights the flaws in our health care and economic systems
Those titles seem to be a fair summary of the differences between them, in their own words. (Or, more likely, in the words of the editor assigned to title their opinion pieces.)
posted by clawsoon at 6:00 PM on March 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
Joe Biden: The virus lays bare the shortcomings of the Trump administration
Bernie Sanders: Coronavirus highlights the flaws in our health care and economic systems
Those titles seem to be a fair summary of the differences between them, in their own words. (Or, more likely, in the words of the editor assigned to title their opinion pieces.)
posted by clawsoon at 6:00 PM on March 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
Both of those statements are true; the former is what will win elections.
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on March 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on March 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
Biden's commitment to a woman as VP was interesting. Everybody paying attention knew he would pick a woman but making the pledge publicly is still new and important. I do hope that debate puts to bed some of the more, shall we say, out-there beliefs and assertions. It was Biden's best debate by a good margin, I think, perhaps because of the one-on-one format. Sanders was the same as always which is good if you're in for his thing but isn't going to change the trajectory of the race is any meaningful way.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on March 15, 2020
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on March 15, 2020
Also vowed to appoint the first black woman to the Court.
Biden being Biden, I wish he'd specified that these women will be Democrats.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:14 PM on March 15, 2020 [8 favorites]
Biden being Biden, I wish he'd specified that these women will be Democrats.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:14 PM on March 15, 2020 [8 favorites]
Maybe I'm missing something but what does it even mean to say that a bill is "completely false"?
posted by Justinian at 10:18 PM on March 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 10:18 PM on March 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
I interpreted that to mean that he defends his support of the bill by saying it was one thing, when in reality it was another -- that his version was false in the sense of "not genuine" rather than "not true". And this obviously the case. It was a terrible bill, and his attempts to explain it away are rather ridiculous.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:44 PM on March 15, 2020
posted by tonycpsu at 10:44 PM on March 15, 2020
Oh, I assumed we were talking about the currently proposed bankruptcy bill; Warren's, which he endorsed this weekend.
posted by Justinian at 10:49 PM on March 15, 2020
posted by Justinian at 10:49 PM on March 15, 2020
[From November 20, 2019: Democrats look to Stacey Abrams as they try to make Georgia a 2020 swing state (CNN) For the first time in a generation, Democrats have reason to believe that Georgia could be a true swing state in the coming presidential contest.]
Georgia was never a "swing state"; it voted Democratic, mostly, until the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, then it voted for Wallace, then Nixon, then Jimmy Carter because he was a native son and to some extent a conservative Southern Democrat (the Democratic Party was dominant in state politics in Georgia until the 1990's), then Reagan and Bush I and then Clinton in '92 because Perot siphoned off the Bush vote, and then Republican ever since.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:20 AM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
Georgia was never a "swing state"; it voted Democratic, mostly, until the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, then it voted for Wallace, then Nixon, then Jimmy Carter because he was a native son and to some extent a conservative Southern Democrat (the Democratic Party was dominant in state politics in Georgia until the 1990's), then Reagan and Bush I and then Clinton in '92 because Perot siphoned off the Bush vote, and then Republican ever since.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:20 AM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
things swing for a reason. there seem to be a bunch of reasons about.
posted by philip-random at 8:33 AM on March 16, 2020
posted by philip-random at 8:33 AM on March 16, 2020
Any state that Dems and Republicans have regarded as plausibly winnable/losable more often than not for the last 20 years is a swing state. GA might require a lot of optimism and hard work, but it's not, say, Oklahoma.
posted by grandiloquiet at 8:39 AM on March 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by grandiloquiet at 8:39 AM on March 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
On Monday afternoon, Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine announced that the state would not go forward with in-person voting on Tuesday (The Intercept, March 16, 2020)
The move follows days of pressure for the four states scheduled to vote on Tuesday — Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio — to postpone their primaries. In an open letter, more than 1,600 people, including 100 medical professionals, called for the next round of presidential primaries to be postponed amid the coronavirus pandemic. All of the four states scheduled to vote on Tuesday have declared a state of emergency in response to the outbreak. The decision to hold both the Democratic and Republican primary elections — which have closed down schools, restaurants, and bars to try to slow the spread of the coronavirus — could exponentially grow the amount of cases and death toll. In Arizona, the state Republican Party decided months ago not to hold a presidential primary.
The letter, which is addressed to the Democratic National Committee and the secretaries of state for the four states, calls for those states to push their primaries to May. Until then, it reads, “mail-in voting should be implemented throughout under the guidance of health and election authorities.” Postponing the elections would also give states enough time to explore alternatives to in-person voting at a sufficient scale, the letter notes, particularly if the emergency continues to worsen.
“In addition to our primary concern about public health, we believe this would be beneficial to the democratic process,” the letter continues. “As people are understandably avoiding public places and crowds, we expect turnout to be depressed. Rescheduling the primaries would ensure that more people are allowed to exercise their right to vote without fear.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2020
The move follows days of pressure for the four states scheduled to vote on Tuesday — Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio — to postpone their primaries. In an open letter, more than 1,600 people, including 100 medical professionals, called for the next round of presidential primaries to be postponed amid the coronavirus pandemic. All of the four states scheduled to vote on Tuesday have declared a state of emergency in response to the outbreak. The decision to hold both the Democratic and Republican primary elections — which have closed down schools, restaurants, and bars to try to slow the spread of the coronavirus — could exponentially grow the amount of cases and death toll. In Arizona, the state Republican Party decided months ago not to hold a presidential primary.
The letter, which is addressed to the Democratic National Committee and the secretaries of state for the four states, calls for those states to push their primaries to May. Until then, it reads, “mail-in voting should be implemented throughout under the guidance of health and election authorities.” Postponing the elections would also give states enough time to explore alternatives to in-person voting at a sufficient scale, the letter notes, particularly if the emergency continues to worsen.
“In addition to our primary concern about public health, we believe this would be beneficial to the democratic process,” the letter continues. “As people are understandably avoiding public places and crowds, we expect turnout to be depressed. Rescheduling the primaries would ensure that more people are allowed to exercise their right to vote without fear.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2020
this page is endless - also it's getting hard to figure out where the latest political event is ending up (i.e. which existing thread is it piggybacking onto) - can folks who manage these political threads open a new thread for new topics? (like the debate could stand alone, the next wave of primaries could stand alone)
yes, i know mefi means anyone can start a thread - i'm not going to be that person but i do enjoy reading the conversations
posted by kokaku at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
yes, i know mefi means anyone can start a thread - i'm not going to be that person but i do enjoy reading the conversations
posted by kokaku at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
On Monday afternoon, Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine announced that the state would not go forward with in-person voting on Tuesday
This headline (?) is incorrect or outdated, and further reading in the current version of the article should make that clear, for any Ohioans still reading this far down.
On Monday afternoon DeWine said he would prefer to delay the primary, but since he had no direct authority to do so, he was relying on a last-minute lawsuit from two regular citizens, which would then (theoretically) allow a judge to rule that continuing to hold in-person elections tomorrow would violate the state's own rules for trying to contain the spread of the virus.
This seems to have been too late, though, as later the judge presiding over the suit refused the request.
Judge denies request to delay Ohio primary election until June over coronavirus
posted by soundguy99 at 5:39 PM on March 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
This headline (?) is incorrect or outdated, and further reading in the current version of the article should make that clear, for any Ohioans still reading this far down.
On Monday afternoon DeWine said he would prefer to delay the primary, but since he had no direct authority to do so, he was relying on a last-minute lawsuit from two regular citizens, which would then (theoretically) allow a judge to rule that continuing to hold in-person elections tomorrow would violate the state's own rules for trying to contain the spread of the virus.
This seems to have been too late, though, as later the judge presiding over the suit refused the request.
Judge denies request to delay Ohio primary election until June over coronavirus
posted by soundguy99 at 5:39 PM on March 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
The following statement is attributable to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (AZ), Secretary of State Laurel Lee (FL), Elections Board Chairman Charles Scholz (IL) and Secretary of State Frank LaRose (OH) (ohiosos.gov, March 16, 2020):
As each of our four states prepare for voters to head to the polls on Tuesday, March 17, 2020, we are working closely with our state health officials to ensure that our poll workers and voters can be confident that voting is safe.
Unlike concerts, sporting events or other mass gatherings where large groups of people travel long distances to congregate in a confined space for an extended period of time, polling locations see people from a nearby community coming into and out of the building for a short duration.
Further, guidance from voting machine manufacturers on how best to sanitize machines, guidance from CDC on best practices for hand washing, and guidance from our respective state health officials is being provided to every polling location.
Americans have participated in elections during challenging times in the past, and based on the best information we have from public health officials, we are confident that voters in our states can safely and securely cast their ballots in this election, and that otherwise healthy poll workers can and should carry out their patriotic duties on Tuesday.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:39 PM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
As each of our four states prepare for voters to head to the polls on Tuesday, March 17, 2020, we are working closely with our state health officials to ensure that our poll workers and voters can be confident that voting is safe.
Unlike concerts, sporting events or other mass gatherings where large groups of people travel long distances to congregate in a confined space for an extended period of time, polling locations see people from a nearby community coming into and out of the building for a short duration.
Further, guidance from voting machine manufacturers on how best to sanitize machines, guidance from CDC on best practices for hand washing, and guidance from our respective state health officials is being provided to every polling location.
Americans have participated in elections during challenging times in the past, and based on the best information we have from public health officials, we are confident that voters in our states can safely and securely cast their ballots in this election, and that otherwise healthy poll workers can and should carry out their patriotic duties on Tuesday.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:39 PM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: For kokaku and just as a PSA in case anyone doesn't know, there are two helpful Mefi tools for finding activity in older political threads: [1] Use the "Recent Comments" tab on the front page to find threads with recent comments in them to see which threads are still active. [2] Use the "Recent Activity" link in the header to see recently-made comments in any thread you've commented in or chosen to follow (to follow a post, use the "Add to Activity" link in the byline). We're not doing megathreads so there isn't always going to be a place on Mefi to discuss every political event necessarily, but hopefully these links will help finding conversations where they're continuing in older threads.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:03 PM on March 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:03 PM on March 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
soundguy99: "Judge denies request to delay Ohio primary election until June over coronavirus"
Ohio Postpones Primary as Governor Declares Health Emergency Over Virus
posted by Rhaomi at 8:04 PM on March 16, 2020 [4 favorites]
Ohio Postpones Primary as Governor Declares Health Emergency Over Virus
Ohio’s governor on Monday night said he and top state heath officials would ignore a court ruling and postpone Ohio’s presidential primary by declaring a public health emergency because of the coronavirus outbreak.This doesn't seem like a great precedent to set.
The governor, Mike DeWine, said that the state’s health director, Dr. Amy Acton, had issued the order based on concerns that the coronavirus outbreak placed both voters and poll workers in potential danger.
His announcement came just hours after Judge Richard A. Frye of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the state’s request to push back voting to June 2.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:04 PM on March 16, 2020 [4 favorites]
This doesn't seem like a great precedent to set.
It is not, and things are still somewhat in the air.
Cleveland.com article on the situation (for those having trouble with any NYT firewall - their coronavirus articles may be free as in "no money", but for me any attempt to read them still gets me a "register with Google/FB/directly" page blocker.)
posted by soundguy99 at 8:46 PM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
It is not, and things are still somewhat in the air.
Cleveland.com article on the situation (for those having trouble with any NYT firewall - their coronavirus articles may be free as in "no money", but for me any attempt to read them still gets me a "register with Google/FB/directly" page blocker.)
posted by soundguy99 at 8:46 PM on March 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
Biden wins Washington primary, capturing 5 out of 6 states
posted by octothorpe at 5:51 AM on March 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 5:51 AM on March 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
soundguy99, at the NYT site: "We are providing free access to the most important news and useful guidance on the coronavirus outbreak to help readers understand the pandemic. The articles on this page are available if you have a New York Times account." The newspaper still requires a registered user account, which is free (entitles user to a handful of gratis articles per month, and I think signing up for a daily newsletter to be delivered via email is available), to access their coronavirus coverage.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:10 PM on March 17, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:10 PM on March 17, 2020
DNC urges states to expand vote-by-mail to avoid more delays in primary calendar (WaPo, March 17, 2020, 3:37 p.m.) Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is urging states to adopt vote-by-mail, no-excuse absentee voting and expanded polling place hours to prevent more delays in the primary calendar, after Ohio and four other states have rescheduled their elections in response to the coronavirus pandemic. [...] Perez urged states to make vote-by-mail available to all registered voters. He also recommended the expansion of no-excuse absentee voting, “whereby a voter can either drop a ballot off at convenient locations or drop it in the mail.
“What happened in Ohio last night has only bred more chaos and confusion, and the Democratic Party leadership in Ohio is working tirelessly to protect the right to vote,” he said. “Eligible voters deserve certainty, safety, and accessibility. That’s why states that have not yet held primary elections should focus on implementing the aforementioned measures to make it easier and safer for voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote, instead of moving primaries to later in the cycle when timing around the virus remains unpredictable.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:47 PM on March 17, 2020
“What happened in Ohio last night has only bred more chaos and confusion, and the Democratic Party leadership in Ohio is working tirelessly to protect the right to vote,” he said. “Eligible voters deserve certainty, safety, and accessibility. That’s why states that have not yet held primary elections should focus on implementing the aforementioned measures to make it easier and safer for voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote, instead of moving primaries to later in the cycle when timing around the virus remains unpredictable.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:47 PM on March 17, 2020
Joe Biden wins Florida and Illinois as he extends his delegate lead over Bernie Sanders (CNN, March 17, 2020, 10:30 p.m.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:00 PM on March 17, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:00 PM on March 17, 2020
Looks like progressive Marie Newman is going to defeat 8-term bluedog Dan Lipinski in the Democratic primary.
posted by JackFlash at 8:19 PM on March 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 8:19 PM on March 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
I was going to make a "here's how bernie can still win u guys" joke, but it looks like /r/SanderForPresident already beat me to it: How Bernie Sanders is going to come from behind and win the Democratic Nomination. Posted less than an hour ago, even as Biden sweeps all four three states and wins Florida by 40 points, netting over a hundred delegates. tl;dr: Coronavirus scares the olds away from the polls, and everyone else into voting for Medicare for All...?
On the bright side, Marie Newman has officially ousted longstanding conserva-dem Dan Lipinski!
posted by Rhaomi at 8:20 PM on March 17, 2020 [8 favorites]
On the bright side, Marie Newman has officially ousted longstanding conserva-dem Dan Lipinski!
posted by Rhaomi at 8:20 PM on March 17, 2020 [8 favorites]
Biden will be the nominee. Sanders should pretty clearly suspend his campaign to protect the public health. He can always unsuspend his campaign if that ever becomes necessary. But continuing now is just obstinance.
posted by Justinian at 11:09 PM on March 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:09 PM on March 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
I really hope that all potential nominees are isolating themselves. I don't mean just Biden and Sanders: other candidates who might have won the nomination in their absence should, too. We really don't know what might happen.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:22 AM on March 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:22 AM on March 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
Off in the distance, 38 year old Pete Buttigieg steeples his hands in anticipation.
posted by Justinian at 4:34 AM on March 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:34 AM on March 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
I don't know what Sanders thinks he's accomplishing by staying in now. He's just humiliating himself by getting crushed in race after race.
posted by octothorpe at 5:22 AM on March 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 5:22 AM on March 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
CNN is reporting that his campaign is now putting out feelers about suspending his campaign. That's the right call and I would be greatly impressed if he did so.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 AM on March 18, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:29 AM on March 18, 2020 [6 favorites]
The path forward for Sanders' campaign is to suspend his campaign. That's it. He can do it now and extract more policy concessions from Biden, or do it later and extract fewer concessions as his base of support narrows. I think he'll do the right thing very soon.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:19 AM on March 18, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:19 AM on March 18, 2020 [3 favorites]
Because Bernie still has a strong base of support that could help him in a lot of states that Biden needs? He doesn't need to have leverage in terms of delegate count, but he does get to decide what he does with his time between now and November.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 AM on March 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 AM on March 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
Well, there is the added incentive of his dropping out preventing a bunch of needless deaths when fewer people must stand in line to vote and spread coronavirus around...
posted by Justinian at 7:53 AM on March 18, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:53 AM on March 18, 2020 [4 favorites]
In addition to the fact that Clinton and Biden are very different candidates with very different strengths and weaknesses, the fact that Sanders held out until mid-July is relevant here. Endorsing earlier suggests to your followers that you're much more comfortable with them as the nominee, while waiting until literally the last possible week before the convention sends a much weaker message of support.
The sooner he endorses, the more chance he has of converting his support into Biden's.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 AM on March 18, 2020 [7 favorites]
The sooner he endorses, the more chance he has of converting his support into Biden's.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 AM on March 18, 2020 [7 favorites]
FWIW, this reluctant practitioner of settling-for-Bernie in a late-voting state would feel much better about supporting Handsy Joe in the general election if I can at least extend a final middle finger my state's stenchfully corrupt party establishment by voting against him first.
But this whole situation is a turd sandwich any way you slice it, so.
posted by Not A Thing at 8:44 AM on March 18, 2020 [6 favorites]
But this whole situation is a turd sandwich any way you slice it, so.
posted by Not A Thing at 8:44 AM on March 18, 2020 [6 favorites]
Presidential race is lost already, or won if you believe the “Biden is electable” argument. Time to focus down ticket.
posted by Artw at 9:06 AM on March 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:06 AM on March 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
What a bunch of nonsense. There are many shades of gray between those extremes, and many opportunities for GOTV efforts, even if those efforts take a turn toward the unconventional in light of COVID-19. States are now being pressured to adopt vote-by-mail. Imagine the uptick in turnout that could bring about, and we all know who benefits from more people voting.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:15 AM on March 18, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:15 AM on March 18, 2020 [11 favorites]
If Biden thinks he needs Sanders' support (and he does in November), it would be a good time to embrace a road to M4A. He can even say, "The current crisis has shown me that we cannot deal with disasters with a for-profit healthcare system. I await my friend's M4A bill on my desk."
And probably choose a VP that's somewhat to the left of Biden.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:26 AM on March 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
And probably choose a VP that's somewhat to the left of Biden.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:26 AM on March 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
we all know who benefits from more people voting.
We do: so far, it's Biden. Increases in turnout in this primary cycle have either stayed close to the historical ratio between younger and older voters, or increased the vote share of the older population that trends more conservative.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:28 AM on March 18, 2020
We do: so far, it's Biden. Increases in turnout in this primary cycle have either stayed close to the historical ratio between younger and older voters, or increased the vote share of the older population that trends more conservative.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:28 AM on March 18, 2020
I hope Biden will pick a young, leftist, woman of color as his running mate.
I expect he will pick another elderly center right white dude as a final display of contempt and hated for the left and anyone younger than he is.
I'd love to be wrong and to see an actual example of this mythic big tent the Democratic right wing loves to claim exists.
posted by sotonohito at 10:48 AM on March 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
I expect he will pick another elderly center right white dude as a final display of contempt and hated for the left and anyone younger than he is.
I'd love to be wrong and to see an actual example of this mythic big tent the Democratic right wing loves to claim exists.
posted by sotonohito at 10:48 AM on March 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
Biden's already committed to picking a woman. It's right here in this thread, several times.
I also hope he'll go further and pick a woman of color and a strong progressive, but let's at least stay grounded in a shared reality here.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:55 AM on March 18, 2020 [8 favorites]
I also hope he'll go further and pick a woman of color and a strong progressive, but let's at least stay grounded in a shared reality here.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:55 AM on March 18, 2020 [8 favorites]
His commitment to pick a woman as VP is meaningless to me unless there are also actual ideological and political commitments attached to it.
Yemeni children aren't going to be celebrating a woman VP being part of the drone industrial complex murdering them, just as they weren't celebrating it when it was a black Democratic president or woman Secretary of State.
posted by Ouverture at 11:15 AM on March 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yemeni children aren't going to be celebrating a woman VP being part of the drone industrial complex murdering them, just as they weren't celebrating it when it was a black Democratic president or woman Secretary of State.
posted by Ouverture at 11:15 AM on March 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
His commitment to pick a woman is, however, meaningful when someone says he should avoid picking an old white dude.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:25 AM on March 18, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:25 AM on March 18, 2020 [9 favorites]
He is a serial and pathological list as proven by his ongoing lies about his involvement in the Civil Rights movement. I'll believe he picks a woman when she is announced. He says whatever seems convenient to him at any given moment with no concern at all for the truth.
posted by sotonohito at 12:16 PM on March 18, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 12:16 PM on March 18, 2020 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Positions stated, now please drop it. This "will he follow through on what he said about a running mate" is a hypothetical for now; if you want to fight about a hypothetical, do it somewhere else.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:23 PM on March 18, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:23 PM on March 18, 2020 [8 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed, and I need people to really figure out what they expect here because slow-burn scrapping about the election and the pandemic all in one go is an especially crappy mix and I'm too exhausted to approach this with a light touch. If you've got news news, great, share it. If you've got An Opinion, at this point consider just writing it on a piece of paper and eating it. That we don't have a formal mechanism for closing thread on the blue down early without deleting them is not something I want to keep feel like folks are testing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:12 PM on March 18, 2020 [20 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:12 PM on March 18, 2020 [20 favorites]
(hopeful this qualifies as news news, but if not please delete)
Tulsi Gabbard ends her campaign, endorses Biden.
posted by box at 8:06 AM on March 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
Tulsi Gabbard ends her campaign, endorses Biden.
posted by box at 8:06 AM on March 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
I know Tulsi is thought of as a joke (or worse) by most folks here, but of the people I know who are supporters of hers, and who take her antiwar stance seriously, I think the Biden endorsement will come as an enormous, devastating shock.
posted by mittens at 8:23 AM on March 19, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:23 AM on March 19, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'm surprised a little but I gave up trying to understand her a while ago.
posted by octothorpe at 8:57 AM on March 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:57 AM on March 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the Biden endorsement is a weird surprise. Back in 2016 I remember her as part of the Sanders coalition and I figured her tiny group of partisans was made up mostly of members of that coalition who, for some reason, preferred her to Sanders himself. Am I misremembering, or is this just another incomprehensible shift of alliances?
posted by jackbishop at 9:23 AM on March 19, 2020
posted by jackbishop at 9:23 AM on March 19, 2020
So, I think her entire coherent ideology is that she hates Hillary Clinton? Because nothing else seems to make sense.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:29 AM on March 19, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:29 AM on March 19, 2020 [4 favorites]
If that's true, and I'm skeptical because Gabbard's a fucking lunatic, good on Bernie. Unless she promises to walk in front of Biden dropping banana peels, she has nothing to offer him. She's a dumb conservative's idea of a smart progressive, and the sooner we're rid of her, the better.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:25 PM on March 19, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:25 PM on March 19, 2020 [12 favorites]
Biden/Gabbard would be a very funny ticket that would make everyone mad
posted by Apocryphon at 11:08 PM on March 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 11:08 PM on March 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
"Somewhere, some coy strategist has probably run the numbers on what former Republican governor Nikki Haley would do for Biden’s ticket — potentially recruiting a conservative vote or two in purple swing states." (Washington Post columnist musing, "Biden’s promise of a female vice president was a good thing. So why does it feel so lame?" March 16, 2020)
Nikki Haley Resigns From Boeing Board Over Opposition to Proposed $60 Billion Bailout (Time, March 19, 2020)
The resignation letter, dated March 16, was released to the Associated Press on March 19. Haley, 48, had a brief skirmish with Biden only three weeks ago.
Quick bio refresh, as per opening paragraphs on Haley's Wikipedia entry: "Nimrata "Nikki" Haley (née Randhawa; born January 20, 1972) is an American diplomat, businesswoman, author, and politician. A Republican, Haley is a former South Carolina state legislator, a former governor of South Carolina, and a former United States Ambassador to the United Nations. She was the first female governor of South Carolina and is the first Sikh American to serve as governor in the United States. First elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2004, Haley served three terms. In 2010, during her third term, she was elected governor of South Carolina and won re-election in 2014. In 2015, Haley signed legislation calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from the State Capitol. She was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2016."
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:16 AM on March 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
Nikki Haley Resigns From Boeing Board Over Opposition to Proposed $60 Billion Bailout (Time, March 19, 2020)
The resignation letter, dated March 16, was released to the Associated Press on March 19. Haley, 48, had a brief skirmish with Biden only three weeks ago.
Quick bio refresh, as per opening paragraphs on Haley's Wikipedia entry: "Nimrata "Nikki" Haley (née Randhawa; born January 20, 1972) is an American diplomat, businesswoman, author, and politician. A Republican, Haley is a former South Carolina state legislator, a former governor of South Carolina, and a former United States Ambassador to the United Nations. She was the first female governor of South Carolina and is the first Sikh American to serve as governor in the United States. First elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2004, Haley served three terms. In 2010, during her third term, she was elected governor of South Carolina and won re-election in 2014. In 2015, Haley signed legislation calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from the State Capitol. She was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2016."
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:16 AM on March 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure why you are bolding that bit...can you elaborate?
Nikki Haley is a trashfire of a horrible person, and nothing about her bio changes that.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:29 AM on March 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
Nikki Haley is a trashfire of a horrible person, and nothing about her bio changes that.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:29 AM on March 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
Also holy fuck
signed legislation calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from the State Capitol.
is an incredibly orwellian re-imagining of how all that went down.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:30 AM on March 20, 2020 [9 favorites]
signed legislation calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from the State Capitol.
is an incredibly orwellian re-imagining of how all that went down.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:30 AM on March 20, 2020 [9 favorites]
Tulsi (or anyone really) can have 10,000 batshit crazy opinions but argue that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake and the US should not going around invading countries, and the quality of their average opinion will be higher than the mainstream democratic party. That war was/is such a colossal blunder and not enough people have paid the price for leading us into it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:37 AM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:37 AM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
The Iraq war already happened -- there's nothing we can do to undo that mistake now. Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard's 10,000 batshit opinions include some terrible foreign policy ideas that could lead to catastrophes similar in kind and scope to the Iraq calamity, and many other terrible ideas that would harm millions of Americans.
"Look forward, not backward" was a terrible thing, but when assessing the kind of President we need right now, we kinda do need to look forward instead of looking backward at why we didn't look backward.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:53 AM on March 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
"Look forward, not backward" was a terrible thing, but when assessing the kind of President we need right now, we kinda do need to look forward instead of looking backward at why we didn't look backward.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:53 AM on March 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
People forget the tendency for the post-War on Terror U.S. government to get stuck in foreign interventions. The Iraq War might have happened already but being in favor of it is a potential marker of being pro-Libyan/Syrian/Yemeni/etc. intervention, as well as conflict zones to come.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:58 AM on March 20, 2020
posted by Apocryphon at 11:58 AM on March 20, 2020
Gabbard is leaving politics. She will undoubtedly get a nice cushy Fox News post and join the grift that is damaging our country so gravely. But until that happens there is no reason to talk about her; she is a non-factor going forward, thank god.
posted by Justinian at 11:58 AM on March 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:58 AM on March 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
I'm not sure why you are bolding that bit...can you elaborate?
lazaruslong, upthread, and in previous threads, there's been discussion about: older presidential candidates "balancing" their tickets with younger VPs; Rep. Clyburn, the South Carolina congressman considered instrumental in Biden's SC win, who feels Biden's pick should be a female POC as a running mate; Biden's own history of talking points about his running mate options (wouldn't rule out a Republican, and, more recently, committed to picking a woman); etc.
The bolding in the paste was meant to highlight a couple of the boxes Nikki Haley would tick for some people as the Democratic VP nominee, in a post chock-a-block with them. She's a young, female, POC, experienced South Carolinian Republican politician who's recently available after publicly criticizing Boeing: "I cannot support a move to lean on the federal government for a stimulus or bailout that prioritizes our company over others and relies on taxpayers to guarantee our financial position," Haley wrote in a resignation letter included in the filing. "I have long held strong convictions that this is not the role of government."
In December, "[j]ust over a third of Republicans likely to vote in their party's primaries said they would prefer to see Nikki Haley, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, replace Vice President Mike Pence as President Donald Trump's running mate" (Newsweek, Dec. 17, 2019), and CNN's Chris Cillizza was still discussing the idea as recently as March 3rd: No, Donald Trump is (probably) not dumping Mike Pence for Nikki Haley.
If Gabbard's "a dumb conservative's idea of a smart progressive," as tonycpsu notes a couple entries above mine, you can imagine how Haley appears from certain perspectives.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:37 PM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
lazaruslong, upthread, and in previous threads, there's been discussion about: older presidential candidates "balancing" their tickets with younger VPs; Rep. Clyburn, the South Carolina congressman considered instrumental in Biden's SC win, who feels Biden's pick should be a female POC as a running mate; Biden's own history of talking points about his running mate options (wouldn't rule out a Republican, and, more recently, committed to picking a woman); etc.
The bolding in the paste was meant to highlight a couple of the boxes Nikki Haley would tick for some people as the Democratic VP nominee, in a post chock-a-block with them. She's a young, female, POC, experienced South Carolinian Republican politician who's recently available after publicly criticizing Boeing: "I cannot support a move to lean on the federal government for a stimulus or bailout that prioritizes our company over others and relies on taxpayers to guarantee our financial position," Haley wrote in a resignation letter included in the filing. "I have long held strong convictions that this is not the role of government."
In December, "[j]ust over a third of Republicans likely to vote in their party's primaries said they would prefer to see Nikki Haley, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, replace Vice President Mike Pence as President Donald Trump's running mate" (Newsweek, Dec. 17, 2019), and CNN's Chris Cillizza was still discussing the idea as recently as March 3rd: No, Donald Trump is (probably) not dumping Mike Pence for Nikki Haley.
If Gabbard's "a dumb conservative's idea of a smart progressive," as tonycpsu notes a couple entries above mine, you can imagine how Haley appears from certain perspectives.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:37 PM on March 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
thank you for elaborating, that makes a lot more sense now. also, terrifying.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:47 PM on March 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by lazaruslong at 2:47 PM on March 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
Thank you, for asking; my first pass, a single line of "Nikki Haley's newly available," linked to that resignation letter, was even worse.
Mike Bloomberg transfers his campaign assets to Democratic Party to fight President Trump in swing states (WaPo, March 20, 2020) Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to donate significant components of his shuttered presidential campaign to the Democratic Party, a historic bequest that includes an $18 million cash infusion to organize for the general election in swing states.
The decision, which exploits a provision in campaign finance law available only to federal candidates, amounts to a shift in strategy for the billionaire political activist, who had previously promised to personally fund ground staff and offices in six states through an independent expenditure effort.
To accomplish the goal, Bloomberg will transfer cash remaining in his presidential campaign account, which he donated, to the Democratic National Committee’s Battleground Build-Up 2020 effort for use in the general election. The money will allow the party to hire hundreds of additional organizers, party officials say. Bloomberg also will transfer the long-term leases he has signed on some offices in some swing states to state Democratic parties.
The article covers the changes to current organizers' employment status, and notes: [T]he new shift of resources means he is able to give more than 20 times the maximum a donor can give to the national party in one year, because of provisions that allow federal candidates to donate unlimited amounts of leftover money to national and state parties as they wind down their campaigns. This has effectively given Bloomberg a super-donor status because he self-funded his White House bid.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:19 PM on March 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mike Bloomberg transfers his campaign assets to Democratic Party to fight President Trump in swing states (WaPo, March 20, 2020) Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to donate significant components of his shuttered presidential campaign to the Democratic Party, a historic bequest that includes an $18 million cash infusion to organize for the general election in swing states.
The decision, which exploits a provision in campaign finance law available only to federal candidates, amounts to a shift in strategy for the billionaire political activist, who had previously promised to personally fund ground staff and offices in six states through an independent expenditure effort.
To accomplish the goal, Bloomberg will transfer cash remaining in his presidential campaign account, which he donated, to the Democratic National Committee’s Battleground Build-Up 2020 effort for use in the general election. The money will allow the party to hire hundreds of additional organizers, party officials say. Bloomberg also will transfer the long-term leases he has signed on some offices in some swing states to state Democratic parties.
The article covers the changes to current organizers' employment status, and notes: [T]he new shift of resources means he is able to give more than 20 times the maximum a donor can give to the national party in one year, because of provisions that allow federal candidates to donate unlimited amounts of leftover money to national and state parties as they wind down their campaigns. This has effectively given Bloomberg a super-donor status because he self-funded his White House bid.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:19 PM on March 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
Imagine if he were a "super-donor" who hadn't lit all of that money on fire before eventually doing the right thing and giving money to candidates that can actually win.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:23 PM on March 20, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:23 PM on March 20, 2020 [12 favorites]
Ugh.... where is Joe Biden?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:06 AM on March 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:06 AM on March 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
Hopefully isolated in a room where only food and water are passed to him through a makeshift airlock. Picture Lecter's cell in Silence of the Lambs except with better sanitation. We do not need the nominee getting this virus.
Apparently he's going to start giving daily addresses on Monday. So that's good. Maybe he could have started a week earlier if he didn't have somebody pretending to still be a viable candidate running against him in the primary.
posted by Justinian at 12:46 PM on March 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Apparently he's going to start giving daily addresses on Monday. So that's good. Maybe he could have started a week earlier if he didn't have somebody pretending to still be a viable candidate running against him in the primary.
posted by Justinian at 12:46 PM on March 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Bernie raised how many millions of dollars in the past week to give to charity?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:02 PM on March 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:02 PM on March 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Hi, knock it off or I will give you a 24 hour ban.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:13 PM on March 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:13 PM on March 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
Urging CEOs to commit to no stock buybacks for a year? Giving interviews where he tells Trump to 'step up and do your job'? Upgrading his house so he can do 'shadow coronavirus briefings' to start as soon as Monday?
Those stories are all from yesterday.
(Feels weird being part of the Biden fan club, but maybe I can work up some genuine enthusiasm between now and November.)
posted by box at 3:21 PM on March 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Those stories are all from yesterday.
(Feels weird being part of the Biden fan club, but maybe I can work up some genuine enthusiasm between now and November.)
posted by box at 3:21 PM on March 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
« Older The 2020 Fumble Invitational | You have seen the blurs. They are everywhere... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by box at 10:33 AM on February 22, 2020 [3 favorites]