Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:29 AM
The wind of my soul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 2,041

Why did Sanders surpass Warren for second place?


I was following the primaries reasonably closely until a couple months ago. And apparently, a couple months ago was right around the time that Bernie surpassed Warren to be in second place, and now has a very comfortable lead over her nationally.

When did this happen??? (Well, RealClearPolitics can answer that question: November 21, 2019.) But what I mean when I ask that is, what events coincided with this shift? Why did people start changing their minds? Any thoughts? (And if there's already a thread on this and I missed it, I apologize. Please point me to it, as I didn't see one during a quick search of the front page of the Elections forum.)
  #2  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:45 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,079
I think one factor was her apparent waffling on “Medicare for All.” Her initial embracing of it lost her some supporters who thought this would make her unelectable, while her later backing away from it (sort of) lost her some supporters that have gone (or gone back) to Bernie.
  #3  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:53 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,536
There's also the "Bernie claimed a woman couldn't win the presidency" accusation. A lot of people felt that either Warren wasn't true, or that even, if true, it was a malicious tactic by Warren.
  #4  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:19 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There's also the "Bernie claimed a woman couldn't win the presidency" accusation. A lot of people felt that either Warren wasn't true, or that even, if true, it was a malicious tactic by Warren.
Warren's slide happened, and stopped, long before this 24-hour story.
  #5  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:28 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,220
I lost some enthusiasm for her when she refused to admit that Medicare for All would require raising taxes. It struck me as an unnecessary bit of political slipperiness.
  #6  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:33 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 279
The heart attack bizarrely rejuvenated the Sanders campaign. Suddenly after heart surgery he was no longer constantly red-faced and tired looking, and the hoarseness disappeared. He seemed healthier and more energetic- much more like he seemed in 2016.

Everything is broken and nothing in politics makes sense anymore. 70-year-olds become more politically viable after heart attacks now- get used to it
  #7  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:36 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
She has been on the receiving end of tougher questions from the media and fellow candidates about the cost and viability of her plans in the past five months than he has in the past five years.
  #8  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:38 AM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,233
Yeah I think it was related to her Medicare for all transition plan. The hardcore progressives saw it as a compromise, and decided Bernie was their man who could pass the liberal purity test.

Personally, I thought the M4A transition plan was a sign that Warren was able to combine a bold, progressive agenda with practical planning and realism. It made me like her a lot more than Bernie, but I guess I am an atypical Warren supporter.
  #9  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:39 AM
Ashtura is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,601
Because he's more honest. He'll flat out say his plans will raise your taxes, she won't. And he's a true believer. IMO Warren is just riding his coattails. I'm not even sure she really believes the stuff she's saying.

Last edited by Ashtura; 02-05-2020 at 11:40 AM.
  #10  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:44 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Because he's more honest. He'll flat out say his plans will raise your taxes, she won't.
This. A true sign of honesty is being willing to admit a proposal's cons as well as its pros. When Warren said MfA without raising taxes, she was trying to have her cake and eat it too, and everyone knew it.

Warren: "I don't dare admit that my plan requires raising taxes"
Bernie: "Yes, I will raise taxes, but it's worth it and it's for overall good"
  #11  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:06 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,233
That is true, I was a bit annoyed by her refusal to admit that. But the public is so hyper reactive to any suggestion that taxes should even EXIST, I understand her reluctance.
  #12  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:53 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
The Medicare for all flip flop definitely hurt, plus she was too clever by half in dancing around the issue during a couple of debates.

Her campaign advertising made a sharp turn away from ‘I’ve got a plan for that’ to ‘billionaire tears’ and really harsh rhetoric. A lot of Warren supporters liked her technocratic approach, not the go for the jugular approach.

Making a big stink about fundraising purity. Bernie’s got that monopoly even if it isn’t true. But, there’s also a ton of voters that don’t give a damn. Reminds me of baseball announcers babbling on about launch angles when most viewers just want to admire the home run and don’t want a lecture on Euclidian geometry.

And then doubling and tripling down on the purity stuff while the media pointed out the hypocrisy. Don’t throw stones about wine caves when your senate campaign did the exact same thing.

She wasted a good 6 weeks on that rather than talking about her plans.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 02-05-2020 at 12:55 PM.
  #13  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:57 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
That is true, I was a bit annoyed by her refusal to admit that. But the public is so hyper reactive to any suggestion that taxes should even EXIST, I understand her reluctance.
Well explaining that convincingly is the shit she should have had a plan for. And she didn't because she is the bad campaigner I thought she would be. She was trying to be the rational alternative to Sanders but she fumbled.
  #14  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:48 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,479
Bernie has learned the first lesson of socialist politics: Never get specific. Warren gave out detailed plans and cost estimates for her crazy interventions, and once people had to actually grasp the scope and cost of her plans, she got kicked to the curb.

Platitudes and promises and anger and shaking fists work great. Actual details? Not so much.
  #15  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:56 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Bernie has learned the first lesson of socialist politics: Never get specific.
This is stupid. The idea that "socialists" aren't specific is blatantly and completely wrong. It wouldn't be quite so stupid, except that Republicans are still promulgating Trickle Down Economics with only the slightest rebranding, are arguing that trade wars help trade, and despite everything think that somehow Mexico is gonna pay for that wall.

Meanwhile....
  #16  
Old 02-05-2020, 02:55 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
I think one factor was her apparent waffling on “Medicare for All.” Her initial embracing of it lost her some supporters who thought this would make her unelectable, while her later backing away from it (sort of) lost her some supporters that have gone (or gone back) to Bernie.
Pretty much, it made a lot of people feel she couldn't be relied upon to make tough decisions.

Also the fact that she said her M4A wouldn't require tax hikes on the middle class. I think a lot of progressives are open to paying more in taxes for services they actually want (health care, education, renewable energy, etc). Saying to people that you're going to pass a multi trillion dollar program but it won't require any tax hikes on you isn't realistic. At least Sanders was honest and said that among the taxes to pay for it, there would be a payroll tax of 4% on employees to cover the cost.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 AM.

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.

 
Copyright © 2017