Democrat 2020

[Hooahguy]

With the consolidation going on, it's going to be progressive against moderate. And as things stand, with the Superdelegates reportedly really not into Sanders, it's becoming clear what the final match up will be.

A relevant article about this from the Daily Kos:

While Sanders has led the field in national polling, he hasn’t been able to crack 30% in the polling composite. When you can’t get a third of the support, you have no business being put in charge.

But here’s the thing: He didn’t need to be stuck at less than a third of the party’s support. He could’ve set the stage to hoover up the support from other candidates the way that Joe Biden appears to be doing. So why isn’t that (seemingly) not happening?

Because when you make a career out of demonizing Democrats and signaling to your supporters to demonize any detractors, well, that’s called “burning bridges.” And burning bridges is a shitty way to rally support. That means insulting and calling any Democrats who don‘t support you “neoliberals” and “corporatists” and whatever other insipid insult isn’t helpful. And yes, while all candidates had overly zealous supporters, only one campaign’s supporters were systematically awful, and only one’s were apparently encouraged to be so by the campaign’s top brass.

...

In raw vote totals, Sanders received about half the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire that he did in 2016. For example, in New Hampshire, he went from 152,193 votes in 2016 to 76,355 votes this year. Yes, it was a crowded field, but those aren’t the numbers of a candidate who is growing his base of support and expanding the electorate. If anything, it looks like a candidate who has worn out his welcome and has done little to remain relevant.

So now we see a consolidation in the field. What was a sense of victory and ebullience in the Sanders camp post-Iowa and post-New Hampshire—despite his anemic numbers—has now turned to fear and rage. “The establishment” is trying to stop Bernie and all that. But there was never anything stopping Sanders from building the kind of broad coalition that would allow him to approach an outright majority of the vote. They just never wanted to.

It’s endemic to Sanders’ career: It’s easy to be pure and uncompromising when you, well, never try to accomplish anything tangible that requires compromise. That’s a fine approach to take if you play the role of ideological gadfly, the “conscience of the party” sort of thing. We need people like that, helping ground us ideologically in a world that keeps wanting to pull the country rightward.

But winning a presidential election is literally about building coalitions, and Sanders never bothered to try.

That’s not the establishment’s fault.

[Tuuvi]

As I have said before, Socialists are opposed to charity inherently. They see it as a sop the rich feed the poor to reduce their resentment - thereby reducing class tensions and forestalling class war. They also see it as emblematic of the failure of ths State to provide - if the State provided the poor would not need charity. Then there's the fear that the poor will emulate the rich and give charity themselves, thereby making themselves poorer.

All of which kinda illustrates my core issue with Socialism - it's collectivist to the point of being inhumane.

Think about the shear intellectual and moral gymnastics required to see one human showing compassion to another as a bad thing.

It's true that socialists are opposed to some types of charity for some of the reasons you describe, but that doesn't mean socialists are opposed to all a forms of gift-giving and humanitarian aid. There are leftist orgs like Food Not Bombs which feed the homeless, for example.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

With the consolidation going on, it's going to be progressive against moderate. And as things stand, with the Superdelegates reportedly really not into Sanders, it's becoming clear what the final match up will be.

Only if neither Sanders nor Biden fail to win a majority of the pledged delegates from the various cauci and primaries. Super's do not vote until round two, unless it is as a 'coronation' vote.

As a result, the party has made a significant change for 2020. Superdelegates will no longer vote on the first ballot at the convention unless there is no doubt about the outcome. To win on the first ballot, the frontrunner must secure the majority of pledged delegates available during the nominating contests (primary and caucus) leading up to the Democratic Convention. There are 3,979 total pledged delegates, with the total required being 1,991...

All delegates become unpledged, with an estimated 771 superdelegate votes coming into play if the convention is contested (i.e., more than one ballot is needed to select a nominee). For those subsequent ballots, a majority of all 4,750 delegates (2,375.5) will be needed to secure the nomination. Given the large field, front-loaded calendar and the party's proportional allocation process, a contested convention can't be ruled out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's true that socialists are opposed to some types of charity for some of the reasons you describe, but that doesn't mean socialists are opposed to all a forms of gift-giving and humanitarian aid. There are leftist orgs like Food Not Bombs which feed the homeless, for example.

As with any ideology, the more devout tend to take the more extreme position. The simple fact Socialists have an ideological opposition to charity is a fault as far as I'm concerned.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ah yes I totally represent the DNC and not other progressives who prefer people who actually get things done in their almost three decades of being in Congress.

I like how Warren described him: "a senator who has good ideas, but whose 30-year track record shows he consistently calls for things he fails to get done, and consistently opposes things he nevertheless fails to stop."

The only other progressive that entered this race was Warren. Are you voting for her?

[a completely inoffensive name]

If by DNC you refer to the Convention, the point stands:

1. They're not a hive mind and few of them are willing to block Sanders at the end of the process.

You say this right as Pete and Amy 'come to god' and realize they need to drop out 1 day before Super Tuesday and endorse Biden...

[Hooahguy]

The only other progressive that entered this race was Warren. Are you voting for her?

My primary is 3rd to last so who knows who will still be standing by then. I like Warren, I think she would make a fantastic president. I just dont know if she will still be in by June.

You say this right as Pete and Amy 'come to god' and realize they need to drop out 1 day before Super Tuesday and endorse Biden...

Or perhaps they learned from 2016 and the GOP race and saw that a divided moderate field left the door open for Trump so they dropped out to support the one moderate who could reasonably counter Bernie.

On a related note, the desperate attempts from Bernie supporters to bring Pete and Amy's supporters into the Bernie fold are hilarious. Hard to pretend the previous months of being vile dont turn off many people:



Like the previous article I posted stated, you cant expand your base when your supporters treat your opponents like they are enemies. Nor do you go on air and say that South Carolina isnt representative of America, essentially telling hundreds of thousands of black people that their vote is irrelevant like Michael Moore did. Yikes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why do you care so much about twitter trolls?

[Hooahguy]

Why do you care so much about twitter trolls?

Its not so much Twitter trolls as much as its the idea that one can spend months attacking a candidate by using vile insults and then when the candidate drops out, pretend all that bad stuff said never happened and that they should join your campaign. Just looking now at the calls for Warren supporters to bail and join Bernie, do you think people have forgotten the whole snake thing?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Its not so much Twitter trolls as much as its the idea that one can spend months attacking a candidate by using vile insults and then when the candidate drops out, pretend all that bad stuff said never happened and that they should join your campaign. Just looking now at the calls for Warren supporters to bail and join Bernie, do you think people have forgotten the whole snake thing?

I'm not aware at all of the snake thing. Are you sure you are not too deep in twitter and social media nonsense?

[Hooahguy]

Perhaps you should look it up and figure out why it left such a bad taste for Warren supporters. Hint: its not just about the emoji.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps you should look it up and figure out why it left such a bad taste for Warren supporters. Hint: its not just about the emoji.

Or maybe I could spend my time doing more useful things than looking up shade by twitter trolls and getting myself all mad about it.

This is the point I am making, stop reading twitter and getting mad at candidates for what random fuckheads are saying.

[Montmorency]

It turns out Buttigieg is not angling for a Biden VP pick (Biden would be a fool to pick him anyway). He dropped for the general establishment cred in clearing the field when he couldn't hope to break threshold in any Super Tuesday states, let alone carry one outright.

Now Klobuchar, that may be VP-fishing. Bloomberg, please prove me wrong by overperforming for a day.

Oh shit, and Harry Reid? And Duckworth and O'Rourke? Who else is joining the bandwagon? On one hand, yes, this may be the feared Establishment wagon-circling manifesting. On the other hand, if Sanders can't tough out strong endorsements for his opponents then his theory of politics was inadequate. Presenting a wildcard, Warren's campaign insists she is in for the long haul, which may be a knife in Sanders ribs after all.


Ultra-tragedy scenario fit for 2020: Total failure of negligent federal containment measures leads to rapid unmonitored growth of coronavirus (ongoing), which sweeps through the United States unchecked as people shun for-profit healthcare until it's too late and ICUs are overwhelmed by the surge. Not enough respirators, not enough beds, people turned away by hospitals suffering or expiring quietly in their homes. The media finally makes a connection between the Trump administration and the depth of the epidemic, stoking public outrage. Sanders, easily resolving a near-majority at the DNC to snap the nomination, gets on stage to deliver his most dramatic jeremiad yet on behalf of Medicare for All... then he contracts COVID-19.

Incapacitated for most of the campaign against Trump, his ill health and absence from the trail limit him to an anemic victory. By New Year's, the president-elect dies of complications from coronavirus pneumonia.

Naming a couple post offices doesn't count. Nor does the veterans cost of living compensation bill count because its a pretty standardized bill that gets passed almost every year. Show me something substantive. There were 4 other pieces of legislation he got through via other bills. One was a bill about the Federal charter for the VFW. One was about a Vermont's water supply compact. The third expanded the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont and the fourth established the Vermont bicentennial day. What a fantastic legislative record.

I will give him some credit on the 2014 Veterans Choice Act considering he worked with McCain on it. But to be fair, he was also the chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee so him playing a part was to be expected. Even then, some veterans groups criticize him for delaying action on the ongoing VA scandal as he repeatedly professed faith in the VA when all indications showed that there was a major crisis.

And don't come at me with the whole "amendment king" junk. Both Warren and Klobuchar have gotten a higher average per year of their amendments passed anyways. Looking at the more substantive stuff hes passed via amendment, a lot of it is boilerplate and/or included in the appropriations process. I dont know about you but I've actually done work on appropriation bills and let me tell you, its pretty easy to sneak things in. The way that these amendments are passed is they sit down in a session that can last anywhere from 4-8 hours (if not longer) for multiple days (they call it a conference) and they go through each of the hundreds of amendments. For example, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2020 had 648 amendments. And as long as its not something crazy like banning all nukes, it will very likely pass via roll call vote. It might be effective for small things but it wont work for his ambitious agenda.

I profess these concerns because if Sanders wants to enact lasting change on this country he has to be able to create alliances within Congress to pass the bills he wants and he has not shown to be able to do that. And I don't think his plan to have rallies to convince McConnell to vote his way will have any impact. He cannot do everything by executive order, because a) he is not a king and b) the next president will just undo everything.

It's fine if you want a strong legislative record from a candidate as a prerequisite, but let's be frank here that it would have ruled out everyone other than Biden from the beginning.

Show me that Sanders was less legislatively effective than the average Rep or Senator. In his legislative career, his amendments to the ACA and leadership on the 3-year effort to bring a Yemen resolution to Congress from near-zero to majority bipartisan support are case studies in praxis. Meanwhile, a Democratic Congress under any President is primed to deliver on issues of healthcare and minimum wage thanks in no small part to Sanders.

Gee, Biden wins South Carolina and suddenly it's knives out for Sanders with you. Is that a conscious effect?

246 DAYS TO GO:
2008 Dem: Obama led by 6.2 points.
2008 GOP: McCain led by 30.8 points.
2012 GOP: Romney led by 12.7 points.
2016 Dem: Clinton led by 11.4 points.
2016 GOP: Trump led by 15.2 points.

2020 Dem: Sanders leads by 10+ points.

Context as we move into Super Tuesday, though the parameters have all shifted once again these past days.


Tangentially, you may be interested in this article about Brian Kemp's voter suppression.

It's true that socialists are opposed to some types of charity for some of the reasons you describe, but that doesn't mean socialists are opposed to all a forms of gift-giving and humanitarian aid. There are leftist orgs like Food Not Bombs which feed the homeless, for example.

The key is that leftists love mutual aid, and are suspicious of philanthropy by the well-to-do. Conservatives have difficulty making the distinction.

You say this right as Pete and Amy 'come to god' and realize they need to drop out 1 day before Super Tuesday and endorse Biden...

Yeah, that was an unexpected wrinkle. But it doesn't change the final calculations. Recent developments make it harder for Sanders to conclude the campaign with 40%, but as long as he does he enjoys the same circumstances I keep stressing.


Now Super Tuesday is going to be REALLY interesting.

My primary is 3rd to last so who knows who will still be standing by then. I like Warren, I think she would make a fantastic president. I just dont know if she will still be in by June.

You're not in Georgia right now? Anyway, Warren's strategy if successful has some of the worst downsides for the party I can imagine, so I'm a little worried.

Like the previous article I posted stated, you cant expand your base when your supporters treat your opponents like they are enemies. Nor do you go on air and say that South Carolina isnt representative of America, essentially telling hundreds of thousands of black people that their vote is irrelevant like Michael Moore did. Yikes.

I can agree on the "bend the knee" (it's his turn!) stuff, but South Carolina is not much more representative than Iowa, and few have qualms against introducing that fact.

If you want something to be outraged about then direct it at Sanders supporters dismissing South Carolina blacks as "low information."

[Greyblades]

Why do you care so much about twitter trolls?

Are you sure you are not too deep in twitter and social media nonsense?

Questions relevant for the western world in entirety.

[Hooahguy]

Or maybe I could spend my time doing more useful things than looking up shade by twitter trolls and getting myself all mad about it.

This is the point I am making, stop reading twitter and getting mad at candidates for what random fuckheads are saying.

It went beyond idiots on twitter and became actual harassment, and I wasn't the one who was most offended by the snake thing anyways, but thats besides the point. Vitriol leveled at another candidate cannot be easily brushed off when that candidate drops and you want their supporters. "Hey we treated you like crap for a year but now come join us!"

It turns out Buttigieg is not angling for a Biden VP pick (Biden would be a fool to pick him anyway). He dropped for the general establishment cred in clearing the field when he couldn't hope to break threshold in any Super Tuesday states, let alone carry one outright.

Now Klobuchar, that may be VP-fishing. Bloomberg, please prove me wrong by overperforming for a day.

Biden is scheduled to speak in Oakland, CA tomorrow morning. My prediction: an endorsement from Harris and at the very least a hint at the VP slot. 2020 turnout in SC rivaled 2008 levels, and Harris can help increase that turnout.

Oh shit, and Harry Reid? And Duckworth and O'Rourke? Who else is joining the bandwagon? On one hand, yes, this may be the feared Establishment wagon-circling manifesting. On the other hand, if Sanders can't tough out strong endorsements for his opponents then his theory of politics was inadequate. Presenting a wildcard, Warren's campaign insists she is in for the long haul, which may be a knife in Sanders ribs after all.

Well I guess that is what happens when you equate the Dem establishment to the GOP: they don't tend to like you very much. But honestly the whole whining about the establishment really sounds like "we dont know how to build bridges with those who are not completely aligned with us."

It's fine if you want a strong legislative record from a candidate as a prerequisite, but let's be frank here that it would have ruled out everyone other than Biden from the beginning.

Show me that Sanders was less legislatively effective than the average Rep or Senator. In his legislative career, his amendments to the ACA and leadership on the 3-year effort to bring a Yemen resolution to Congress from near-zero to majority bipartisan support are case studies in praxis. Meanwhile, a Democratic Congress under any President is primed to deliver on issues of healthcare and minimum wage thanks in no small part to Sanders.

Klobuchar literally ran on being the most effective senator.

The nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking consistently puts Sanders as one of the least effective senators.

A strong record doesn't need to be a prerequisite per say, but I do want my candidate to show that s/he knows how to navigate the system to get stuff done.

Gee, Biden wins South Carolina and suddenly it's knives out for Sanders with you. Is that a conscious effect?

Oh I was knives out for Sanders way before last weekend.

You're not in Georgia right now? Anyway, Warren's strategy if successful has some of the worst downsides for the party I can imagine, so I'm a little worried.

I used to be. Moved up north a couple years ago.

I can agree on the "bend the knee" (it's his turn!) stuff, but South Carolina is not much more representative than Iowa, and few have qualms against introducing that fact.

Oh come on.

Iowa is over 90% white. If this data from the NYT on Iowa turnout is correct, 91% of the caucus-goers were white. In SC, it was 40% white, 56% black. Considering that black people are the segment of the base who turn out more consistently and in higher percentages than any other group in the Democratic party, perhaps their voice is really important when picking a candidate. Which leads into my next point...

If you want something to be outraged about then direct it at Sanders supporters dismissing South Carolina blacks as "low information."

Yeah and I'm angry about that too. Especially when coupled with the terrible black outreach. For example, why wasn't Bernie at the Selma commemorations when every other candidate was? Even Bloomberg went, though some church-goers turned their backs on him as he spoke. But at least he showed up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or maybe I could spend my time doing more useful things than looking up shade by twitter trolls and getting myself all mad about it.

This is the point I am making, stop reading twitter and getting mad at candidates for what random fuckheads are saying.

Even if we accept the Tweeting is irrelevant, and that's dubious given some of the Tweeters, the hypocrisy is real.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't spend nearly as much time here or on social media as I used to because I realized that it would just get myself angry.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't spend nearly as much time here or on social media as I used to because I realized that it would just get myself angry.

Very sensible - but that doesn't answer the question of why people should now listen to toxic trolls who were attacking their candidate last week.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still dont understand your point. Where did I say to listen to toxic people or are you calling me a troll and asking why anyone should listen to me?

If it is the latter, I dont expect hooahguy to care about what I say, we've never met. I'm just giving him my opinion cause I think it is good advice to distance yourself from social media.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still dont understand your point. Where did I say to listen to toxic people or are you calling me a troll and asking why anyone should listen to me?

If it is the latter, I dont expect hooahguy to care about what I say, we've never met. I'm just giving him my opinion cause I think it is good advice to distance yourself from social media.

Hooahguy is pointing out the hypocrisy of people calling "Mayor Pete" a rat and then trying to court his supporters - against his endorsement of Biden, no less.

Simply saying "Oh, don't listen to twitter" does not address the existence of these toxic Sanders supporters. Also, let's be honest, like it or not people kill themselves over twitter all the time because online trolls are persistent and inescapable.

[Hooahguy]

What PFH said, but also that the twitter/online trolling turns into real harassment. For example, when the Nevada Culinary Workers Union simply stated that Bernie's plan would end their negotiated health care plan, the union leaders got doxxed and got sent death threats. As another example, Bernie backers went to the house of the chairman of the Nevada Dems with a bullhorn in the middle of the night. There is no excusing any of this behavior.

You are also downplaying how important social media is for some professions, such as journalism. Very often, its one of the best ways to get a new article or information out to people. Sometimes it is one of the only ways, such as for online-only publications. So for many, being off social media is not viable to grow your career. And when things like this happen, it can be rather off-putting. The reason for that harassment? He wrote an article about a Bernie campaign member who was saying awful things about other candidates who then got fired because of the article. While its good that the campaign member in question got fired, its telling about the culture of a campaign when the reaction to this was to harass the person who reported on it.

[Montmorency]

Some of Sanders' value added.
https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/stat...72528205684736

Well I guess that is what happens when you equate the Dem establishment to the GOP: they don't tend to like you very much. But honestly the whole whining about the establishment really sounds like "we dont know how to build bridges with those who are not completely aligned with us."

It's also on other people to build bridges with those they aren't totally aligned with, you know. Don't fall into the trap of assigning more agency to everyone left of you than you do everyone right of you. Maybe sometimes factions are simply opposed to one another and need to sort it out externally. Institutional resistance to Sanders is not a function of grievance stemming from perceptions of online interactions.

Klobuchar literally ran on being the most effective senator.

And Sanders runs on "Not me, us."

The nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking consistently puts Sanders as one of the least effective senators.

LES assesses its rankings according to the bill sponsorship (as apart from co-sponsorship) cycle, which is not the total extent of legislative affairs. But here's all of Sanders' CEL Legislative Effectiveness scores, with rough rankings if Sanders is included among Democrats. While he had higher rankings as a Rep, we can observe the work he has done since 2015 and I don't believe he would have acquitted himself better by submitting even more novel legislation that would never leave committee (but would inflate his score here).

17-18: 159 (47/49)
15-16: 191 (43/45)
13-14: 2.025 (13/58)
11-12: 338 (47/53)
09-10: 552 (45/63)
07-08: 199 (46/51)
---
05-06: 380 (~78/208)
03-04: 266 (~110/214)
01-02: 343 (~90/220)
99-00: 231 (~107/218)
97-98: 347 (~66/219)
95-96: 463 (~50/213)
93-94: 219 (~184/266)
91-92: 336 (~182/275)

Nancy Pelosi has often been at the bottom of these rankings, even the very bottom. Is it because she's an ineffective legislator and politician?

Meanwhile, here is extremely effective politician Chuck Schumer and his extremely effective Coronavirus plan.
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/statu...56940538220544

A strong record doesn't need to be a prerequisite per say, but I do want my candidate to show that s/he knows how to navigate the system to get stuff done.

I'm satisfied that Sanders clears the bar, including when you take his executive experience into account.
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/berni...t-mayoral-race

Oh I was knives out for Sanders way before last weekend.

Well, you sounded more even-keeled the rest of this month. Do you prefer Biden to Sanders?

Oh come on.

Iowa is over 90% white. If this data from the NYT on Iowa turnout is correct, 91% of the caucus-goers were white. In SC, it was 40% white, 56% black. Considering that black people are the segment of the base who turn out more consistently and in higher percentages than any other group in the Democratic party, perhaps their voice is really important when picking a candidate. Which leads into my next point...

When I said "and few have qualms against introducing that fact" I was referring to Iowa's unrepresentativeness. It's categorically the same issue with South Carolina. The Democratic electorate is about 1/4 black last I heard. South Carolina is not a representative state, this is merely true. It was also true when remarking on the Nevada caucuses. In fact the most representative state may be Texas.

Interesting tidbit from the SC exit polling I saw on 538: Every candidate other than Biden strongly underpolled in their favorability compared to their national ratings. So if you want to discuss the characteristics of South Carolina or its voters, those may be useful in analyzing other states or voters in the region and how they behave in elections, but making any normative leap from one facet of one candidate's base is bound to erase most of the party.

Yeah and I'm angry about that too. Especially when coupled with the terrible black outreach. For example, why wasn't Bernie at the Selma commemorations when every other candidate was? Even Bloomberg went, though some church-goers turned their backs on him as he spoke. But at least he showed up.

Probably wanted to grab time campaigning. He attended previous commemorations. I can agree that a self-styled grassroots or revolutionary candidate should conduct ideological outreach to groups and areas beyond his core, but for all I know he has and it simply didn't succeed in persuading South Carolinians. In that case what is he to do but move on to greener pastures?

What PFH said, but also that the twitter/online trolling turns into real harassment. For example, when the Nevada Culinary Workers Union simply stated that Bernie's plan would end their negotiated health care plan, the union leaders got doxxed and got sent death threats. As another example, Bernie backers went to the house of the chairman of the Nevada Dems with a bullhorn in the middle of the night. There is no excusing any of this behavior.

You are also downplaying how important social media is for some professions, such as journalism. Very often, its one of the best ways to get a new article or information out to people. Sometimes it is one of the only ways, such as for online-only publications. So for many, being off social media is not viable to grow your career. And when things like this happen, it can be rather off-putting. The reason for that harassment? He wrote an article about a Bernie campaign member who was saying awful things about other candidates who then got fired because of the article. While its good that the campaign member in question got fired, its telling about the culture of a campaign when the reaction to this was to harass the person who reported on it.

The culture of a campaign may be open to specific criticisms, but the major incidents cited above were, if not trolls, then not controllable. More endemic or low-level online hostility toward opponents is likely an artifact of youth concentration that would affect any campaign that attracted those age groups. There are reasons why online Warren or Biden supporters lack the reputation of Sanders supporters, viz. their comparative numbers, their demographics, and their segregation to social media groups and blogs.




OT: A question about the Israeli elections. I've glanced at the topic now and again over the past year, and tell me if I have this right: today in Israel it is impossible to form a majority because:

1. Lieberman's Beiteinu refuses to enter a coalition with Netanyahu's Likud.
2. Lieberman's Beiteinu refuses to enter a coalition with Gantz' Blue and White if it means working with the Arab party list (Israeli Arabs have so many rights for realz you guys).
3. Left-wing parties basically don't exist in Israel anymore.


I guess this is not the only time a conservative Lieberman has screwed a ruling party of a needed vote. What is it with Liebermans? I had an elementary school teacher named Lieberman (she was alright).

[Montmorency]

Here is my quick and dirty unsubstantiated forecast for kicks. Early voting generally not taken into account.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Meta: Warren expect overperform mine]
[Meta: High estimate for Bloom]

Biden/Sanders tied in Texas
Cali Sanders 33+ vs. Biden 25+ (60-70), Warren 20, Bloom 15 [delayed tally]
Alabama Biden 40+, Sanders/Bloom tie (20)
Arkansas Biden 30+, Sanders/Bloom tie (20/25)
Oklahoma doubled, Biden 35, Sanders 25, Bloom/Warren tie (20)
Tennessee Biden 45, Sanders 25, Bloom 15, Warren 10
North Caro doubled, Biden 35, Sanders 25, Bloom 20, Warren 15
Virginia doubled, Biden 40, Sanders/Bloom/Warren tie (20)
Vermont Sanders 50+, Warren/Biden/Bloom tie (15)
Massa Warren/Sanders/Biden tie (25), Bloom 15
Maine doubled, Sanders 35, Biden 25, Bloom 20, Warren 15
Minnesota doubled, Sanders/Biden tie (30), Bloom 20, Warren 15
Utah quadrupled, Sanders/Biden/Bloom tie (25), Warren 20
Colorado Sanders 30, Warren/Biden tie (20), Bloom 15

Major insight: If Warren reaches threshold in states/counties then she drains delegates from Sanders, yes, but she drains more from Biden + Bloomberg. In any state where Biden leads, Warren reaching threshold mathematically always hurts Biden alone more than Sanders alone.

Warren, fight for 15!

Also, like I was saying...

[Hooahguy]

It's also on other people to build bridges with those they aren't totally aligned with, you know. Don't fall into the trap of assigning more agency to everyone left of you than you do everyone right of you. Maybe sometimes factions are simply opposed to one another and need to sort it out externally. Institutional resistance to Sanders is not a function of grievance stemming from perceptions of online interactions.

Not if you are running to represent the party in a national election. Imagine if a guy who was running to be chairman of a board walks in, tells the other board members that they stink, and then wonders why the board of directors does not want him. If any other candidate was running the same combative, burn-bridges type of campaign I'd say the exact same thing for them too.

Nancy Pelosi has often been at the bottom of these rankings, even the very bottom. Is it because she's an ineffective legislator and politician?

Fair point, but Pelosi has been in various House leadership positions since 2002. Its a different kind of effectiveness, as its less introducing or cosponsoring legislation and more shepherding it through the House.

I'm satisfied that Sanders clears the bar, including when you take his executive experience into account.
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/berni...t-mayoral-race

Well that makes one of us. And that executive experience was 30 years ago.

Well, you sounded more even-keeled the rest of this month. Do you prefer Biden to Sanders?

I did? Interesting. Biden wasnt my first, second, or even third choice but I'll take him over Sanders.

When I said "and few have qualms against introducing that fact" I was referring to Iowa's unrepresentativeness. It's categorically the same issue with South Carolina. The Democratic electorate is about 1/4 black last I heard. South Carolina is not a representative state, this is merely true. It was also true when remarking on the Nevada caucuses. In fact the most representative state may be Texas.

Interesting tidbit from the SC exit polling I saw on 538: Every candidate other than Biden strongly underpolled in their favorability compared to their national ratings. So if you want to discuss the characteristics of South Carolina or its voters, those may be useful in analyzing other states or voters in the region and how they behave in elections, but making any normative leap from one facet of one candidate's base is bound to erase most of the party.

You are missing my original point. If you are trying to court African American voters, don't go about dismissing the first time they vote in large numbers as non-representative because they happen to not vote for your candidate.

Probably wanted to grab time campaigning. He attended previous commemorations. I can agree that a self-styled grassroots or revolutionary candidate should conduct ideological outreach to groups and areas beyond his core, but for all I know he has and it simply didn't succeed in persuading South Carolinians. In that case what is he to do but move on to greener pastures?

John Lewis has stage 4 pancreatic cancer, which is widely to be considered quickly fatal (within a year of diagnosis as I recall). This Selma commemoration might very well be his last. John Lewis is not only a civil rights hero, but a giant in the black community. Not going in order to campaign is a terrible look and a signal to a lot of older black people that he doesn't really care. Ditto for Sanders skipping the funeral of Elijah Cummings.

The culture of a campaign may be open to specific criticisms, but the major incidents cited above were, if not trolls, then not controllable. More endemic or low-level online hostility toward opponents is likely an artifact of youth concentration that would affect any campaign that attracted those age groups. There are reasons why online Warren or Biden supporters lack the reputation of Sanders supporters, viz. their comparative numbers, their demographics, and their segregation to social media groups and blogs.

The question needs to be asked why the Sanders campaign attracts these types of people. Is it their association with the "dirtbag left"? Like why is Chapo Trap House given press credentials when they engage in vile behavior, including one of the CTH hosts tweeting out a picture of a man being raped and saying that was a scene inside Pete's HQ. Same host who interviewed Bernie back in October. The way I see it, that is essentially tacit approval.

OT: A question about the Israeli elections. I've glanced at the topic now and again over the past year, and tell me if I have this right: today in Israel it is impossible to form a majority because:

1. Lieberman's Beiteinu refuses to enter a coalition with Netanyahu's Likud.
2. Lieberman's Beiteinu refuses to enter a coalition with Gantz' Blue and White if it means working with the Arab party list (Israeli Arabs have so many rights for realz you guys).
3. Left-wing parties basically don't exist in Israel anymore.

I guess this is not the only time a conservative Lieberman has screwed a ruling party of a needed vote. What is it with Liebermans? I had an elementary school teacher named Lieberman (she was alright).

I believe its a mix of all 3, but we would need a separate thread for that discussion.

[Montmorency]

Not if you are running to represent the party in a national election. Imagine if a guy who was running to be chairman of a board walks in, tells the other board members that they stink, and then wonders why the board of directors does not want him. If any other candidate was running the same combative, burn-bridges type of campaign I'd say the exact same thing for them too.

It is not useful to compare a political party to a business this way.

Here's what it comes down to: Sanders seeks a paradigm shift in Democratic institutional culture and elite commitments. Institutional stakeholders resist this. If that's not a zero-sum conflict, it is close to one.

Now, perhaps there are specific aspects of Sanders' messagging that are suboptimal, some pivot he should devise toward tactical and strategic success - but there would still be a conflict. While he was frontrunner Sanders could have behaved more magnanimously toward the other candidates (discounting Bloomberg), to cast for himself some of the gravitas the public associates with assumed leaders. Maybe that would have softened hard feelings and mitigated Biden's consolidation. Regardless, it would fundamentally still be the case that many party elites want to neutralize Sanders, and that the party leadership do not share his vision and theories of politics - which he wants the party do adopt whether or not he himself is at the head.

Its a different kind of effectiveness

Yes.

Well that makes one of us. And that executive experience was 30 years ago.

The point is, he's adequate to the task.

I did? Interesting.

You're definitely more pugnacious about Sanders all of a sudden.

Biden wasnt my first, second, or even third choice but I'll take him over Sanders.

You are missing my original point. If you are trying to court African American voters, don't go about dismissing the first time they vote in large numbers as non-representative because they happen to not vote for your candidate.

1. Noting that an unrepresentative state is unrepresentative does not strike me as having any effect on real-life voter perceptions.
2. You're missing the context, which is that Sanders' performances in the previous states were dismissed on account of those states being unrepresentative (this also being another argument for completely re-engineering the primary process in the future). Biden's SC victory was contrarily spun as being dispositive on such topics as Sanders' electoral viability, Biden's viability, their cimparative overall demographics of support, and normative aspects thereof. The campaign and its supporters reasonably exposed the flaws in this narrative.

John Lewis has stage 4 pancreatic cancer, which is widely to be considered quickly fatal (within a year of diagnosis as I recall). This Selma commemoration might very well be his last. John Lewis is not only a civil rights hero, but a giant in the black community. Not going in order to campaign is a terrible look and a signal to a lot of older black people that he doesn't really care. Ditto for Sanders skipping the funeral of Elijah Cummings.

I find it difficult to believe many ordinary people, black or otherwise, care about attendance of commemorative events, but insofar as most of those who do care about attendance records are politicians or activists it is plausible that their perceptions affect the outcome indirectly. Affect could trickle down in the form of withheld organizing or oppositional endorsements. For example, most SC voters identified Clyburn's Biden endorsement as a significant factor in the election. Clyburn's endorsement was not merely efficacious in itself qua endorsement, however, not like when we read about some newspaper endorsing a politician. As one of the most powerful Democrats in South Carolina, deeply embedded in networks and hierarchies of Democratic patronage and operations, his voice triggered pathways throughout the state to mobilize voters on behalf of Biden. This is a concrete benefit - not exactly machine politics, but illustrative of the paths along which elite signalling runs to produce outcomes. In a more rural, more conservative state, among a demographic that is socially and communally tight-knit (at least compared to white people), the effect would have been further amplified.

The question needs to be asked why the Sanders campaign attracts these types of people. Is it their association with the "dirtbag left"?

Besides the inherent youthful skew, the aforementioned anti-establishment tilt of Sanders' program attracts a lot of people who hated the Democratic Party in the first place. So they're going to antagonize who they want to antagonize. The only - and surefire - way to shed them (though their behavior would remain unchanged) would be to submit vocal substantive accommodations with said establishment, i.e. "sell out." Since you mention Chapo, I should point out that the anti-establishment priors are especially concentrated among the Sandersite intelligentsia, the people who report and write for the magazines and journals and produce leftist analysis, etc. Their anger is often the most refined and resentful for their engagement. I'm sure you know at least some of their names.

Like:



*oof*

Like why is Chapo Trap House given press credentials when they engage in vile behavior, including one of the CTH hosts tweeting out a picture of a man being raped and saying that was a scene inside Pete's HQ. Same host who interviewed Bernie back in October. The way I see it, that is essentially tacit approval.

If you're concerned about the association with Chapo itself, note that Sanders is very, arguably excessively, pro-speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ight-to-speak/

As we know he'll talk with anyone on any platform to spread his message, and the Chapo guys have their own gig as Democrat bashers. They're not exactly pro-Sanders, they're anti-Democrat. (Expect them to become much more critical of Sanders if he wins.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The only other progressive that entered this race was Warren. Are you voting for her?

I looked up Joe Biden's platform on Politicio, he's moderate and somewhat cautious but really very progressive. Aside from his limited plans for healthcare reform he would be considered progressive by European standards, and definitely by American standards.

Bernie Sanders would be considered hard-left and a radical, although still more social Democrat than Socialist.

Warren is more difficult to classify, broadly Social Democrat, but her relevance is mostly that she's caused Bernie to move further to the Left in an effort to differentiate himself. She's going nowhere fast herself and never was.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, and inevitably the new word is "Joe-Mentum".

[Hooahguy]

Monty, I will respond at length to your previous post later when I have more time.

But in the meantime, the current results as they stand are pretty incredible. As of writing this, Biden has won Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Minnesota. The NYT live forecast has him tilting for a win in Massachusetts, Maine, and possibly Texas as of now.

Bernie has won Vermont, Colorado, and Utah, and will likely also win California but at the time of this post votes have not started being counted yet.

Absolutely terrible night for Warren. Coming in third in her home state is devastating.

LOL at Bloomberg winning American Samoa.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I looked up Joe Biden's platform on Politicio, he's moderate and somewhat cautious but really very progressive. Aside from his limited plans for healthcare reform he would be considered progressive by European standards, and definitely by American standards.

Bernie Sanders would be considered hard-left and a radical, although still more social Democrat than Socialist.

Warren is more difficult to classify, broadly Social Democrat, but her relevance is mostly that she's caused Bernie to move further to the Left in an effort to differentiate himself. She's going nowhere fast herself and never was.

What specific policies make you say this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Monty, I will respond at length to your previous post later when I have more time.

But in the meantime, the current results as they stand are pretty incredible. As of writing this, Biden has won Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Minnesota. The NYT live forecast has him tilting for a win in Massachusetts, Maine, and possibly Texas as of now.

Bernie has won Vermont, Colorado, and Utah, and will likely also win California but at the time of this post votes have not started being counted yet.

Absolutely terrible night for Warren. Coming in third in her home state is devastating.

LOL at Bloomberg winning American Samoa.

Tonight makes me uneasy. I simply don't think Joe can win in the general. I wish the establishment had rallied around Pete.