Straight Dope Message Board

[PitJ]

In the first place I have to apologize if I as a European am not familiar with all the intricacies of U.S. politics, but that is the reason why I am posting this question here where apparently quite a lot of readers are U.S. citizens.

My impression already in the last election was that if Bernie Sanders hadn't deviated scores of more left-leaning Democrats, Hillary Clinton would have won. Even after the primaries when Clinton was elected, the Clinton-Sanders polarization carried on strongly and turned Democrats into non-voters instead of the Dems trying to stand together.

Now it seems to me as if the same scheme is emerging, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are each compiling a large enough followership that effectively no single Democratic candidate will have sufficient support in the Party with the danger of this being again carried through the primaries into the election. This opposed to Republicans who are apparently willing to support their candidate come hell or high water (and no, this is not a Trump discussing thread, even though I'd love to) and therefore will most likely have a unified party line.

Am I right? 1

[iiandyiiii]

No -- both candidates are exciting and inspiring lots of voters who otherwise might not vote at all. It's possible that there could be a sequence of events in which Warren's or Sanders' actions might damage the eventual nominee, but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude this at present (and not even close). Both have strongly insisted they will support the eventual nominee. 2

[BobLibDem]

I think they are, particularly Sanders. The Berniebots defeated Hillary more than Donald did. If he had withdrawn gracefully and lent his support well before the convention, things may have turned out differently. With Warren, her saying that nobody is going to give up their current insurance is a death sentence for her hopes. Nominate someone who is more centrist and we win. Nominate a radical and we lose. 3

[enalzi]

I don't have it handy, but I'm pretty sure 538 showed that the number of Bernie voters who didn't vote for Hillary (either by staying home or voting for another candidate) would've had no impact if they all voted for Hillary. 4

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I think they are, particularly Sanders. The Berniebots defeated Hillary more than Donald did. If he had withdrawn gracefully and lent his support well before the convention, things may have turned out differently. With Warren, her saying that nobody is going to give up their current insurance is a death sentence for her hopes. Nominate someone who is more centrist and we win. Nominate a radical and we lose.

This is silly. Hillary was a poor and uncharismatic candidate. If she had added Bernie to the ticket and had him campaigned hard in the mid-west she would have won. Instead she added a VP that added nothing to the campaign.

She ran a terrible campaign against a horrible person and lost mostly on her own lack of merit.

As enalzi points out the smallish number of Bernie voters who sadly stayed home, wouldn't have changed the electoral vote.

The berniebro thing is silly and should be dropped. 5

[Exapno Mapcase]

Clinton's loss is attributable to a multitude of things, so it's impossible to say any one thing cost her the election.

That said, I'm confident that a regression analysis would show that a major factor was that large numbers of black voters who turned out for Obama stayed home for Clinton. An equal turnout in those rust belt states she lost would have turned them to her.

Sanders did worse among black voters than Clinton. His candidacy was not the cause. The result would have been the same no matter when he left the race.

That lesson should be in every candidate's head for 2020. Pete Buttigieg polled at 0% among black voters in South Carolina. 0%. Please, Pete, get out now. And the rest of you need to do better.

Joe Biden, you've got the black vote. Now do better in every other way. 6

[Ravenman]

Whether the Democratic Party actually comes together next year is more based on whether the defeated primary candidates will energize their supporters to defeat Trump, or whether they will be sore losers; rather than having multiple candidates at this point in the race. 7

[septimus]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

As enalzi points out the smallish number of Bernie voters who sadly stayed home, wouldn't have changed the electoral vote.

Doubtful. In Pennsylvania, 2.6 million registered voters stayed home on Election Day. It seems safe to say that 100,000s of these were voters who preferred Sanders over either Clinton or Trump. Clinton lost PA by 46,000 votes.

But this is NOT to blame the loss on Berniebros. The election was so close, that any of a wide variety of minor changes would have swung it the other way. And X supporters might not have voted for Y for almost any (X,Y) pairing.

And as Exapno Mapcase implies, Trump would have had an even easier time defeating Sanders.

... I've come full-circle to agree with Mr. Mapcase: At this point Joe Biden is, by far, our best chance. Stay healthy, Joe! 8

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by PitJ

..
My impression already in the last election was that if Bernie Sanders hadn't deviated scores of more left-leaning Democrats, Hillary Clinton would have won. Even after the primaries when Clinton was elected, the Clinton-Sanders polarization carried on strongly and turned Democrats into non-voters instead of the Dems trying to stand together.

Now it seems to me as if the same scheme is emerging, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are each compiling a large enough followership that effectively no single Democratic candidate will have sufficient support in the Party with the danger of this being again carried through the primaries into the election. ...

By no means the most critical reason why Hillary lost, but since the election was so close, yes, it is a reason why trump won.

Warren isnt like that, nor are her followers. They will, by and large, toe the party line and get behind anyone that wins. Sanders, otoh..... 9

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

This is silly. Hillary was a poor and uncharismatic candidate. If she had added Bernie to the ticket and had him campaigned hard in the mid-west she would have won. Instead she added a VP that added nothing to the campaign.

She ran a terrible campaign against a horrible person and lost mostly on her own lack of merit.

As enalzi points out the smallish number of Bernie voters who sadly stayed home, wouldn't have changed the electoral vote.

The berniebro thing is silly and should be dropped.

Sanders wouldn't take it. And it is a rare thing to add a veep that campaigned strongly against you (one that runs for a month and drops out, yes, that happens).


538 disagrees and yes, the small number who voted for indy or stayed home could have won Hillary the election, it was that close. (The big loser for Clinton was the Comey memo it seems)

The issue with the berniebros is that they did pass on fake news and attacks generated by the kremlin. That is a fact. The huge decline in Clintons favorability rating can be partially attributed to that hate & lie campaign. And, they didnt stop even after Bernie conceded. 10

[Sterling Archer]

It’s a lot more complex than just “pick a moderate candidate and you win”. There’s a million ways to analyze it.

For example, let’s say hypothetically I think Warren is the best possible Dem candidate. Screw the polls, I think when it comes down to a choice next November, Warren is the Dems’ best chance to excite the base and get the most people to the ballot box to defeat Trump. So I look at the field of Dem candidates and think, “hey if Bernie dropped out most of his support would go to Warren and she’d win in a walk”. So from that perspective, Bernie is in effect helping Trump by giving a non-Warren candidate the nomination, but Warren is not.

Just let the process play out, let the Dems collectively choose who they want the nominee to be. Then vote blue. 11

[DrDeth]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...eRcWjOX4raUH78 12

[asahi]

Originally Posted by PitJ

In the first place I have to apologize if I as a European am not familiar with all the intricacies of U.S. politics, but that is the reason why I am posting this question here where apparently quite a lot of readers are U.S. citizens.

My impression already in the last election was that if Bernie Sanders hadn't deviated scores of more left-leaning Democrats, Hillary Clinton would have won. Even after the primaries when Clinton was elected, the Clinton-Sanders polarization carried on strongly and turned Democrats into non-voters instead of the Dems trying to stand together.

Now it seems to me as if the same scheme is emerging, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are each compiling a large enough followership that effectively no single Democratic candidate will have sufficient support in the Party with the danger of this being again carried through the primaries into the election. This opposed to Republicans who are apparently willing to support their candidate come hell or high water (and no, this is not a Trump discussing thread, even though I'd love to) and therefore will most likely have a unified party line.

Am I right?

I don't know if you can necessarily blame Bernie and Warren for the Balkanization of the electorate, but I think that this Balkanization (if I may use the term) is a growing concern. A growing concern of mine is that if Bernie or Warren wins the nomination somehow, it is increasingly likely that there will be a third party challenger that will either be a billionaire or a proxy that is funded by a billionaire's club.

It's not just the increase in taxes that both Sanders and Warren are promising to deliver; both candidates are aiming at regulations as well, which is not something I'm opposed to. But Warren has even talked about the break up of big tech firms, and that's just asking to get taken down by Silicon Valley big shots.

In fact, in just the past few weeks, Bill Gates has said quite openly that he might not rule out voting for Trump he fears a billionaire's tax. Mark Zuckerberg has dined privately with Donald Trump and Peter Thiel (FB board member). And of course, Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire, just announced his candidacy.

The billionaires may seem outwardly philanthropic, and some of them genuinely are, but they're going to insist maintaining their position at the top of the food chain and if they see peasants assembling with pitchforks, they're not going to just sit idly by. 13

[asahi]

Originally Posted by septimus

... I've come full-circle to agree with Mr. Mapcase: At this point Joe Biden is, by far, our best chance. Stay healthy, Joe!

I think Biden probably is the best chance, but he's also very vulnerable. 14

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Sanders wouldn't take it. And it is a rare thing to add a veep that campaigned strongly against you (one that runs for a month and drops out, yes, that happens).


538 disagrees and yes, the small number who voted for indy or stayed home could have won Hillary the election, it was that close. (The big loser for Clinton was the Comey memo it seems)

The issue with the berniebros is that they did pass on fake news and attacks generated by the kremlin. That is a fact. The huge decline in Clintons favorability rating can be partially attributed to that hate & lie campaign. And, they didnt stop even after Bernie conceded.

I'm tired of this, but can you actually somehow cite that Bernie wouldn't take the nom for VP? Everything I've read says that you are mistaken except the stuff from random posters trying to blame Bernie for Hillary losing.

Also, Facebook had far more to do with the disseminating the Kremlin Lies than all the Bernie supporters put together, so try laying the blame their and other media sites where it belongs.

Hillary's favorability rating was low before the election cycle ever started. Can you show a chart of the damage caused by Bernie supporters? I suspect the real cause was Trump, the Kremlin, the FBI thanks to Comey & Hillary's campaigning. 15

[RioRico]

Hillary won the 2016 vote by 3 million but lost the game because the US electoral system installs losers. Tramp won by 78k votes in 3 counties and so took the White House. I suspect many qualified US voters were disenfranchised - do we have a count? And how many vote counts occur in secret, with non-transparent proprietary systems?

The US is nowhere near having "free and fair elections". The GOP couldn't survive such. Expect filth in 2020. 16

[Bumbershoot]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

No -- both candidates are exciting and inspiring lots of voters who otherwise might not vote at all.

I have some anecdotal evidence* to support this- I just returned from the county courthouse where I filled out a change-of-address form for my voter registration. I moved across town recently to a new zip code and district(s). They told me they are being flooded with voter registrations. I consider this good news because I don't believe Trump is going to gain any voters compared to 2016, especially after the impeachment inquiry- wherever it may lead. He has his core group of followers and that is it. In my opinion, of course.

I think it's far too early to make any predictions about who the Dems will nominate, but I believe they will come together to back that candidate.

*Worth every cent you paid for it. 17

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by septimus

... I've come full-circle to agree with Mr. Mapcase: At this point Joe Biden is, by far, our best chance. Stay healthy, Joe!

Please. It's Exapno ... to those who agree with me. 18

[FlikTheBlue]

The OPs question assumes that Biden, or less likely Buttigieg, is all but assured of the nomination. That being said, and since others have shared anecdotes, here is one in support of the OPs hypothesis. I have some close family members, far left types, who have told me they see no difference between Biden, Buttigieg, and Trump. These people cite the old saying of “they’re all the same.” Whether or not there are enough people of this mindset in the upper midwest (I’m in Texas where they won’t make a difference) is a difficult question to answer.

On the other hand, Biden does have significant weaknesses, and unlike Warren his weaknesses seem to be more difficult to address. First there is his Trump nickname of Sleepy Uncle Joe. He really does seem to lack the physical stamina for a long hard fought campaign. That’s going to be difficult if not impossible to fix. Then there is the whole Ukraine thing which Lindsey Graham is currently working on turning into Hillary’s emails part II. Biden is going to have to come up with a way to address both of these issues in a way to reassure those upper midwest voters. I haven’t seen his answer yet. 19

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

I'm tired of this, but can you actually somehow cite that Bernie wouldn't take the nom for VP? Everything I've read says that you are mistaken except the stuff from random posters trying to blame Bernie for Hillary losing.

Also, Facebook had far more to do with the disseminating the Kremlin Lies than all the Bernie supporters put together, so try laying the blame their and other media sites where it belongs.

Hillary's favorability rating was low before the election cycle ever started. Can you show a chart of the damage caused by Bernie supporters? I suspect the real cause was Trump, the Kremlin, the FBI thanks to Comey & Hillary's campaigning.

https://medium.com/@PollsAndVotes/hi...9-95ab99c35d49

Note the sharp decline once she becomes a major candidate.

Yes, FB - but who on FB spread them?- Bernie Bros.

Yes, the lies came out of the Kremlin but the bernie-bros spread them. 20

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

https://medium.com/@PollsAndVotes/hi...9-95ab99c35d49

Note the sharp decline once she becomes a major candidate.

Yes, FB - but who on FB spread them?- Bernie Bros.

Yes, the lies came out of the Kremlin but the bernie-bros spread them.

I don't see where that link supports what you said. But hey, thanks anyway.

I think the lies were mostly spread by Trumpites and not Bernie supporters.

Could you please stop the stupid Bernie-Bro bit, it is goofy and divisive. Whoever wins this nomination needs everyone that is not Pro-Trump to get out and vote for the Democratic candidate. Constant insults of 20% of the anti-Trump is not helpful in the end, is it?

Still haven't supported your statement that Bernie was unwilling to be VP. 21

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Still haven't supported your statement that Bernie was unwilling to be VP.

There was 0% chance that Clinton would have asked him. The last thing she needed was to be tied to a socialist. That term was poison in 2016. The issue is moot. 22

[MyFootsZZZ]

A lot of people blame WikiLeaks and Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss.

Maybe if Hillary didn't accept the question from Donna Brazil in the first place...

She got caught and it's everyone else's fault.

Most people think the establishment stinks. Medicare for all polls well, so do other positions he has.

I like Warren too. We're lucky we have her. 23

[Barack Obama]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Nominate someone who is more centrist and we win. Nominate a radical and we lose.

You misspelled rational. 24

[Thing Fish]

Originally Posted by PitJ

In the first place I have to apologize if I as a European am not familiar with all the intricacies of U.S. politics, but that is the reason why I am posting this question here where apparently quite a lot of readers are U.S. citizens.

My impression already in the last election was that if Bernie Sanders hadn't deviated scores of more left-leaning Democrats, Hillary Clinton would have won. Even after the primaries when Clinton was elected, the Clinton-Sanders polarization carried on strongly and turned Democrats into non-voters instead of the Dems trying to stand together.

Now it seems to me as if the same scheme is emerging, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are each compiling a large enough followership that effectively no single Democratic candidate will have sufficient support in the Party with the danger of this being again carried through the primaries into the election. This opposed to Republicans who are apparently willing to support their candidate come hell or high water (and no, this is not a Trump discussing thread, even though I'd love to) and therefore will most likely have a unified party line.

Am I right?

No, you are wrong. The number of Sanders supporters who didn't support Clinton in the general election was typical of the historical norm for supporters of the losing primary candidate.

Since the election was so close, I have a hard time believing that Clinton wouldn't have won if she had gotten 100% support from Bernie's primary voters. But it's not the case that Clinton faced some unusual challenge in this regard that other candidates haven't had to deal with; a great many of Clinton's own supporters, for instance, vocally supported Romney over Obama in 2008.

And current polls show that Sanders, at least, has as good a chance as Biden of beating Trump. So it would make just as much sense (ie not much) to ask "Are Biden and Buttigieg effectively helping Trump?" Sure, those of us who support a particular candidate would love it if everyone else dropped out, but contested primaries are part of how our system works. 25

[PhillyGuy]

Originally Posted by PitJ

My impression already in the last election was that if Bernie Sanders hadn't deviated scores of more left-leaning Democrats, Hillary Clinton would have won. . . .

Am I right?

According to pundits, very possibly yes!

According to political scientists, not so much.

We have a time-for-a-change dynamic where, after eight years of a president of one party, the other party has an advantage. By winning the popular vote, Hillary already beat the odds in 2016.

We also have a dynamic where, unless the economy really tanks, the incumbent is likely to win a second term. One reason for that is the primary system. The eventual Democratic nominee is now spending a lot of money to win nomination that, from my anti-Trump perspective, would be better spent in September and October.

Competitive primaries damage the nominee. The problem then is -- who should drop out? One at a time, I can make a case that each of them should. But if they all did, somehow allowing party insiders to use their expertise to pick someone highly electable, that would look almost as bad as the circular firing squad does.

For never-Trumpers, is isn't an encouraging situation. The one hopeful sign is that Donald J. Trump is, for the Republicans, a weak nominee. That's why Hillary was able to come so close to beating him in a structurally GOP year. 26

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Nominate someone who is more centrist and we win. Nominate a radical and we lose.

Perceptions matter more than reality, though. IIRC, in 2016, average voters were of the belief that they had a choice between an unusually moderate Republican and an unusually extreme Democrat. (This view of Trump has since evaporated, I believe.) 27

[PhillyGuy]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

Perceptions matter more than reality, though. IIRC, in 2016, average voters were of the belief that they had a choice between an unusually moderate Republican and an unusually extreme Democrat. (This view of Trump has since evaporated, I believe.)

How so many voters (albeit a minority) became convinced that the stood-by-her-man wife of Bill Clinton was a left-wing extremist astounded me.

Donald Trump, while a weak GOP nominee overall, is a very effective negative campaigner. One word from Trump, albeit it an ethnic slur uttered many times, has, I fear, greatly damaged Elizabeth Warren's November 2020 prospects. Does he hurt himself almost as much as Warren every time he slurs her? Almost.

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Nominate someone who is more centrist and we win. Nominate a radical and we lose.

This is what the best evidence I've seen says. But also see what I wrote above about Hillary. Even though I like Klobuchar, we know how she's opened herself to comparable sexist attacks.

Since I have no more ability here to influence when giving plausible advice as when giving better-but-impossible advice, here's the impossible advice. The Democratic front-runners need to to, for the good of a country threatened by a wannabe dictator, fall on their swords and draft the hardest-to-pigeonhole Democratic governor they can find. I nominate Gina Raimondo. There's something about her voice that, to me, would make painting her as a shrill harridan very, very difficult -- even for as expert a misogynist as Donald Trump. 28

[Fugazi]

Of the front runners/ folks who actually have a chance to get the nomination, Biden is my last choice. I really don't want him to get it. That said, if he is the nominee then he gets my vote. Not only that, I will encourage my family members and friends to vote for him too. I would vote for a steaming pile of fresh dog turds if it was running against Trump. I think most Democrats feel the same way. 29

[China Guy]

Spent Thanksgiving with a 20 something PhD candidate and socialist. He's a Bernie Bro. His view that if it isn't Bernie or Warren, then he's not going to vote. View is that it would be better to suffer 4 more years of Trump to really fuck things up vs any of the other Dems and risk a Republican resurgence in 2024.

I would find young university radicals soooo cute, except that enough of them will help re-elect Trump. Hope I gave him some food for thought. 30

[elucidator]

Probably smart. Smart people don't make as many mistakes, but when they do, its a beaut! 31

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Spent Thanksgiving with a 20 something PhD candidate and socialist. He's a Bernie Bro. His view that if it isn't Bernie or Warren, then he's not going to vote.

The Kremlin's work is done here. (My emphasis.)

Originally Posted by China Guy

View is that it would be better to suffer 4 more years of Trump to really fuck things up vs any of the other Dems and risk a Republican resurgence in 2024. ...

This viewpoint relies on the assumption that Trump will spend a second term basically attacking people whose demographic traits are not shared by the voter in question. Trump will be vicious toward people at the southern border; Trump will be vicious toward transgender people; Trump will be vicious toward black women; etc. 'A shame but it doesn't touch me, so.....'

The reality is that Trump may not only decide to be vicious toward a group your friend does belong to, but that Trump will make progress in becoming absolute dictator, quashing dissent, wrecking the economy, getting us into wars calculated to make him richer, etc. etc. etc. And he will have succeeded in appointing more Federal judges and Supreme Court judges, meaning that with each passing day there is less chance of stopping him.

I know that you know all this, and that you probably said some version of the above to your friend. But it bears repeating: being all Pure in one's voting habits empowers assholes. Don't be Pure. Don't enable assholes. VOTE. 32

[septimus]

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy

... I nominate Gina Raimondo. There's something about her voice that, to me, would make painting her as a shrill harridan very, very difficult -- even for as expert a misogynist as Donald Trump.

I'd never heard of her, but I clicked on the video.

One question. "We [Rhode Island] have gone from the 36th worst economy to the 9th best in the nation." In my dialect, "36th worst" (in a set of size 50) is a synonym for "15th best." What does it mean in Standard English? 33

[asahi]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Spent Thanksgiving with a 20 something PhD candidate and socialist. He's a Bernie Bro. His view that if it isn't Bernie or Warren, then he's not going to vote. View is that it would be better to suffer 4 more years of Trump to really fuck things up vs any of the other Dems and risk a Republican resurgence in 2024.

I would find young university radicals soooo cute, except that enough of them will help re-elect Trump. Hope I gave him some food for thought.

If you haven't already, tell your friend that if Trump is re-elected with a GOP senate, they will potentially change the government in ways that might make democracy effectively nonexistent. In other words, voters may not necessarily have the choice to replace the GOP beyond 2020. Minority rulers are acutely aware that they wield disproportionate power and operate in a manner that is increasingly at odds with the public interest, thereby sowing increasing levels of discontent. From their vantage point, therefore, the answer isn't more democracy, but much, much less of it, using whatever means are at their disposal. 34

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

This viewpoint relies on the assumption that Trump will spend a second term basically attacking people whose demographic traits are not shared by the voter in question. Trump will be vicious toward people at the southern border; Trump will be vicious toward transgender people; Trump will be vicious toward black women; etc. 'A shame but it doesn't touch me, so.....'

Very true.

But Trump's team isn't just vicious; they're vicious because they know that it will incite outrage, which is what they want. They want outrage and polarization. They want different elements of the opposition to question each other's commitment to common interests. Just look at the Pete Buttigieg dilemma: very popular among educated white progressives, but highly unpopular among more mainstream Blacks and Latinos.

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

The reality is that Trump may not only decide to be vicious toward a group your friend does belong to, but that Trump will make progress in becoming absolute dictator, quashing dissent,

I predict that if Trump is reelected and succeeds in getting more justices on the bench, he will begin going over major news outlets -- by suing them. Repeatedly. And the courts just may start letting it happen. 35

[Fugazi]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Spent Thanksgiving with a 20 something PhD candidate and socialist. He's a Bernie Bro. His view that if it isn't Bernie or Warren, then he's not going to vote. View is that it would be better to suffer 4 more years of Trump to really fuck things up vs any of the other Dems and risk a Republican resurgence in 2024.

I would find young university radicals soooo cute, except that enough of them will help re-elect Trump. Hope I gave him some food for thought.

Here's the thing. He might be exactly right. Even if Biden gets the nod and then beats Trump. Then by 2024 the banana Republicans take back the White House, I still see that as a better outcome than 4 more years of Trump.

The amount of damage Trump has done to the US at home and abroad in just 3 years is staggering. 5 more years and asahi's predictions of the US ceasing to exist as a democracy has a real good chance of coming true. 36

[Ann Hedonia]

I disagree. I think Hillary’s insistence that she was the heir apparent to the Presidency hurt the Democratic Party. I think the primary season is important for many reasons. It encourages debate on the nuances of the issues and brings them to the forefront. I hate this idea that we weaken our candidates by making them fight among themselves. I think it’s strenghening.

And based on my personal experience, with my 24 year old godson/nephew (who was living in my home during the last election season) and his friends, I’m not convinced that Bernie hurt Hillary.

Prior to Bernie’s candidacy, that kid was totally apolitical. I couldn’t get him to register to vote. Or think about issues that impacted his life and future. Or get engaged with the world beyond himself, his friends and their music projects. And I tried. Then Bernie came along and managed to teach him that this stuff was important to him and his future. He went to rallies, campaigned with his friends, and voted.

Then Bernie lost the primary. To my surprise, even though my kid was disappointed, he got realistic real fast. Because he had learned that the issues were important. He literally spent about 15 minutes grieving Bernie’s defeat then began to think about how he could support Clinton. And he did. While he didn’t officially campaign for her, he wrote countless Facebook and blog posts about why it was important to show unity and support her, and worked to spread that idea among his friends. Because he knew that she was not the enemy and there was a much bigger enemy to defeat. And he proudly voted for her.

And if Bernie hadn’t had run, and Hillary had been unopposed in the primaries, he wouldn’t have voted in 2016. He would still be apolitical and feeling the system had nothing to offer him.

And I think it was a big mistake for Hillary not to welcome some healthy vigorous competition in 2016 Maybe she would’ve been the nominee, maybe not. But one of the problems I have with Biden and Warren is that they were intimidated into not opposing Hillary in 2016. And now I think they are both past their sell by date.

And I think the Clinton monopoly and the presumption that she was entitled to “her turn” as President hurts the Democratic Party to this day. Because I see a tranche of candidates that are past their prime and a tranche that isn’t quite ready yet. But I think the Clinton domination of the Democratic Party kept a lot of potentially good candidates from pursuing their Presidential aspirations, and despite the flurry of contenders now that she’s a non-issue, I think we are feeling that vacuum still. 37

[septimus]

Whatever Joe Biden's faults, he is a very sentimental man, and one of the most human politicians active in the U.S. today. His oldest son Beau served as a Major in Iraq, earning a Bronze Star. He was himself a rising star in the political world, serving as Attorney-General of Delaware, probably en route to the Governorship; he was very dear to Joe. In the Spring of 2015, when Clinton and Sanders were lining up donors, Beau endured a slow death from brain cancer. Joe and his family sat vigil at Beau's death-bed, grieving. Joe Biden was too heart-broken to speak at the June funeral, but Joe's boss gave a eulogy. This at a time when candidates for the Presidency were attending fund-raisers and lining up interviews.

Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia

But one of the problems I have with Biden and Warren is that they were intimidated into not opposing Hillary in 2016. And now I think they are both past their sell by date.

Cite? By October, Biden stated that he and his family were finally ready for the campaign but it was too late. What is the evidence his delay was not due to his family's grief? 38

[Boycott]

Biden would have got a huge sympathy boost if he jumped in 2015 as well as having the power of the vice presidency to utilise. Most important of all he was very damn popular. He still is among democrats hence his lead but in 2015-16 when he was still in office he was higher. Politically it was an open goal for him to run so the fact he didn't can only be down to the fact he didn't put his ambition above his family. 39

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia

I disagree. I think Hillary’s insistence that she was the heir apparent to the Presidency hurt the Democratic Party.

Hillary spent decades on party work, built a substantial organization, handily won more elected delegates than the competition, and decisively won the popular vote. GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression, and the slavery-era relic electoral system. are what hurt her and the Dems. I.e. the problem is structural, not ideological,

Tramp was right, the election was rigged. Beforehand, he promised to challenge the results. Sad. 40