Thankfully Obama’s not nearly dumb enough to try this kind of nonsense. Some Democrats can’t seem to comprehend even the possibility that their party might be changing. Face it – Bernie might be the nominee. And he might win the general. Any predictions about being unelectable are wild, wild guesses, not based on any data at all.
James Clyburn with some praise for Bernie, even if it’s far from unreserved: Rep. Jim Clyburn says Sanders 'brings a lot to the table'
I predict that the Democratic “establishment” is slowly getting comfortable with the likelihood that Bernie could be the nominee, and we’ll see more and more appearances and statements like this from prominent long-time Democrats. And if Bernie becomes the nominee, Obama will lead the charge with an enthusiastic endorsement.
I am amazed that the centrist wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party’s candidate for the upcoming presidential election.
Truly amazed.
You do realize the author of that article is a Republican.
There is no wing of the Democratic party saying that, pretty much openly or otherwise.
If it were only Democrats making the choice, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But, give the settled state of the other party’s contest, I’m quite apprehensive about cross-voting.
I am amazed that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is pretty much openly saying that Democratic primary voters cannot be allowed to choose the party’s candidate for the upcoming presidential election.
I think you’re kidding yourself. Low information voters are just going to say “Sanders is a communist and I ain’t voting for any commie” and that’ll be the end of it. They won’t listen to what Sanders is saying and they wouldn’t understand it if they did. They’ll line up to vote for Trump again.
I disagree. I think there are a lot of voters who want a mainstream candidate. In fact, that’s why some candidates are mainstream. These voters will be equally unhappy with a right wing extremist like Trump or a left wing extremist like Sanders. How will they end up voting? Who knows. It’ll be a flip of the coin.
If you gave these people a choice between a nutcase like Trump and a safe candidate like Biden, they’d rush to vote for Biden. And the left wing extremists and the anti-Trump crowd aren’t going to vote for Trump, so they’d grudgingly vote for Biden as well.
That’s what has worked for the Democrats; pick nice safe moderates like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (and Al Gore and Hillary Clinton if you go by the popular vote). The moderates vote for them by choice and the left wing says “Ugh. But they’re still better than the Republican.” and unhappily votes for them.
The Republicans have gone the opposite way. They reject the middle and proudly brag about how extreme they are. And the result? The Republican nominee has lost six of the last seven Presidential elections. The only reason the Republicans have elected a President since the eighties is because they’ve rigged the system.
And what are the Democrats doing this year? They’re trying to follow the Republican extremist strategy (which fails) without the Republican cheating strategy (which works). If Sanders is nominated, I predict a Trump victory.
The burden isn’t on Obama, it’s on the rest of the Democratic fields. You have the moderate lane with Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Biden. At least two of them have got to get out of Dodge after Super Tuesday. I’d like it to be Bernie v Biden mano a mano for the second half of the primaries. Sure Bernie has the support of the youngsters who never vote. Screw that. He would be eaten alive and spat out in the general, not because Donald is an evil genius, but because the oppo research on him requires a forklift to move around. Socialism socialism socialism communism socialism… that’s all we’re going to hear. For some fucked up reason we expect Democrats to explain all their policies down to the 9th decimal point but Republicans get to run on vapid slogans like MAGA.
“Amazed” is an interesting way to put your reaction to an incorrect paraphrase of something that Sander’s campaign manager said in 2016.
If they’re that low information, they’ll say that about anyone, because Trump’s gonna call them all “communists.” You’re proposing that there are significant numbers of folks just high information enough to know about Sanders’s Democratic Socialist label, but not high information enough to know that that’s not communist, and that this group is a group that otherwise would’ve voted for a Democratic candidate, and that they’re not outnumbered by the people who wouldn’t vote for an establishment Democratic candidate but would vote for someone with outsider cred like Sanders has.
You may think I’m kidding myself, and that’s awesome. But I don’t see any evidence to back up your proposal.
Strongly concur.
Super Tuesday is a week from Tuesday. IA, NH, and NV collectively determine 101 convention delegates; SC has another 54. Then on March 3, 1,344 delegates are up for grabs. When we wake up ten days from now, we’ll know exactly where the race is, and one of the most likely outcomes is that Bernie will be ahead by a mile.
And if that happens, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party had better be ready to rally around him. No matter how much they don’t care for Sanders, if the alternative is Trump, we will need a united party behind him.
I’m not keen on Sanders, tbh. I don’t see how 2021 goes well for him. But 2021 will be far worse if Trump is re-elected, and that’s what we all will have to focus on.
In my post I pointed out the pattern that’s been established in every presidential election since 1992 and predicted it’s going to happen again. Which is, you know, evidence.
But you’re saying this election will be different. Can you explain to us what evidence you based this belief on?
I did. And he proved to be. He even killed a high school friend of mine, just to be an asshole.
I’ll never understand the Democratic establishment’s obsession with trying to win “swing voters” and suburban whites when the candidates who get nominated on those grounds consistently lose.
I’d rather have an Obama this year than a Gore, Kerry, or Hillary - and Sanders is the most Obama-like candidate in the field.
Good suggestion for people who consider self-identify as progressives, but there’s a good chance that Democrats will need some independents to win.
If you run a campaign that prioritizes swing voters, yes, you lose. The trick is to appeal to the base enough to get them out to the polls while not scaring off apolitical voters.
Sanders is going to sell radically remaking the healthcare system to the American public.
Yes basically. And as it relates to Obama, all that article says is ‘imagine if he came out strong for Pete or Joe or Amy’. Which would be reasonable if he wanted to do that. It doesn’t suggest Obama get involved in nefarious behind the scenes screwing of Sanders.
But, this really isn’t Obama’s problem. The motivation to get involved that way in the real world of self interest, I don’t see it. Ok publicly Obama like any Democrat would agree Trump is terrible, but as a sober thinking person doesn’t necessarily believe ‘the Republic is at risk’ etc. to the degree breathless social media/internet type activist progressives do (or say anyway). Plus it’s not actually 100% obvious Sanders is less electable (I would guess he is substantially less electable, but I realize it’s a guess). Plus, Obama has a history of being an excellent vote getter for himself but much less able to influence elections in favor of others. He’d be taking a big risk of endorsing non-Sanders and Sanders does really well anyway, and lose the fairly united respect admiration among Democrats he has now. If I were him I wouldn’t go near it.
The person with the direct personal interest in ‘taking down’ Sanders, and willing to spend $100’s mil on his messages…is Bloomberg. Of course, Bloomberg doesn’t hold a candle to Obama in general credibility with Democrats in a straight up comparison of one media cycle or maybe press coverage of Obama going to a few rallies v Bloomberg just saying something at a rally. But Bloomberg can bombard the airwaves with anti-Sanders ads, like in the ST places he’s bought virtually all the air time. Would that slow down Sanders much? Maybe not, but at least I can see why Bloomberg might want to do this. Can’t see why Obama would want to get involved trying to micromanage rather than just support whoever the nominee is.
Why do you guys always assume that a moderate will outcompete the liberal?
In the last 5 presidential elections, each time we picked the moderate over the liberal candidate in teh primary, that candidate lost the general.
Gore beat Bradley in the primary, lost the general. Kerry beat Dean in the primary, lost the general. Clinton beat Sanders in the primary, lost the general.
Obama wasn’t a liberal, but he was to the left of Clinton. He won both the primary and the general.
Either way, point being there are risks to every choice.
Sanders may reduce turnout among whites in the suburbs, but he will increase turnout among liberals, disaffected voters and young voters. Buttigieg may be more appealing to moderate republicans and suburban voters but less appealing to the other groups I just listed.
And if you guys really want Sanders to go away, there is an easy answer. Actually tackle the problems that are making him so popular. We live in a plutocratic nation where nobody is standing up to corporate power when they fuck over the public. Housing, health care, education, telecommunication, energy, the financial sector, etc. the public keep seeing the damage caused by oligarchy, plutocracy and regulatory capture in all these areas. The GOP are full on plutocrats while the democrats are timid, cowardly and passive. People are tired of choosing between a party that lets the rich rule everything and a party that is timid and spineless, and only nibbles around the edges of the countries serious problems.
You can’t just write off his voters, because the problems that are making Sanders so popular aren’t going away. Even if you manage to crush Sanders, the problems that make him popular will just find another voice and another outlet.
Im just a spectator here but from what I can read , I get the impression that the DNC’s plan A is anybody but Sanders, and Plan B is to tank the election and concentrate on holding the line on the house and possibly make gains in the senate.
I make no such assumption. I just look at the poly sci evidence on House races, where there is an actual reasonable sample size, and note the direction.
Could it be that House races are different from presidential?
Yes. There is a slight possibility that can’t be measured.
Totally agree.
Sounds correct but the disaffected, whose turnout is juiced by a leftist Democrat, will tilt Trump.
I think what makes him popular, among Democrats, is insufficient attention on their part to foreign news. Otherwise, when Corbyn went down, they would have abandoned Bernie.
As for the idea that if America had more social democratic policies, left of center parties wouldn’t nominate a man of woman of the left, with all due respect, that’s silly. British Labour is the first example that comes to mind.
Also, we have another candidate, Senator Warren, who stands up to corporate power but could fairly easily pivot to the center, after winning the nomination, by pointing to her formerly being a Republican. In the unlikely event she wins the nomination, she should claim that the GOP lost her when it moved to the radical right. Maybe she wouldn’t do that – one reason I don’t see any candidate as safe.
If the Democrats instead nominate a former Trotskyite who is still wedded to terms like socialism, and even revolution, well, yes, it is possible they will win, and even conceivable that Trump will vacate the White House. It is just less likely.
Re the OP idea, where Obama and friends gang up on Sanders after he got a plurality of the Democratic votes in multiple states, that would violate democratic norms and could backfire.