It’s not that much of an outlier, it has Bernie only five points ahead of his national polling average and everyone else closer to their average than that.
You have a point about national polls, but if you don’t like Bernie, the Super Tuesday polls definitely aren’t going to be any more to your liking.
In 2016, the Democrats managed to nominate the only person in America who could lose to Donald Trump. :smack: It feels like we’re careening down that same path again. There are dozens of nice moderate Democrats with good records, middle-of-the-road programs and no baggage. A lot of them ran for President and would’ve crushed Trump like a bug. Why didn’t any of them gain traction? WT-actual-F?
I don’t know. Perhaps those crazy voters actually want health care, a healthy planet, a living wage, immigration reform, & the richest and corporations to finally start paying their fair share.
Which basically all of the dem candidates are for. Warren is for them with positions that are nearly identical to Bernie.
I’m starting to think that:
(a) there’s a near-conspiracy among the right to be ultra-nice to Bernie, including defending him from all attackers and not bringing up any dirt on him, until/unless he becomes the candidate. If there’s anyone Putin wants aid right now it’s Bernie.
and
(b) the only way the dems win is if Warren becomes the nominee, in some fashion where the Bernie supporters don’t feel like their guy got cheated. She’s progressive enough for them to happily vote for, but doesn’t have the ridiculous Trotskyite past that Bernie does.
Crossing my fingers that I’m wrong…
Warren was definitely my 2nd choice. A close 2nd. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like she’s going to get even close to the nomination.
They do. Until somebody yells “hey! that’s socialism!” and the voters get scared and run away.
It doesn’t seem likely that the electorate will go “Eh. We tried fascism for 4 years, let’s give socialism a try.”
The level of negativity and hand-wringing about Bernie on this board is reaching comical proportions.
We’re talking about a guy who became mayor of Burlington in a stunning upset that made national headlines…
then, a few years later, flipped a Congressional seat that had been Republican for thirty years…
successfully passed more roll call amendments than any other member of Congress during the twelve years in which he served in a GOP-controlled Congress…
then proceeded to flip a Senate seat that had been Republican for a HUNDRED years, going on to become more popular in his home State than any other Senator…
then ran for President, started out at 2% in the polls and wound up with 42% of the vote…
and is now the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has the best approval ratings of any Democratic candidate, and according to the polls would be a heavy favorite against Trump.
But people keep blithering on about “it’s just name recognition!” and “just wait till the voters find out he’s a socialist!”. At what point are people going to consider the possibility that this guy is actually really, really good at politics?
The SDMB in 2040:
“We’re doomed if we nominate Ocasio-Cortez! She’s too far left! Sure, President Sanders was elected twice on a Socialist platform, but that doesn’t count because he was a political genius! Everyone said so at the time!”
Once the race moves to the general, the activists lose their influence. It’s easier for activists to take over a left-leaning party, particularly in this polarized environment. It’s an entirely different challenge to energize voters who don’t consider themselves ideological. Bernie’s advantage is that he’s offering something of value; the problem is, eventually, people are going to start thinking about the logistics, about trading one insurance scheme for another, about paying higher taxes for it, about how $15 minimum wages will make them pay more to eat out, and all that. The only way a candidate like Bernie beats Trump is if he can convince people that the economic system is so badly fucked that we need a new president, not just 4 years from now but right now.
That doesn’t seem likely given the current economic growth we’ve seen.
Yeah.Donald Trump has an approval rating of 54% on the economy which is 10 points higher than his general approval rating. Does that sound like a country which wants an economic “revolution”? I think leftists have this vision of the American economy as a disaster zone with an oppressed population yearning for a socialist saviour. In the real world the US economy does have some problems but overall is healthy and has been chugging along nicely for ten years. American voters want a party that will fix the problems not initiate a revolution.
Incidentally I disagree with most of you about Biden and why he has flopped. I think over his career he has proved himself to be an able campaigner. I wouldn’t hold his earlier primary defeats against him much; there are many good politicians whose primary campaigns have fizzled out like Cory Booker this time. But this one was different. Biden had a big advantage in 2020 because of his stature as a successful VP. So why did he fail this time? Simply age. He is a shadow of his former self and it’s quite obvious. Just watch him in the VP debate against Ryan who is not a bad debater himself and note how confident and energetic he is. I think the 2012 Biden would have won this nomination comfortably and gone on to beat Trump. Biden was also hurt by the primary calendar. If South Carolina was first he would probably have won it and remained front-runner. But ultimately it’s his age that hurt him most. Of course Bernie is even older but age-related decline can be unpredictable and with Biden it seems to have happened more quickly.
The thing is that even with his obvious decline I still think Biden is the least bad option for the Democrats going forward but it doesn’t look like he will get the chance to prove it.
I really wouldn’t write off Biden just yet. And if I didn’t like Bernie, I’d be pulling hard for him, because there is no way in hell Bloomberg can win the Democratic nomination in 2020 and Buttigieg and Klobuchar are super long shots. My guess is that after last night’s debate, many of the voters who recently moved from Biden to Bloomberg will be moving right back. With a win in South Carolina, he could be right back in it.
Interesting factoid: I’m sure it’s a coincidence, but the chances, according to Betfair, each of seven people have to win the nomination have exactly the same ordering ranks (with one exception) as their gender and age. Sanders is the oldest and is in 1st place, Bloomberg 2nd oldest and in 2nd place, and so on. Here’s the list of all 7 with 0.4% chance or better, with birth-month and Betfair’s estimate of chance to win the nomination. All four men are ahead of all three women.
Sanders 9.1941 48.3%
Bloomberg 2.1942 17.7%
Buttigieg 1.1982 10.3%
Biden 11.1942 6.5%
Clinton 10.1947 2.3%
Warren 6.1949 2.3%
Klobuchar 5.1960 0.4%
The exception is that the 3rd and 4th oldest men appear reversed, in 4th and 3rd places.
Clinton has good ideas and experience, some charisma, and might allow herself to be drafted; perhaps she really is a long-shot compromise if the Convention is hopelessly divided. (I’d better not say more, I was reprimanded in another thread yesterday for “sexism” in suggesting someone with a famous spouse for President. :smack: )
I took the time to list his record-setting 21 enacted roll-call amendments. I’m not qualified to evaluate them, but none was just “renaming a post office.”
[ul]
[li] To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect Medicaid beneficiaries from benefit cuts.[/li][li] To require the non-partisan Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that does not interfere with monetary policy, to let the American people know the names of the recipients of over $2 Billion in taxpayer assistance from the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes.[/li][li] To prohibit funds made available in this Act from being used to implement a rule or regulation related to certain petitions for aliens to perform temporary labor in the United States.[/li][li] To establish the American Competitiveness Scholarship Program.[/li][li] At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide for the competitive sourcing of flight service stations.”[/li][li] At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: \ TITLE VI–ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS \ PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS BY THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A LONG-TERM LOAN OR LOAN GUARANTEE WITH RESPECT TO A NUCLEAR PROJECT IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA \ SEC. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to approve an application for a long-term loan or loan guarantee with respect to a nuclear project in the People’s Republic of China.[/li][li] To prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).[/li][li] At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: \ SEC. . None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained in the Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered on July 31, 2003, in the action entitled Kathi Cooper, Beth Harrington, and Matthew Hillesheim, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated vs. IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corporation (Civil No. 99-829-GPM).[/li][li] Amendment increases funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) program and the Weatherization Assistance program.[/li][li] At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: \ LIMITATION ON PROVISION BY EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF CREDIT TO ENTITIES REINCORPORATING OVERSEAS \ SEC. . None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to approve an application for a master guarantee and political risk supplement where the applicant’s charter or articles of incorporation show that the entity is incorporated or chartered in Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, or Panama.[/li][li] At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: \ SEC. 742. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained in the Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered on July 31, 2003, in the action entitled Kathi Cooper, Beth Harrington, and Matthew Hillesheim, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated vs. IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corporation (Civil No. 99- 829-GPM).[/li][li] Amendment prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from using any funds for activities that violate current pension age discrimination laws.[/li][li] Amendment prohibits the use of NIH funding to grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license pursuant to chapter 18 of title 35, USC, except in accordance with section 209 of such title (relating to the availability to the public of an invention and its benefits on reasonable terms).[/li][li] Amendment increases funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program by $13 million and reduces Strategic Petroleum Reserve funding accordingly.[/li][li] Amendment increases Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funding by $20 million; provides $30 million for deficit reduction; and reduces fossil energy research and development funding by $50 million.[/li][li] Amendment increases the Bureau of Land Management Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funding by $20 million.[/li][li] Amendment increases funding for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative by $1 million.[/li][li] Amendment increases funding for the Court of Veterans Appeals by $1.4 million and reduces funding for HUD salaries and expenses by $1.4 million.[/li][li] Amendment transfers $11.7 million from the Naval Petroleum Reserve into the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program.[/li][li] Amendment prohibits the use of any funds in connection with the obligation or expenditure of funds in the exchange stabilization fund.[/li][li] Amendment transfers $2 million from the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Interior to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.[/li][/ul]
Biden had his best performance in Las Vegas, and I don’t mean just his best debate performance - that was his best theater throughout this entire campaign. He had energy. He had some passion. He looked like he didn’t quite give a shit how words came out of his mouth - that’s what voters want to see. He’s been making the exact same mistake that Hillary Clinton made in 2016, with advisers telling him to pretend like he doesn’t have competition and advising him to lay low, which is terrible advice. People want to see the real deal. Maybe this past debate was a sign of things to come. Or maybe not. Or maybe it’s too late to stop the Bernie machine.
I fervently hope you’re right. But I suspect that Bernie is the Democratic mirror of Trump: wildly popular amongst a subset of his party (for Trump, it’s larger relative subset), but whose popularity may not translate to the general public. Do we have any polls of what Independents and Future Former Republicans think about Sanders? He’s going to need those in the general.
I just heard (NPR, yesterday) about the impact of super-delegates at the convention. For others who need to catch up: super delegates (700) can’t vote on the first ballot. But if no candidate has a majority on the first ballot – which seems a distinct possibility at this point – they get to vote, and they will certainly have an impact. We could see a candidate chosen in a smoke-filled room, just like the good ol’ days. (Not coincidentally: at the debate, the question was asked: should the convention choose the candidate who has the most delegates (not the majority). Not surprisingly, everybody said “No! Let the process work!” except Bernie.
Moreover, what does it say about the entire democratic party if it’s led by someone who calls himself a democratic socialist? It’s quite possible, if not probable, that Sanders’ nomination could have down-ballot consequences, which is probably why there’s talk of denying Sanders the nomination if he doesn’t win a majority of delegates.
I give up. What does it say?
If he has a clear plurality, denying him the nomination will probably doom the party to no chance of winning the WH, much less the Senate.
A non-majority plurality still means that a majority preferred someone else. He would not be being denied any more than Warren or Klobuchar would be. You are not the nominee without a majority of the delegates who can vote choosing you. Barring additional information there is as much chance that just giving it to him without a majority support would doom the party to no chance of winning the WH, much less the Senate, pissing off even more people.
Staying true to the pre set established rules is not intrinsically “unfair” based on the fact that your side does not come out on top.
Or after the siblings bicker they unite to fight the shared threat to the family, hell to the planet.
The unwashed masses want exciting proposals not dull incremental changes.
At this point I would consider voting for Bloomberg if he has the best plan to address the 502 server error issue.:mad: