Well not so sure about that “exactly” … but we do agree on the second portion. The ongoing unknown (to me anyway) is which one does that more. For the sake of simplicity I am sticking to Sanders and Biden but the discussion is not just specific to them.
The Sanders theory, based on appealing to traditionally less likely voters (more likely non-voters), who say him or they stay home (as they usually do), is that he delivers turnout. The fear is that even their professed choice on the ticket those who usually don’t vote may still stay true to form and still not be bothered to make the effort on election day. As usual.
The Biden theory, based his appeal to more reliable voting demographics, including some who were Obama-Trump, is that he delivers swingable votes who would not vote for a hard-line progressive. And each vote switched for R to D is of twice the impact as one switched from nonvoting to D. He also appeals more to some who had been Obama-nonvoting. Under this theory the choice between Trump and any D (excepting maybe Gabbard) is so stark, so fundamental, that when the day comes anyone who doesn’t vote D pretty much no matter who the nominee is, would probably not vote even if their preferred candidate was the nominee. Answer a poll however they want they are nonvoters. The voters to pull in who won’t be pulled in by another are those who vote more reliably, and need a non-Trump choice they can accept.
Which theory is correct? Which one is correct specifically in the electorally key states? I’m not sure. I don’t think Sanders is unelectable but I’m not so sure about betting it all on successfully getting nonvoters to vote.
They’ve campaigned together previously. She’s appeared on the networks promoting him and slamming Biden and Buttigieg. But this is pedantic. The point I was making was regarding the “big tent” comment. Moderates and centrists have been shamed by progressive left pundits since 2016 but more Democrats actually identify as moderate than progressive. Moderate is liberal. A Biden presidency or Buttigieg presidency or Klobuchar presidency or Bloomberg presidency builds on the social progress the party has made in Civil Rights, LGBTQ matters, healthcare, education, gun control and immigration. You don’t win elections by shutting out a big voting bloc. Obama won two elections winning the crucial swing states. Hillary was what … 70k short in three states? We can do it again.
Ok, here’s something not pedantic: will accepting Rogan’s “endorsement” stop her from being his surrogate? It’s certainly possible but I get the feeling real world has slowly been creeping into our fiery first term Congresswoman.
And a Sanders presidency would take on the critical and existential issues of industrial pollution/climate change, rapacious medical debt and medical/insurance companies literally bleeding the life out of Americans, and a tiny handful of people wealthy beyond all imagining escaping anything remotely resembling fair taxation, while average people get a pineapple rammed up their ass by the IRS.
More than that, though, Sanders actually gets people excited. Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Biden get exactly three people excited, and I just named them.
Yes and I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. I don’t think he’ll actually get anywhere near what he is promising as our system of government means compromise is necessary somewhere down the line, gridlock will occur, and we need to win a majority in the Senate which looks unlikely at the moment, but I’ll vote for him.
I agree with all this. Sanders and I agree on far, far more stuff than Biden; but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna rationalize a belief that he’ll stand a better chance against Trump than Biden would. That question keeps me up at night.
HOWEVER, if he would stand a better chance, polls showing a chunk of his supporters who wouldn’t support other Democrats would be exactly the evidence you’d find of his increased chances. So when moderates hold that up as evidence of the whinybutt nature of his supporters, that doesn’t really speak much to me.
Joe Rogan says that Biden, Warren and Mayor Pete has asked to be on his show, but he hasn’t allowed it. He says in this clip that he likes Tulsi and Bernie. In another clip later, he added Yang, saying he forgot to add him.
Do you really think Biden who is the only major candidate not to appear on Pod Save America (hosted by ex Obama WH staffers) since he’s been a candidate would have asked to go on Rogan?
I call BS on that. Ditto with Warren because Rogan’s crowd is not her crowd. It’s cool promotion for Rogan to make that lie up.
I’ve never listened to Rogan. That’s been on purpose. He sounds like a clueless blowhard to me who can’t tell the difference between a socialist and a nazi, as long as they’re not mainstream.
I still don’t think Sanders should turn down the nomination. Turn down the nominations of actual Nazis, sure–but someone dumb enough not to know the difference? Nah.
Yup, I do. Bernie’s interview with Rogan now stands at 11M views. It was near 10M a couple days after it aired. In contrast, I read one estimate of the December debate viewership to be between 5-6M. Even with video clips and MSM airtime later, the debates may reach a bit over 10M.
Joe Rogan’s subscriber base is 7.3M. Most of his interviews get millions of views.
Pod Save America’s subscriber base on youtube is 114K. The podcast (audio only) averages 1.5M listens per episode back in 2017. The highest viewed youtube on quick glance was Rachel Maddow at 218K.
As you say, the audience for Joe Rogan is not the same as the MSM audience. If one 2 hour interview could get Biden access to a completely different audience in numbers that rivals MSM, I think at least his campaign might have been interested at one time. Warren has been on The Breakfast Club. I don’t know if that’s her crowd, but I think most candidates want to get in front of as many diverse large crowds as possible to increase the diversity of their voter base.
I won’t shed a tear if Biden crashes and burns. But I see no way Sanders beats Trump. Maybe Warren or Klobuchar can beat Trump. Yang might beat Trump if by a miracle he is the nominee
Sanders has a chance to beat Trump right up until it sinks in that he wants to radically overhaul the healthcare system and that he can no longer be dismissed as some crotchety old gadfly who’s fighting the Democratic establishment machine. Warren and Klobuchar don’t have the personality to deal with Trump, and in particular, Warren’s “I am woman, hear me roar” moment seems to have not only not worked but quite possibly backfired.
I think the only guy running who has the potential to be considered a serious candidate and possesses the ability to go toe to toe with Trump is Bloomberg. Being a real billionaire is Trump’s kryptonite. And Bloomberg has balls.
Also, if Sanders does well in New Hanpshire, Trump will send a bunch of his idiot friends (Arpaio, maybe) to Russia to confer with government officials that have evidence of Sanders being a lifelong communist agent or something. And half the country will be cool with it.
Estimates about who’s best to beat Trump are mostly wild guesses at this point. It’s entirely possible that there are millions of non voters who will come out for Bernie but no one else. Or not. We just don’t know.
I dunno. I’m not sure he can win but I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. I’m surprised and a little impressed that he kept it under wraps for so long, he had everything ready when he announced.
It’s like he’s playing moneyball while everyone else is playing by gut instinct and tradition. I read somewhere (sorry, no cite) that the Bloomberg campaign has a set of messages that they believe will move 10-15% of the population that voted for Trump in 2016. Those kind of precise numbers make me believe they’ve actually run a good deal of focus groups on this already.
It’s possible that nobody wins enough delegates before the convention. If there’s no clear winner, then the party leaders would probably take the candidate who’s got the most momentum and try to work something out that’s as palatable as possible for the close-but-not-quite candidates.
A bigger concern is whether Bernie’s legion of loyal voters, many of whom are sworn enemies of the billionaire class, could bring themselves to get out and vote for a
billionaire were he to be the nominee.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves - lots of ifs, ands, and buts at this point. Currently, Biden is a fragile front runner and Bernie is in second and surging. South Carolina could become the state to watch, not so much because I predict Bernie to actually overtake Biden there, but that he could make it close in a state that Biden’s supposed to dominate - so close that donors begin to rethink their allegiance to Biden going into Super Tuesday.
The problem is, anyone who’s pledged support for Biden now would need to pivot quickly if they wanted to reconsider. There’s a LOT riding on the line in this year’s Super Tuesday.