Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Obama's got 9 days to show some guts and save the republic (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=890536)

SlackerInc 02-23-2020 09:09 AM

Obama's got 9 days to show some guts and save the republic
 
He and other pragmatic Democrats have to learn the lessons of the failed 2016 Stop Trump movement and act NOW, decisively. Here is the gameplan:

https://thebulwark.com/the-5-lessons...o-stop-bernie/

Unreconstructed Man 02-23-2020 09:24 AM

Shrill, hysterical, boring, off-putting, and a gift to Donald Trump. That’s the ‘Never Bernie’ “movement” in a nutshell.

asahi 02-23-2020 09:31 AM

Realistically, the only chance suit-and-tie Dems have is to pray that Sanders has a stroke (that's not what I'm praying for, btw, just to be clear). What Dems need to understand is that Sanders is a grassroots movement that is pretty much perfectly-timed. This is not the season for "moderates."

But, all is not lost. There may be ways for Dems to have Sanders work with less radical economists and aides - people who can say "Okay, you want M4A, but let's prepare for what happens if it doesn't get past Mitch McConnell (which it likely won't)."

Left Hand of Dorkness 02-23-2020 09:36 AM

You know, I usually think of the "Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" as hyperbole. But here we have a moderate Democrat endorsing a Republican's plan for how Democrats can keep their party from emulating the Republican outcome in 2016.

Their outcome, lest we forget, was winning the election.

This would be pretty hard to satirize.

Riemann 02-23-2020 09:48 AM

I don't think fear of where batshit evil Trumpism has taken us should force the non-deplorable majority in the U.S. to limit what candidates or policies we believe are best for the country. If it's a milquetoast "never Trump" candidate this time, what about next time, and the time after that? It's not just Trump, it's the people who voted for him, and they are not going to vanish. At what point do civilized people stop being just defensive about what they want for this country?

Nobody knows if Bernie can win, the polls show that it's not the foregone conclusion that many people suggest. I kind of want to find out at this point. At least we'll be going into the election with something to gain, rather than just trying not to lose. The objection that even if he wins a Republican Senate won't cooperate with him is ridiculously bogus. Are people under the impression that the Republicans will do anything other than continue to fuck the process of government with any Democrat in power?

Little Nemo 02-23-2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riemann (Post 22154239)
I don't think fear of where batshit evil Trumpism has taken us should force the non-deplorable majority in the U.S. to limit what candidates or policies we believe are best for the country. If it's a milquetoast "never Trump" candidate this time, what about next time, and the time after that? It's not just Trump, it's the people who voted for him, and they are not going to vanish. At what point do civilized people stop being just defensive about what they want for this country?

Trump is not a typical President by any standard. In 2020 our primary goal should be getting Donald Trump out of office. We should be choosing the nominee who has the best chance of defeating Trump - and that means we should be choosing a nominee who can win over swing voters. I don't feel Sanders is that candidate.

That said, I disagree with the OP. I would not want to see Obama or anyone else stepping in at the last minute and changing the rules in order to pick a nominee.

QuickSilver 02-23-2020 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 22154221)
You know, I usually think of the "Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" as hyperbole. But here we have a moderate Democrat endorsing a Republican's plan for how Democrats can keep their party from emulating the Republican outcome in 2016.

Their outcome, lest we forget, was winning the election.

This would be pretty hard to satirize.

My thought exactly.

Tea-bag party who? What conservative principles?

The GOP went full retard behind Trump and hasn't looked back since. Mitch McConnell looks like he hasn't missed a single good night's sleep in years, while Nancy and Chuck look older and more frayed at the edges every day.

It's time the Democrats took a page out of the GOP playbook and lined up behind their nominee, no matter who. Dance with the one that brought you, instead of pining at home on prom night for the one that got away.

Little Nemo 02-23-2020 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 22154221)
You know, I usually think of the "Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" as hyperbole. But here we have a moderate Democrat endorsing a Republican's plan for how Democrats can keep their party from emulating the Republican outcome in 2016.

Their outcome, lest we forget, was winning the election.

This would be pretty hard to satirize.

We developed a political system that favors Republicans. A Republican candidate can come in second place in the general election and be declared the winner. A Democratic candidate cannot.

Left Hand of Dorkness 02-23-2020 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22154266)
We developed a political system that favors Republicans. A Republican candidate can come in second place in the general election and be declared the winner. A Democratic candidate cannot.

That's true--but that's only part of Trump's winning formula. Trump spoke a message that included some voters who felt shut out of the process, and although he's a goddamned fraud, that helped him win. Sanders is speaking to those same voters about economic issues in a way that Bloomberg isn't, that Biden isn't.

And you can be really fucking sure that if Obama swoops in to save the day, that's gonna backfire. And you can be really fucking sure that Obama knows that, and that's why he's not taking Slacker's crackerjack political advice.

poweroftheglory 02-23-2020 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22154254)
Trump is not a typical President by any standard. In 2020 our primary goal should be getting Donald Trump out of office. We should be choosing the nominee who has the best chance of defeating Trump - and that means we should be choosing a nominee who can win over swing voters. I don't feel Sanders is that candidate.

That said, I disagree with the OP. I would not want to see Obama or anyone else stepping in at the last minute and changing the rules in order to pick a nominee.

There is nothing special about Trump. Trump is just a stupider version of Reagan without the folksy charm.

Lantern 02-23-2020 10:37 AM

From the article this strikes me as a feasible idea:
Quote:

First in Wisconsin, the PAC I advised recruited basically every major Wisconsin Republican political figure to come out either against Trump, or for Cruz. In addition we leveraged the powerful Wisconsin conservative media—including one radio host you may have heard of—to talk to their audience about Trump’s flaws both on conservative orthodoxy and electability. And we put millions of dollars into a TV/radio/digital/mail/phones all-out assault on Trump on every issue imaginable.
South Carolina is obviously a crucial state and if the party can mobilize behind Biden in this manner that could push him over the top and give him momentum for Super Tuesday.

Ulfreida 02-23-2020 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poweroftheglory (Post 22154289)
There is nothing special about Trump. Trump is just a stupider version of Reagan without the folksy charm.

I strongly disagree. While I loathed Reagan's politics root and branch, and thought he was a smarmy reactionary liar, I still didn't think of him as a sin against nature, a purely evil force focused upon the ruination of every single thing I hold dear.

CarnalK 02-23-2020 10:53 AM

Sanders simply isn't odious enough to justify Obama coming out to slam him, so the most we could expect is a polite endorsement of another candidate.

And the author of that article sounds like a well paid consultant but he ignores the winner-take-all aspect of Republican primaries making lessons from Trump's win difficult to apply to Dem 2020.

dalej42 02-23-2020 11:09 AM

There’s no doubt Obama keeps his mouth shut publicly, but he can do some behind the scenes work. Would Klobuchar like an Obama appearance in MN? How about Obama’s name on a fundraising email?

It’s much harder with the damn Billionaires. But, if there’s some really ugly dirt out there, I’d be threatening to see that it gets leaked.

And it’s time to get all the ugly Bernie shit out NOW!!!

Left Hand of Dorkness 02-23-2020 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalej42 (Post 22154351)
And itís time to get all the ugly Bernie shit out NOW!!!

Weirdly, I agree with you on this Sanders matter. I'd like Biden to lead the charge, because he'd be a good sacrifice; bad blood between Biden and Sanders won't mean nothin.

There's definitely some stuff in Sanders's past that none of us can predict how it'll affect the general. If it starts getting discussed now, we'll be able to make a better prediction.

I'd love for Biden to come both guns blazing at Sanders, with that weird sex article from the eighties and the Sandanista connection and the Moscow connection. They're all pretty cheap shots, but bring them on, let's see how Sanders navigates it.

Chronos 02-23-2020 11:22 AM

Quote:

Quoth Little Nemo:

We should be choosing the nominee who has the best chance of defeating Trump - and that means we should be choosing a nominee who can win over swing voters.
What, both of them?

You're thinking that politics is a one-dimensional continuum, and that the "swing voters" are folks in the middle, who could lean slightly in one direction or the other for the right candidate. But politics is not only many-dimensional, it's topologically nontrivial, and the "middle" that you're looking for either doesn't exist, or is already in the Democrat-no-matter-what category. The people that Trump managed to pull into his coalition to bring him to victory aren't the folks in the moderate middle: They're the folks who want someone extreme, and don't care in what direction. Sanders can win those voters back. Biden can't.

DSeid 02-23-2020 11:26 AM

Yeah pretty stupid argument by that author, but what do you expect from omeone who was a mastermind behind Jeb Bush's communication campaign?

Let's accept the premise, which as RTF has pointed out here many many times is historically correct: a clear leader out of the gates in Iowa and New Hampshire will very likely be the nominee. Okay, maybe something huge can be done to stop it, but likely would fail.

So play out the possibilities -

It works and by way of huge unified "establishment" efforts, "all in", to nominate someone else, "someone else" wins. Result is decent segment of potential Democratic voters who are correctly feeling that the establishment disenfranchised them. Bad.

It doesn't work. Well if you were fearful that Sanders was a losing bet before that tactic has made that bet much worse. Worse. And the more likely outcome.

Fight the fair fight according to the rules as established and circle the wagons around whoever wins. If the voters (or more precisely their elected delegates at the convention) pick Sanders then it may be a less likely win (IMHO) and a poorer outcome for the Senate (IMHO) but that is the way the process works and we have to play that dealt hand the best we can. All alternatives to proceeding like that are worse.

CarnalK 02-23-2020 11:31 AM

It's incredibly risky because it would be pretty divisive. But I am getting a little sick of Bernie supporters acting like it's all already out there. Maybe some SuperPAC can run a push poll in South Carolina.

1) Are you aware of Sanders' past association with the Socialist Workers Party?

2) Are you aware of Sanders' essays on women's sexuality?

GreenWyvern 02-23-2020 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 22154188)
He and other pragmatic Democrats have to learn the lessons of the failed 2016 Stop Trump movement and act NOW, decisively. Here is the gameplan

Yes, Bernie is actually popular, especially with young people, Hispanics, educated people, and people who are fed up with the current system. He inspires enthusiasm and energy. He has policies that will seriously improve people's lives...

...And he is the ONLY Dem who will beat Trump according to the latest poll.

So the Dems better act fast if they want to lose this election. What they really need is a dull, same-old status quo establishment candidate like Biden to destroy enthusiasm and turnout. It's the only way to hand the White House back to Trump for another four years. :rolleyes:

JRDelirious 02-23-2020 12:22 PM

I must disagree with OP/quoted article in terms of timing and who should it be up to. If for some reason the establishment felt they needed to cut Bernie at the knees, the deadline was not before South Carolina votes, it was before Iowa failed to. And it should have been/be done by any of his strong contenders, not involve calling for Obama/Carter/Gore/Reid to step in as a "council of elders" to "save us".

Establishment wanted to make it clear you only had "Real Democrats" running? Establishment should have changed the rules on 9 November 2016 to make it so. Did not. The Elder Statespeople of the party have no mandate to act as a Privy Council to save the people from themselves. And after the issues last time around, the last thing the DNC wants to be seen doing is preselecting winners and losers rather than being arbiters of a fair contest. THAT is a losing play.

I don't know if in any other major democracy you can have just anyone do a walk-on and say "hey, I want to be the next [Labour/PSOE/CDU/FN/BQ/PRI] leader" w/o putting in time on the bench. Yet both US parties allow that and it happened to the Republican Party in 2016. Like the establishment Republicans pre-2016, their comparable Dems pre-2020 were too busy thinking "this weirdo will flame out once real voting begins, then I can harvest his enthusiastic votes; all I need is to outlast him and praise him when he leaves, not beat him and piss them off". Why they'd think that of someone who had such a good showing last time around as Sanders, you gotta ask them. But once the voting begins, too late for that strategy, time to run to WIN.

Just look at the Nevada debate. Everyone decided to go full tilt at Bloomberg, who was not even running in Nevada or SC, and when not, the putative centrists went after each other. You think that getting a harrumpf from Obama or Schumer is going to have ANY effect on them between now and SC? or Super Tuesday? All the response they'll get is "Why weren't you out there directly supporting ME in Iowa/NH?"

iiandyiiii 02-23-2020 12:32 PM

Thankfully Obama's not nearly dumb enough to try this kind of nonsense. Some Democrats can't seem to comprehend even the possibility that their party might be changing. Face it -- Bernie might be the nominee. And he might win the general. Any predictions about being unelectable are wild, wild guesses, not based on any data at all.

iiandyiiii 02-23-2020 12:51 PM

James Clyburn with some praise for Bernie, even if it's far from unreserved: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...table-n1141361

I predict that the Democratic "establishment" is slowly getting comfortable with the likelihood that Bernie could be the nominee, and we'll see more and more appearances and statements like this from prominent long-time Democrats. And if Bernie becomes the nominee, Obama will lead the charge with an enthusiastic endorsement.

Saintly Loser 02-23-2020 12:59 PM

I am amazed that the centrist wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party's candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

Truly amazed.

DSeid 02-23-2020 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser (Post 22154521)
I am amazed that the centrist wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party's candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

Truly amazed.

You do realize the author of that article is a Republican.

There is no wing of the Democratic party saying that, pretty much openly or otherwise.

E-DUB 02-23-2020 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser (Post 22154521)
I am amazed that the centrist wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party's candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

Truly amazed.

If it were only Democrats making the choice, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, give the settled state of the other party's contest, I'm quite apprehensive about cross-voting.

Chisquirrel 02-23-2020 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser (Post 22154521)
I am amazed that the centrist wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party's candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

Truly amazed.

I am amazed that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party's candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

Truly amazed.

Little Nemo 02-23-2020 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 22154273)
That's true--but that's only part of Trump's winning formula. Trump spoke a message that included some voters who felt shut out of the process, and although he's a goddamned fraud, that helped him win. Sanders is speaking to those same voters about economic issues in a way that Bloomberg isn't, that Biden isn't.

I think you're kidding yourself. Low information voters are just going to say "Sanders is a communist and I ain't voting for any commie" and that'll be the end of it. They won't listen to what Sanders is saying and they wouldn't understand it if they did. They'll line up to vote for Trump again.

Little Nemo 02-23-2020 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 22154370)
What, both of them?

You're thinking that politics is a one-dimensional continuum, and that the "swing voters" are folks in the middle, who could lean slightly in one direction or the other for the right candidate. But politics is not only many-dimensional, it's topologically nontrivial, and the "middle" that you're looking for either doesn't exist, or is already in the Democrat-no-matter-what category. The people that Trump managed to pull into his coalition to bring him to victory aren't the folks in the moderate middle: They're the folks who want someone extreme, and don't care in what direction. Sanders can win those voters back. Biden can't.

I disagree. I think there are a lot of voters who want a mainstream candidate. In fact, that's why some candidates are mainstream. These voters will be equally unhappy with a right wing extremist like Trump or a left wing extremist like Sanders. How will they end up voting? Who knows. It'll be a flip of the coin.

If you gave these people a choice between a nutcase like Trump and a safe candidate like Biden, they'd rush to vote for Biden. And the left wing extremists and the anti-Trump crowd aren't going to vote for Trump, so they'd grudgingly vote for Biden as well.

That's what has worked for the Democrats; pick nice safe moderates like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (and Al Gore and Hillary Clinton if you go by the popular vote). The moderates vote for them by choice and the left wing says "Ugh. But they're still better than the Republican." and unhappily votes for them.

The Republicans have gone the opposite way. They reject the middle and proudly brag about how extreme they are. And the result? The Republican nominee has lost six of the last seven Presidential elections. The only reason the Republicans have elected a President since the eighties is because they've rigged the system.

And what are the Democrats doing this year? They're trying to follow the Republican extremist strategy (which fails) without the Republican cheating strategy (which works). If Sanders is nominated, I predict a Trump victory.

BobLibDem 02-23-2020 03:28 PM

The burden isn't on Obama, it's on the rest of the Democratic fields. You have the moderate lane with Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Biden. At least two of them have got to get out of Dodge after Super Tuesday. I'd like it to be Bernie v Biden mano a mano for the second half of the primaries. Sure Bernie has the support of the youngsters who never vote. Screw that. He would be eaten alive and spat out in the general, not because Donald is an evil genius, but because the oppo research on him requires a forklift to move around. Socialism socialism socialism communism socialism..... that's all we're going to hear. For some fucked up reason we expect Democrats to explain all their policies down to the 9th decimal point but Republicans get to run on vapid slogans like MAGA.

Left Hand of Dorkness 02-23-2020 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 22154625)
I am amazed that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party's candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

Truly amazed.

"Amazed" is an interesting way to put your reaction to an incorrect paraphrase of something that Sander's campaign manager said in 2016.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22154658)
I think you're kidding yourself. Low information voters are just going to say "Sanders is a communist and I ain't voting for any commie" and that'll be the end of it. They won't listen to what Sanders is saying and they wouldn't understand it if they did. They'll line up to vote for Trump again.

If they're that low information, they'll say that about anyone, because Trump's gonna call them all "communists." You're proposing that there are significant numbers of folks just high information enough to know about Sanders's Democratic Socialist label, but not high information enough to know that that's not communist, and that this group is a group that otherwise would've voted for a Democratic candidate, and that they're not outnumbered by the people who wouldn't vote for an establishment Democratic candidate but would vote for someone with outsider cred like Sanders has.

You may think I'm kidding myself, and that's awesome. But I don't see any evidence to back up your proposal.

RTFirefly 02-23-2020 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 22154373)
Yeah pretty stupid argument by that author, but what do you expect from omeone who was a mastermind behind Jeb Bush's communication campaign?

:D
Quote:

Let's accept the premise, which as RTF has pointed out here many many times is historically correct: a clear leader out of the gates in Iowa and New Hampshire will very likely be the nominee. Okay, maybe something huge can be done to stop it, but likely would fail.

So play out the possibilities -

It works and by way of huge unified "establishment" efforts, "all in", to nominate someone else, "someone else" wins. Result is decent segment of potential Democratic voters who are correctly feeling that the establishment disenfranchised them. Bad.

It doesn't work. Well if you were fearful that Sanders was a losing bet before that tactic has made that bet much worse. Worse. And the more likely outcome.

Fight the fair fight according to the rules as established and circle the wagons around whoever wins. If the voters (or more precisely their elected delegates at the convention) pick Sanders then it may be a less likely win (IMHO) and a poorer outcome for the Senate (IMHO) but that is the way the process works and we have to play that dealt hand the best we can. All alternatives to proceeding like that are worse.
Strongly concur.

Super Tuesday is a week from Tuesday. IA, NH, and NV collectively determine 101 convention delegates; SC has another 54. Then on March 3, 1,344 delegates are up for grabs. When we wake up ten days from now, we'll know exactly where the race is, and one of the most likely outcomes is that Bernie will be ahead by a mile.

And if that happens, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party had better be ready to rally around him. No matter how much they don't care for Sanders, if the alternative is Trump, we will need a united party behind him.

I'm not keen on Sanders, tbh. I don't see how 2021 goes well for him. But 2021 will be far worse if Trump is re-elected, and that's what we all will have to focus on.

Little Nemo 02-23-2020 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 22154787)
You may think I'm kidding myself, and that's awesome. But I don't see any evidence to back up your proposal.

In my post I pointed out the pattern that's been established in every presidential election since 1992 and predicted it's going to happen again. Which is, you know, evidence.

But you're saying this election will be different. Can you explain to us what evidence you based this belief on?

eschereal 02-23-2020 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulfreida (Post 22154316)
I strongly disagree. While I loathed Reagan's politics root and branch, and thought he was a smarmy reactionary liar, I still didn't think of him as a sin against nature, a purely evil force focused upon the ruination of every single thing I hold dear.

I did. And he proved to be. He even killed a high school friend of mine, just to be an asshole.

Smapti 02-23-2020 04:41 PM

I'll never understand the Democratic establishment's obsession with trying to win "swing voters" and suburban whites when the candidates who get nominated on those grounds consistently lose.

I'd rather have an Obama this year than a Gore, Kerry, or Hillary - and Sanders is the most Obama-like candidate in the field.

asahi 02-23-2020 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 22154265)
My thought exactly.

Tea-bag party who? What conservative principles?

The GOP went full retard behind Trump and hasn't looked back since. Mitch McConnell looks like he hasn't missed a single good night's sleep in years, while Nancy and Chuck look older and more frayed at the edges every day.

It's time the Democrats took a page out of the GOP playbook and lined up behind their nominee, no matter who. Dance with the one that brought you, instead of pining at home on prom night for the one that got away.

Good suggestion for people who consider self-identify as progressives, but there's a good chance that Democrats will need some independents to win.

asahi 02-23-2020 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smapti (Post 22154855)
I'll never understand the Democratic establishment's obsession with trying to win "swing voters" and suburban whites when the candidates who get nominated on those grounds consistently lose.

I'd rather have an Obama this year than a Gore, Kerry, or Hillary - and Sanders is the most Obama-like candidate in the field.

If you run a campaign that prioritizes swing voters, yes, you lose. The trick is to appeal to the base enough to get them out to the polls while not scaring off apolitical voters.

Sanders is going to sell radically remaking the healthcare system to the American public.

Corry El 02-23-2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 22154809)
Super Tuesday is a week from Tuesday. IA, NH, and NV collectively determine 101 convention delegates; SC has another 54. Then on March 3, 1,344 delegates are up for grabs. When we wake up ten days from now, we'll know exactly where the race is, and one of the most likely outcomes is that Bernie will be ahead by a mile.

And if that happens, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party had better be ready to rally around him.

Yes basically. And as it relates to Obama, all that article says is 'imagine if he came out strong for Pete or Joe or Amy'. Which would be reasonable if he wanted to do that. It doesn't suggest Obama get involved in nefarious behind the scenes screwing of Sanders.

But, this really isn't Obama's problem. The motivation to get involved that way in the real world of self interest, I don't see it. Ok publicly Obama like any Democrat would agree Trump is terrible, but as a sober thinking person doesn't necessarily believe 'the Republic is at risk' etc. to the degree breathless social media/internet type activist progressives do (or say anyway). Plus it's not actually 100% obvious Sanders is less electable (I would guess he is substantially less electable, but I realize it's a guess). Plus, Obama has a history of being an excellent vote getter for himself but much less able to influence elections in favor of others. He'd be taking a big risk of endorsing non-Sanders and Sanders does really well anyway, and lose the fairly united respect admiration among Democrats he has now. If I were him I wouldn't go near it.

The person with the direct personal interest in 'taking down' Sanders, and willing to spend $100's mil on his messages...is Bloomberg. Of course, Bloomberg doesn't hold a candle to Obama in general credibility with Democrats in a straight up comparison of one media cycle or maybe press coverage of Obama going to a few rallies v Bloomberg just saying something at a rally. But Bloomberg can bombard the airwaves with anti-Sanders ads, like in the ST places he's bought virtually all the air time. Would that slow down Sanders much? Maybe not, but at least I can see why Bloomberg might want to do this. Can't see why Obama would want to get involved trying to micromanage rather than just support whoever the nominee is.

Wesley Clark 02-23-2020 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22154254)
Trump is not a typical President by any standard. In 2020 our primary goal should be getting Donald Trump out of office. We should be choosing the nominee who has the best chance of defeating Trump - and that means we should be choosing a nominee who can win over swing voters. I don't feel Sanders is that candidate.

That said, I disagree with the OP. I would not want to see Obama or anyone else stepping in at the last minute and changing the rules in order to pick a nominee.

Why do you guys always assume that a moderate will outcompete the liberal?

In the last 5 presidential elections, each time we picked the moderate over the liberal candidate in teh primary, that candidate lost the general.

Gore beat Bradley in the primary, lost the general. Kerry beat Dean in the primary, lost the general. Clinton beat Sanders in the primary, lost the general.

Obama wasn't a liberal, but he was to the left of Clinton. He won both the primary and the general.

Either way, point being there are risks to every choice.

Sanders may reduce turnout among whites in the suburbs, but he will increase turnout among liberals, disaffected voters and young voters. Buttigieg may be more appealing to moderate republicans and suburban voters but less appealing to the other groups I just listed.

And if you guys really want Sanders to go away, there is an easy answer. Actually tackle the problems that are making him so popular. We live in a plutocratic nation where nobody is standing up to corporate power when they fuck over the public. Housing, health care, education, telecommunication, energy, the financial sector, etc. the public keep seeing the damage caused by oligarchy, plutocracy and regulatory capture in all these areas. The GOP are full on plutocrats while the democrats are timid, cowardly and passive. People are tired of choosing between a party that lets the rich rule everything and a party that is timid and spineless, and only nibbles around the edges of the countries serious problems.

You can't just write off his voters, because the problems that are making Sanders so popular aren't going away. Even if you manage to crush Sanders, the problems that make him popular will just find another voice and another outlet.

Declan 02-23-2020 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 22154809)
And if that happens, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party had better be ready to rally around him. No matter how much they don't care for Sanders, if the alternative is Trump, we will need a united party behind him.

Im just a spectator here but from what I can read , I get the impression that the DNC's plan A is anybody but Sanders, and Plan B is to tank the election and concentrate on holding the line on the house and possibly make gains in the senate.

PhillyGuy 02-23-2020 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22154925)
Why do you guys always assume that a moderate will outcompete the liberal?

I make no such assumption. I just look at the poly sci evidence on House races, where there is an actual reasonable sample size, and note the direction.

Could it be that House races are different from presidential?

Yes. There is a slight possibility that can't be measured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22154925)
Either way, point being there are risks to every choice.

Totally agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22154925)
Sanders may reduce turnout among whites in the suburbs, but he will increase turnout among liberals, disaffected voters and young voters.

Sounds correct but the disaffected, whose turnout is juiced by a leftist Democrat, will tilt Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22154925)
And if you guys really want Sanders to go away, there is an easy answer. Actually tackle the problems that are making him so popular. We live in a plutocratic nation where nobody is standing up to corporate power when they fuck over the public.

I think what makes him popular, among Democrats, is insufficient attention on their part to foreign news. Otherwise, when Corbyn went down, they would have abandoned Bernie.

As for the idea that if America had more social democratic policies, left of center parties wouldn't nominate a man of woman of the left, with all due respect, that's silly. British Labour is the first example that comes to mind.

Also, we have another candidate, Senator Warren, who stands up to corporate power but could fairly easily pivot to the center, after winning the nomination, by pointing to her formerly being a Republican. In the unlikely event she wins the nomination, she should claim that the GOP lost her when it moved to the radical right. Maybe she wouldn't do that -- one reason I don't see any candidate as safe.

If the Democrats instead nominate a former Trotskyite who is still wedded to terms like socialism, and even revolution, well, yes, it is possible they will win, and even conceivable that Trump will vacate the White House. It is just less likely.

Re the OP idea, where Obama and friends gang up on Sanders after he got a plurality of the Democratic votes in multiple states, that would violate democratic norms and could backfire.

JRDelirious 02-23-2020 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Declan (Post 22154927)
Im just a spectator here but from what I can read , I get the impression that the DNC's plan A is anybody but Sanders, and Plan B is to tank the election and concentrate on holding the line on the house and possibly make gains in the senate.

Holding the line in the House and trying to narrow the gap in the Senate (AND the Statehouses!), whatever happens with the Presidential race, should be the Og-damned rock bottom default baseline expectation of the DNC's efforts. If it were only their fallback position after failing to stop Sanders, and they're viewing "stop Sanders" as Job One in and of itself, then they'd deserve to perish.

Snowboarder Bo 02-23-2020 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 22154364)
There's definitely some stuff in Sanders's past that none of us can predict how it'll affect the general. If it starts getting discussed now, we'll be able to make a better prediction.

Nah; this doesn't matter. It'll be "fake news. More lies from Trump. Just Russian propaganda. Fox news always repeats Trump's lies. The CIA/FBI/NSA said so? Why should I trust them; didn't you say they made up stuff about Trump and Russia?"

Nothing in Bernie Sanders supposed past will matter to anyone who isn't already dead-set against him.

The reason Bernie will get the nod isn't just because Bernie, but because so many people are ready for the Democratic Party to change from the ineffective milquetoast bullshit that it is.

Little Nemo 02-23-2020 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22154925)
And if you guys really want Sanders to go away, there is an easy answer.

I don't want Sanders to go away. I want Trump to go away. And the problem I have with Sanders is I don't think he can beat Trump.

Sam Stone 02-23-2020 06:45 PM

Bernie will be a disaster in the general. Not just his past support for dictatorships, or his weird sex stories, or his crazy comments such as saying that bread lines are a good thing, but his current policies.

For example, his promise to ban fracking. I guess Democrats didn't need Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Indiana, or Michigan, or...

The Liberals in Canada campaigned on shutting down fossil fuel production in favor of 'green' technologies. Guess how many seats the Liberals carried west of Manitoba, and east of Vancouver? ZERO.

On the other hand, the other Democrats currently running have also promised to ban fracking. Which means political suicide is not just a Bernie thing.

Fracking has been the biggest economic improvement to happen to the midwest, and the primary reason why the US's CO2 emissions are falling. They aren't giving it up because a 79 year old socialist says they should. And you know Trump will play off this and promise THE BEST FRACKING EVER. More fracking. There will be so much fracking that you'll be swimming in money! It's an easy argument for Trump, because banning fracking at this point is beyond stupid.

And then you will have the unions discovering that Bernie is going to take away their gold-plated health care and make them line up with the rubes in a giant government health system. By the way, the waiting list for an MRI in Alberta just hit one year. I'm sure Trump will be more than willing to claim that that's what's in store for everyone - including those who have great insurance now.

Democrats are making the mistake of thinking that having a 'base' that leans towards socialism is representative of the country. The reality is Majority of Americans Won't Vote for a Socialist

Quote:

In a new Hill.TV/HarrisX American Barometer poll released Tuesday, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a “socialist” political candidate, while only 24 percent of those polled said they would vote for a socialist candidate.
That's from a year ago. So you've got 24% of the country perhaps. That's pretty much the liberal wing of the Democratic party, and no one else.

Snowboarder Bo 02-23-2020 07:03 PM

Hey look, everyone! Another post from across the border that claims to understand Americans better than Americans do!

:rolleyes:

Little Nemo 02-23-2020 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22154925)
Why do you guys always assume that a moderate will outcompete the liberal?

In the last 5 presidential elections, each time we picked the moderate over the liberal candidate in teh primary, that candidate lost the general.

Gore beat Bradley in the primary, lost the general. Kerry beat Dean in the primary, lost the general. Clinton beat Sanders in the primary, lost the general.

Obama wasn't a liberal, but he was to the left of Clinton. He won both the primary and the general.

I don't agree with your analysis. I think in most of these examples, you're stretching the candidates' positions to make your point. I don't see any major ideological difference between Gore and Bradley, Kerry and Dean, or Clinton and Obama. These candidates were all moderates. The liberals in these campaigns were people like Brown, Kerrey, Kucinich, Sharpton, and maybe Vilsack. The only case you listed where a moderate beat a liberal was Clinton beating Sanders in 2016.

You're factually wrong about Gore and Clinton losing the general election. Both of them won the general election (which was part of my point). They lost the Electoral College election. (Kerry may have won the general election also but it's late in the day to be arguing that point.) This just demonstrates what I've already said; we have a system that favors Republicans. They can lose the general election and still win the Electoral College election because their base gets more votes.

eschereal 02-23-2020 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 22155003)
And then you will have the unions discovering that Bernie is going to take away their gold-plated health care and make them line up with the rubes in a giant government health system. By the way, the waiting list for an MRI in Alberta just hit one year. I'm sure Trump will be more than willing to claim that that's what's in store for everyone - including those who have great insurance now.

Oh, you think we have unions. How adorable.

Left Hand of Dorkness 02-23-2020 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22154813)
In my post I pointed out the pattern that's been established in every presidential election since 1992 and predicted it's going to happen again. Which is, you know, evidence.

Say what now? You did nothing of the sort.

Snowboarder Bo 02-23-2020 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 22155003)
And then you will have the unions discovering that Bernie is going to take away their gold-plated health care and make them line up with the rubes in a giant government health system. By the way, the waiting list for an MRI in Alberta just hit one year. I'm sure Trump will be more than willing to claim that that's what's in store for everyone - including those who have great insurance now.

As a union member, let me tell you: you're wrong about this. This isn't a talking point that union members have. To the extent it has been talked about by union members as something to fear, we all know they are shilling for other candidates.

The truth is that unions are built on the concept that we can do better together than we can separately. Union members have and will overwhelmingly support Bernie because he wants the entirety of society to act that way.

And we do too. Here, I'll prove it:
Quote:

Members of Nevada’s most politically powerful labor group were warned by union leaders that Bernie Sanders’ plan would doom their prized health care, but they voted for him anyway.

The casino workers of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 are powerful enough in Nevada Democratic politics that special caucus sites are set up in Las Vegas Strip casinos to accommodate them. In at least four of those seven caucus sites Saturday, workers threw their support behind Sanders.
Quote:

Angel Lazcano, a 46-year-old busperson at the Aria and a Culinary Union member, didn’t heed the warnings. Lazcano cited Medicare for All as one of the things that drew him to Sanders.

With Medicare for All, Lazcano said, “everybody can choose their own doctors instead of going through the insurance and taking only the doctors that use the insurance.”
Quote:

Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California Santa Barbara, said that like all other voters, laborers make decisions based on values.

“Unionists are not green eyeshades accountants who say, ‘How is this going to help me?’” he said

One of those values is fighting for all working people, said Mark Dimonstein, president of the American Post Workers, which backs Sanders. “Unions are at our best not just for the workers we represent but for the betterment of the working class in general,” he said.

Dimonstein said his members’ federal health benefits are better than many workers’ plans but there is still dissatisfaction as rising premiums keep cutting into workers’ pay checks. “Postal workers would be far better off with Medicare for All,” he said

Jody Domineck, a nurse in Las Vegas and executive board member with a local chapter of the Service Employees International Union, said that though many union members enjoy good insurance, it’s something that they have to continually fight for and questioned why employers use as a bargaining chip.

“Even though we do have good benefits, they are threatened continually. And I feel like if we had an overall plan or some other access, that wouldn’t be a tool that could be used against us.
Union members aren't stupid and we don't have the same "ME ME ME" values that conservatives do. "Better for everyone" is gonna be better for us too; that's what "everyone" means.

This part of your post was particularly ignorant and I felt it should be pointed out.

PhillyGuy 02-23-2020 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 22155080)
Union members have and will overwhelmingly support Bernie because he wants the entirety of society to act that way.

I'm in a Pennsylvania union, and have been a little shocked at the people I eventually find listening to Rush or otherwise living in a pro-Trump world.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.