TV says Warren is dropping out.
WaPo reporting it as well
I post this with an apology for not having read the previous near-4,000 posts in the thread, and in full knowledge of the eyerolls this will generate regardless. But as a Brit watching this from afar, largely disinterestedly and through the lens of this board, I can’t help but feel that since the Democrats have had 3.5 years to come up with an alternative to Trump, how come Biden is the best they’ve got?
I tend to think he is more likely to stand a chance against Trump than Sanders - as we have found in the UK recently, winning elections isn’t about idealism and sticking to your principles, it’s about winning over the moderates. If Sanders gets the nomination, the Democrats will be making exactly the same catastrophic mistake as the UK Labour party did in sticking with Corbyn as leader. They are both, quite simply, unelectable.
The other recent drop-outs obviously have their own ‘problems’ - in particular, a lot of ‘middle America’ (if that term has any meaning - apologies if not) may well vote for Trump over a woman, or a homosexual man. Which is a great shame, obviously, but it’s what we have to deal with.
I suppose my question boils down to: why wasn’t Bloomberg seen as a better candidate than Biden? Is it largely because the Democratic party faithful are too left-wing to back a billionaire?
Hoo boy. A perfectly valid question and worthy of its own multi-page thread. I ask myself the same question: Seriously? This is the best we can do?
It may partly be that there’s a sense of entitlement with regards to Bernie & Biden. Bernie (some feel) may not have been treated fairly in 2016, and (some feel) that he brings a lot of enthusiasm and fresh ideas (a theory not borne out by Tuesday’s results). And Biden…it’s his turn. He should have run in 2016 but took himself out of the race after the death of his son (think how the world would be different otherwise) and now Democrats owe him another shot.
Given that there were 25 or so candidates in the first debate, this doesn’t seem to have stifled the competition, but it may have been the reason why a dozen of perfectly viable candidates never got any traction.
Regarding Bloomberg, I believe a big part of why he didn’t do well was his history of being a Republican in the past. There was also the perception that he was trying to buy the election.
As far as the other moderates in the race, I think what happened is that there were too many of them for too long. If the debate stage last fall had been Biden, Sanders, Warren, and 4 or 5 middle of the road candidates, one of those middle of the road candidates would have had a better chance to break through. Instead there were something like 12 other candidates, and with that big a field no one was able to take command of the race. Obama only had to worry about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Bill Clinton also had a relatively small field to contend against. Had either of them been running against a 16 candidate field, they would have been a lot less likely to win the nomination.
I have no answer for the rest of your post, but I can certainly see why Democrats did not glom on to a (much-of-the-time) elderly white New Yorker Republican billionaire known for locker-room jokes, sexual harassment/hostile workplace, and potentially racist police policies; who thinks the answer to all of society’s ills (guns, sodas, cigarettes, etc.) is to just ban the fuckers “because he can.”
We already have an elderly white New Yorker (sometime) Republican billionaire known for locker-room jokes, sexual harassment/hostile workplace, and possibly racist person in the White House. Why elect another?
I agree she doesn’t help with electability but she does potentially bring Bernie some new groups like college-educated women and she will be a great surrogate who can attack Biden on the campaign trail and on TV. Plus picking her will change the narrative and earn a lot of free media.
What are Bernie’s other options? A ticket with Stacey Abrams? Sherrod Brown? Both could be interesting. Whatever it is I think Bernie needs a big move, like a left unity ticket, to change the narrative. He will no doubt unload a lot of attack ads on Biden and hope for a strong debate performance but my hunch is that won’t be enough.
Because Biden is a excellent candidate, despite what you may hear from the Bernie-bros. He does well with minorities, he is a moderate, and people like him.
*The American people will be FAR more likely to give Democrats control of Senate with Biden vs. other candidates
We on the left all love positions and various attributes of Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, etc. but let’s face it – some key demographics of this country aren’t ready for it. The 2016 elections were decided by around 3 points. Independents, Christians, Senior Citizens, the South, etc. Swing elections. Biden appeals to all of these demographics, while other candidates were very polarizing among them.
With Recession before elections almost certain, Wall Street will take Biden seriously as someone in power when the country was pulled out of the last recession
Similar to point one, but an important difference. “Wall Street” support – which is a way of saying the capitalist establishment, will 100% support Biden over Trump. Those in power understand that they have had a feeding frenzy for the last 3 years, and that it’s time to get serious again and focus on the fundamentals of this country and its infrastructure, organizations, and mechanisms.
Obama and his coalition will activate to defeat Trump
We will see it as soon as today, the Obama machine (which is considerable) will activate for Joe. Prior to Super Tuesday, this would have been a bad idea and risky, as it was important to Obama (based on statements) that the primaries be fair and unencumbered with bias. Despite outcry, Tom Perez has done a fairly decent job of this, and Obama has done a great job staying out of the fray. That will change today.
It’s not about Biden as president, it is appointing who he appoints
The biggest swaths of damage that Trump is responsible for isn’t just in his actions, it is in who he appoints. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to SCOTUS, Pruitt to EPA, DeVoss to education, Zinke and Bernhardt to the interior, and any magnate or lobbyist who could gain from sacking their department as appointment to every department. The damage that three years of this has done to our country will be felt for decades. Biden already has a mechanism in place to restore these agencies by choosing people he knows, has worked with, and understands how to reverse that damage in place.
The debates will be hilarious
While Joe isn’t known for being the most erudite individual, he does have a quick wit when it comes to debates. He knows he can goad Trump into hilarious outbursts that will only emphasize Trump’s weak and petulant persona.
Joe Biden is the best chance at getting an obstructionist GOP Senate to work with him."*
And, oh Brit- look at your current PM and the “best” the opposition could come up vs him.:rolleyes: First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye!
Let’s not forget that his “strategy” amounted to buying a lottery ticket. He skipped the first few contests to go all-in on Super Tuesday. Deliberately passing up chances to win votes because you’re afraid the outcome won’t look good for you is not a great way to demonstrate how electable you are.
Sounds like Bernie is conceding the south and going all in on the midwest. Biden vote for NAFTA/involvement in TPP will come under scrutiny.
Why does he need options? People rarely pick their running mates halfway through the primaries and I don’t remember those cases ending well.
Bernie writing off the South is a real sign of desperation.
I can’t see them wanting to jump on that sinking ship, and I doubt Warren really wants to either. I suspect she will just not endorse anyone. She may even endorse Biden!
The main reason Bloomberg crashed and burned is really his personality. He has no charisma. When people hear “billionaire” they expect swagger. They expect a persona that radiates success and confidence. Mike Bloomberg is the EXACT opposite of that persona. If he weren’t a billionaire, I don’t think he could even get a date with a woman.
Thank you very much for all the replies, they are extremely helpful and informative.
I just wanted to respond to this one in particular:
Maybe we’re just talking past each other, but that was my point - the UK currently has a prime minister who is a serial liar, womaniser, and buffoon (among other things - I’m trying to stick purely to the facts), and yet he was still elected instead of Corbyn. If Sanders wins the nomination, something similar could happen in the US. So basically, my hope is that the US Democratic Party doesn’t make the same mistake the UK Labour Party did.
It seems Biden does have a decent chance of defeating Trump, I guess I was just saying it’s a shame he isn’t a bit more inspiring, younger, and a better public speaker.
No. Bloomberg was always the emergency parachute. When Biden bounced back in South Carolina and party support poured in, it wasn’t needed.
I think you’re partially correct. At the debates, everyone saw that the parachute was full of holes, so moderates had to rally around someone else. Bloomberg didn’t fail because Biden bounced back, Biden bounced back because Bloomberg failed. You could see Biden’s surge starting in Nevada where he over performed the polls.
(on Bernie being the top second choice)
I just don’t trust hypothetical polls. And I believe the people pushing the theory were only citing one poll. Anyone could clearly see from Iowa’s numbers that Sanders didn’t have a lot of second choice support.
My man Joe has been kicking some serious ass. Hawaii’s primary is in about a month, and I can’t wait to vote for him.
The departure of Elizabeth Warren has unleashed a torrent of punditry this week, on women and the presidency. All warranted, of course, but:
Amy Klobuchar, who actually got more votes and more delegates than Warren, must be thinking “what am I…chopped liver?”
One author said: this shows that America is not ready for a woman president. Completely ignoring the fact that a woman won the popular vote 4 years ago.
This is not true at all. Warren received almost 1.8 million votes and 69 delegates before dropping out. Klobuchar didn’t even crack 400,000 votes and only got 7 delegates.
I simply don’t understand why people think Klobuchar is a quality candidate. She performed terribly, at the polls, on the debate stage and on the campaign trail. She is *absolutely *a hot dish of chopped liver.