Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

I completely agree. I consider myself a progressive, someone who believes in Medicare for all (or something similar), the Green New Deal, etc. But I just cannot stand the deification of Sanders. It reeks of what the GOP base did to Trump. I dont even think hes a very good person to lead the movement from an electoral standpoint. His credentials are thin and he struggles to articulate his positions beyond his normal stump speech. The most glaring example is this clip from yesterday on Meet the Press. Chuck Todd asks him a tough question: what do you say to the people for whom the economy is working well? Bernie gives his regular lines about creating an economy that works for the middle class. Chuck points out that these voters already think the economy works well for them, and Bernie seems unable to give a good answer, and just pivots to his stump speech. And this isn't an isolated instance. His inability to go beyond his stump speech might be great for his rallies, but outside that "safe space" he doesnt seem to do as well.

Well, I can't disagree. On one hand it may be rhetorically effective in a lot of situations, reinforcing his brand. Better than spouting a thousand half-baked ideas in a muddle. On the other, it can insult the intelligence and it offers no reassurance for when he's off the stump. A year ago he did an interview with NY1, a local channel, and one of the questions he was asked was how he planned to implement his ideas about the necessity of a grassroots revolution in mass politics. That's one of Sanders strongest rhetorical points, and for socialists a selling point - but without something to back it up all he has is sloganeering like "Not me, us." So this is both a very important question for Sanders himself to answer, and for the left as a whole to get a grip on as the necessary wave of the future. A sound strategy for radicalizing the public would be a huge contribution to the cause.

IIRC he couldn't really answer the question.

I could go through previous tweets and statements like the Teachout op-ed scandal but that would take up most of my day I think. The point still stands though: if a campaign hires people who are well known for their venom, it does reflect poorly on the campaign and calls into question their judgement. And that has a ripple effect throughout the whole campaign as surrogates see that type of behavior as being tacitly approved. Sanders needs to take responsibility, and that means firing those who have engaged in such behavior.

Teachout is pretty respectable and does a lot of good work. The article in question was fully accurate to my knowledge.

The obvious dilemma with firing people who have offended the mainstream (which AOC actually did with her chief of staff or something in 2019) is that they may genuinely be valuable in their roles, whereas disposing of them won't satisfy the critics. Maybe Sanders has compensated with other hires? For example, the only other advisor I know of - Matt Duss - is to my knowledge universally respected.

The place to hash out a compromise in this area is going forward, so hopefully when Sanders is selecting White House staff. Here's a relevant article on that subject.

Though speaking of poor decisions, I wonder if anyone in the Sanders camp has come to regret pushing for caucuses during the Unity Reform Commission when others wanted to switch to a regular primary? Especially since now they are ignoring the state delegate equivalent count and touting the higher voter numbers which would mean that they might have actually won a regular primary in Iowa. Big oof.

It had the upside of reinforcing once and for all that the caucuses have been an undemocratic administrative disaster all along.

Maybe it was more about leveraging clout for Sanders, but one has to admit he didnt look too happy endorsing Hillary either.

IDK
https://twitter.com/MattBinder/statu...15785369042944

There are pros and cons to a long primary. We have basically cycled across 5 different candidates which has allowed voters to come to a more informed decision. Two years is too long, but having a two month primary would hand it to candidates like Biden who came in strong and only weakened after months of absolutely mediocre performance.

Maybe, maybe not. Our candidates assimilate their behavior to the structure of the process. If the structure were different, so would the behavior be. Same goes for the electorate. Somehow, other countries see dark horse candidates, or competitive races, despite campaigns lasting a few months. If most voters don't pay attention to the primary until it reaches their state, well - it's easy to see how a national primary would refocus them.

There are very few scenarios that would lead to any candidate getting a majority except Bernie winning it all. Iowa and NH mark the transition from wild swings (anything is possible) to maintaining momentum.
Again, the GOP 2016 primaries had one big wild card, Trump, who then proceeded to consistently get 35% in every state after Iowa. There were no upsets at any given vote, only the increasing horror that no one was dropping out to allow the anti-trump voters to consolidate.

That's correct in the broadest strokes, the likelihood of a second round in the convention or brokered convention. But the details can change a lot. Would Biden recover and secure a majority? A plurality? Would Buttigieg? Would Warren overcome the B-boys on Tuesday for second place and maintain that relative position to the end? Would Bloomberg pull out ahead of the field for second place? It's not yet clear. You're going to see wild fluctuations in the model output for the rest of the month.

I do agree that if any candidate was going to get a majority it would be Bernie, especially if Warren drops out after SC. But I think it is much likelier that we are headed for a brokered convention so who knows what will happen. And that is actually what I think Bloomberg is angling for. If he can take enough delegates from Biden, he can force a brokered convention where he might have more leverage than he is letting on.

The trouble for Bloomberg, besides the presence of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar, is translating approval of his ad campaign to votes. If there are too many first-choice candidates hanging around on Super Tuesday, candidates with a media and electoral record behind them from the early primaries whereas Bloomberg has merely parachuted in, his campaign is DOA.

If you wanted to get a quick idea about whether the presence of large amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia had benefited the country, would you not try to imagine a scenario where the country did not have the oil?

You could imagine a scenario disrupting their production, something like that. Imagining "what would Saudi Arabia be like if it never had any oil" is speculative fiction transforming the character of Earth and life on it to the beginning.