Campaign 2020

[Okri]

Thank-you. That's sort of what I figured you meant.

All I'll say is that if the Democratic Party nominates Bloomberg, the party will lose and it will deserve to lose.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Sabin, can you clarify who exactly you mean in this statement because I don't want to presume.

"unite a group of people who probably really hate each other online."

Sure. But I want to be clear that I don't believe that this constitutes everyone who either identifies as a Democrat or a Bernie Sanders supporter. Or an Independent, for that matter.

The Democratic Party, largely, is home to people of different races, genders, and orientation, and right now (post-Trump) these groups are very passionate about talking about their experiences, their disenfranchisements, being heard, and wanting to rectify past injustices in a current dialogue. Meanwhile, there is another big group of the party that believes these are just distractions from larger economic issues, "the progressives," that the real villains aren't perpetrators of racism and sexism but the unfeeling corporations that seek to divide us up. They might think that political correctness is a shield. In between them are the moderates who believe in slow, pragmatic change and would like both sides to quiet down.

Additionally though, Bernie Sander is reaching out to the Joe Rogan community as well as Fox News, Bernie Sanders is trying to bring people into the party who might be comfortable in their racism, sexism, transphobia, and anti-choice because these people harbor a contempt for insider politics. Many of these people are Republicans or have never voted at all. That's because Bernie Sanders largely believes that these issues can be cured through economic empowerment, if he thinks about it at all. I believe he does. I think he believes someone who is racist and out of the job can be converted if he has a job.

That's a big tent for one party.

I'm sure there was a time where a person of color who feels disenfranchised by Trump's racist policies didn't have the opportunity to encounter somebody who stayed at home because he couldn't vote for "Crooked Shillary" because he lost everything in the Great Recession, was disappointed in the recovery, and blames neoliberal policy for x,y and z. But now they can talk, argue, and fight each other online all they want, and there's a good chance one of them is a Russian bot.

[Okri]

Heh, no worries.

Sabin, can you clarify who exactly you mean in this statement because I don't want to presume.

"unite a group of people who probably really hate each other online."

[Big Magilla]

Only 70%?

Fixing it. That was poorly worded. I meant to say the first priority of 70% of Democrats.

[Okri]

Only 70%?

[Big Magilla]

Here's the thing.

70% of Democrats see beating Trump as their first priority. If it were 70% of the country it wouldn't matter who they nominated, the Dems would win, but the support for Trump is a solid 40% of the country with another 10% of soft support and maybe another 10% who don't care one way or another. This makes it all the more imperative that the Dems don't nominate someone who will scare off any of their natural base.

There are those who won't vote for Sanders because he is a socialist. In their minds socialism = communism. Never mind that Trump is the one who is eating out of Putin's hands. Those people think Russia banished Communism when Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall and Russia and Ukraine are two sides of the same coin.

Others won't vote for Sanders because they see him as a Trump of the left, someone who promises things that can't possibly be done. They reason that even if he means well, there's no way the Congress will support everything he wants to do - some day maybe, but it will take generations to get there and now is not the time for another fight. They want calm after Trump.

All of that can be reasoned away and may well be if Sanders or, for that matter, Warren, becomes the candidate. But we're still left with the unions. Granted, unions aren't what they were, but they're still a substantial enough voting block to sway the outcome of a close election. Buttigieg did something very smart early on in proposing "Medicare for all who want it" which the unions love because it would to allow them to keep the highly advantageous insurance they gave up pay raises and more to obtain. Their blood, sweat and tears are in those contracts. We will see very shortly how big a role that plays in Nevada.

At this point, it's Buttigieg who has the most delegates - he has one or two more than Sanders, so this talk about Sanders having the edge is very much premature.

Sanders has already proven that he is the preferred progressive over Warren. The moderates, which make up a larger part of the Democratic base, have not coalesced around a single candidate at this juncture. Buttigieg leads but Klobuchar is right behind him. He has the organization, she doesn't, which gives him the edge at the moment, but if the race between them isn't settled soon, or if Biden rebounds, which becomes less likely every day, an anxious party may well turn to Bloomberg. How soon that happens is anyone's guess.

One thing is certain, though. This will be the last we will see of all these old men running. Neither Trump nor Biden nor Sanders nor Bloomberg will be in the race in 2024. Trump will be out of office if re-elected and one of his evil spawn may well take over the Republican party. If it's Biden, Sanders or Bloomberg who is elected, none of them will have the energy to run for a second term if they haven't died in office.

From 1860 to 1960 every president elected every twenties years - 1900,1920,1940 in-between - died in office. Reagan broke the curse but he was shot. Given the advanced ages of the main candidates, it could well be revived with this election, so more than ever, we had better make sure that we elect a capable Vice President.

[Sabin]

I just lost a huge post that I wrote about Bernie Sanders. I'm going to try to replicate it.

I’ve wanted to write a little something about Bernie Sanders that’s been on my mind.He is probably the most important politician of my life. It's hard to think of anyone having a larger impact on me. I'm actually about to win some money because I placed bets on him being the delegate-leader going into convention. You just couldn't make the argument he's not the front-runner going into this election. He has the coalition, the organization, the fundraising, and the message. And I'm being proven very right.

There's a lot to be said about Bernie Sanders. I'm mostly interested in talking about one realization I had that I'd like to share.

Recently, I've had a lot of conversations about the Joe Rogan endorsement. It's frustrated a lot of people and has heightened the perception that he is going after people like Rogan fans more than African-Americans. I've argued that Bernie Sanders might be awkward at times but he has a vision for a multiracial working class that, for me, means his heart is in the right place. A side-note: in a time where identity is something that is seen as a means of empowerment, Bernie Sanders is somewhat awkwardly a champion of equality despite clearly believing in the erasure of identity, in the equality of the workforce. Anyway...

I've argued that Bernie's embrace of a multiracial working class ultimately means his heart is in the right place. He wants to expand the the Democrat's coalition like a new FDR. And I loved that about him.

Then it hit me: can you even do that in today’s age of social media?

Is Bernie Sander’s vision of a multiracial working class real or just something in his head? Obviously, he seeks to unite people through economic empowerment but is he trying to unite a group of people who probably really hate each other online.

I started to get scared.

Every Party has a coalition of voters, a master they serve. The Democratic Coalition is those big blue dot cities and minorities. Their policies help middle class and poor people but their messaging is arguably aimed more at this core. And as those blue dots get bigger and bluer across a country that is getting browner and gayer, the Democratic Party can wait the country out to being a "Majoritarian Party" like Carville recently said. Bernie Sanders wants to stretch that coalition out to include various fringe independents while assuming African-Americans will show up. His critics are right. Sanders is just assuming African-Americans will vote for him -- and they will. He is widening this coalition but he is also making it shallower when essentially: 1) a lot of these people hate each other (especially in the age of social media), and 2) all they can agree on is Bernie Sanders. Carter did this to some degree. No other real candidate in this race is doing this. Is it even possible to play servant to all these masters? He sees himself as a new FDR but FDR didn't have to deal with Twitter.

And if Sanders can't deliver for reasons his own, outside his own (ie the economy), or a combination of both, they're not going to like him so much. Or worse: they'll just get sick of him. Half the country hates Trump, the other half loves him. I could see more than half of the country not hating Bernie Sanders, but getting sick of him if he can't deliver and I think that's worse.

Like I said, Bernie Sanders means more to me than probably any other politician of my life. That said, I'm starting to get scared.

[taki15]

Frankly, I'm becoming more pessimistic every day that passes. Democrats have a mess in their hands. What begun as a diverse and exciting field has now been reduced to a bunch of old white guys (and a woman) each one with debilitating flaws of his/her own.
I still believe that Trump's awful approval ratings will eventually be too much to overcome and he will lose. But Democratic voters are giving him a big assist with their choices.

[Greg]

Sanders wins New Hampshire, with Buttigieg a strong second, and Klobuchar a surprising third. No other candidate reached the 15% threshold to qualify for delegates. Warren is in fourth place, Biden is in fifth, and Yang drops out. I would have never thought Biden would drop so far so fast.

[Greg]

Well, this has me enraged.

Mike Bloomberg will pay you $150 to say nice things about him:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... nfluencers

[Big Magilla]

So now the satellite caucus votes are coming in with Sanders having overwhelmingly won two of the four puting him just 18 delegates short of Buttigieg. There are 12-24 delegate equivalents outstanding which means it's possible that he will overtake Buttigieg after all.

Biden is toast. He's doddering now. Too many of his remarks start with "look". The only votes he's getting now are from those who believe he's the only one who can beat Trump in the states Hillary lost. He's going to come out poorly in New Hampshire which will hamper his position in South Carolina. When he loses that, he will drop out.

[Mister Tee]

Sanders may not have the most votes when everything is counted.

Sanders started out with the most votes but when the candidates in each precinct with less than 15% of the total fell out, most of the pickup went to Buttigieg so he may end up with the most votes as well.

Iowa using the Oscar best picture voting system.

I've been dealing with a very parochial crisis (what do you do when your TV picture goes out a few days before your Oscar party?), so this is my first chance to weigh in.

The dread app -- which, did I hear this right, they didn't test prior to caucus night? -- was designed to assuage the Sanders "what if we get the most votes but don't get the most delegates?" complaint, but ended up causing such a fiasco that Sanders online advocates have been screaming it's somehow a plot to deny Bernie. I agree with Sam Seder, who said last night that it's possible this sort of confusion happens all the time at this caucus, and the particular transparency of this year simply made it obvious.

Anyway, the person most screwed by the elongated outcome seems to be Buttigieg, who ought to be riding waves of "I upset Bernie", but instead has to fidget and wait for a final seal on his apparent victory. I still think Buttigieg's near 100% lack of appeal to black voters will make it difficult for him to become a front-runner, but he's the most personable of the remaining candidates; we'll see how far that takes him.

This really should have been Bernie territory (smaller caucus, dominated by young, liberal whites) and the evident non-record turnout kind of punctures his "there are all kinds of non-voters itching to vote for me" scenario.

Obviously Biden did badly, and I'm sitting there thinking, oh, sure: Biden finally starts showing the weakness I always thought he would, but 1) too late for all the good candidates who've dropped out and 2) just when I'd reconciled myself to him. A lot of pundits are piling on, as if Biden's ride is over after one small round. But I'm reminded of how George HW Bush finished third in the 1988 Iowa caucuses (behind Dole and, yes, Pat Robertson) and was similarly pummeled...but then went on to cruise to the nomination. I think Dave Wasserman is correct, that Iowa offered almost a perfect anti-Biden scenario (skewed young/white/liberal), and his campaign made little effort there, so it's a bit much to start delivering eulogies. I do think Biden needs to do somewhat better in NH and probably win NV -- at which point SC could kick-start his campaign the way it did Hillary's 4 years ago.

A long way to go.

[OscarGuy]

Which is weird since Sanders voters and Buttgieg voters are not a Venn Diagram that overlaps by much.

[Big Magilla]

Sanders may not have the most votes when everything is counted.

Sanders started out with the most votes but when the candidates in each precinct with less than 15% of the total fell out, most of the pickup went to Buttigieg so he may end up with the most votes as well.

[Greg]

With 62% of precincts reporting, Sanders has the largest number of votes; but, Buttigieg has the largest number of "state delegate equivalents." Warren is third, Biden fourth, and Klobuchar fifth for both votes and SDEs.