|
If you think it won't apply in 2020 that's a possibility, sure.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
My assumption is that Bernie will play to win from the start this time and actually campaign in the south while also benefiting from the absence or crippling of the Clinton machine + his current work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Personally ( while I still like Bernie Sanders ) I'm kinda bummed Buttigieg hasn't gone after other advancement opportunities, to my knowledge. I Like Butt, but maybe for 2028, not 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, he polled much better with whites way quicker and his polling among older whites was much closer. He was only pulling up next to Hillary by much later the primaries among non-white youth while whites got on board quick. Lumping all ages 18-44 together obliterates the age demographic data that refutes this narrative (but having seen my previous post showing he won African American 18-29 year olds you knew this already). Setting that aside the top-right graph clearly indicates that he was pulling even with Clinton even among the 18-44 demographic so the reasonable conclusion is that the biggest factor predicting support for him is age, not race. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:a similar dynamic was at play in Bernie's similarly devastating loss in the "democrats who think black people are inferior to white people" demographic. hillary carried them by a tremendous margin. i suspect this was not due to some deep and abiding fear among their number that Bernie would show untoward favor to black people. Yea exactly there's a ton of other factors and the obsession some people have of chalking up primary polling to Bernie giving off the impression that he's a racist is just weird. You could make the exact same argument that more-racist voters supported Clinton so she must have put on a convincing show of being a racist yet somehow that's never suggested. Also let's look at Bernie's approval just a few months after the election  African Americans love him more than whites do, and he hits the same highs with them Clinton did in the 2016 primary, really weird that these "concerns" about minority support persist. And his approval rating has held steady, there's no crosstabs on this one that I can find, but just today Morning Consult found he's the most popular senator in the country
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Personally ( I'm extremely confused about why people like him or think he's presidential material. He's the mayor of a mid-size, extremely blue town and has no other real experience or policy accomplishments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:My assumption is that Bernie will play to win from the start this time and actually campaign in the south while also benefiting from the absence or crippling of the Clinton machine + his current work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I'm extremely confused about why people like him or think he's presidential material. He's the mayor of a mid-size, extremely blue town and has no other real experience or policy accomplishments. I emphatically do not think he is presidential material yet, but I think he's well-equipped to seek state or federal office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I'm extremely confused about why people like him or think he's presidential material. He's the mayor of a mid-size, extremely blue town and has no other real experience or policy accomplishments. If you can't appreciate a funny name I don't understand what you even see in this forum
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:He is, already had faildems in south carolina whining about his campaigning not helping. Oh yeah definitely get ready for the usual suspects to complain that he's coming to the south and doing the things they complained he wasn't coming to the south and doing last time around. There's already been a few succ dem supporters in here bitching that Bernie and AOC went to Kansas to talk to voters a few months ago instead of ignoring them/staying out of the way of machine politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Do you guys really think bernie is going to face up against trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Hard to say, the DNC is going to try real hard to soft-rig it again, they might succeed in putting up another pathetic loser to ensure Trump gets reelected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh yeah definitely get ready for the usual suspects to complain that he's coming to the south and doing the things they complained he wasn't coming to the south and doing last time around. I would like to politely suggest that we make an effort here to not import other thread drama. and not just because there's a nonzero risk of you and I getting simultaneous week-long probations at some point (also I haven't actually seen that particular bitching but sure, presumably it's a thing) LeoMarr posted:Do you guys really think bernie is going to face up against trump Personally I'm more interested in learning about the lesser-known candidates (ie, uh, everyone except Biden edit and sanders duh), but I think there's a pretty fair chance 2020 is Trump v Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
did somebody say "Bernie Sanders??"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
I wish there was someone else besides Bernie who could pull the party convincingly leftwards as I think there's a lot of suburbanites who, for better or for worse, think he screwed Hillary by fighting on too long through the 2016 primaries and not being sufficiently cooperative enough after Hillary got the nomination. Also, I think the GOP has had enough time to pull a good "Scary Socialist" smear job on him and it'll do him in. Plus, others here have gotten into his prior issues with successfully reaching out to minority voters above the age of 30 and I don't know if he's gotten better at that. Maybe he has. Finally, Bernie doesn't have the look. Bernie doesn't have the stamina, I said he doesn't have the stamina, and I don't believe he does have the stamina.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
If the dems want to get clobbered. I mean billionaires cant buy bernie? 4 weeks later hillary buys bernie. I have doubts that bernies message would carry on a national level with his personality and voice. Hes a quiet dude. But hes no Obama. Trumps been on the campaign trail for 3 years now. Kavanaugh appointment didnt even move the dial on his approval rate. He has the advantage of being able to pass legislation that favor his emerging voter blocs. I dont even hear bernies name on anything but a dusty bumper sticker on a prius. And i live in an area that voted 98% hillary. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Yeah my main concern with Bernie is not his age or whatever but that our extremely terrible national media would love nothing more than to make any election he runs in SOCIALISM VS. CAPITALISM - COLD WAR PART 2 and I'm not convinced even the best candidate could overcome that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Probably the most relevant factor for 2020 will be "will the Clintons try to leverage their connections and favors - whatever is left of them, anyway - on the part of another candidate." And even if they did, who knows how effective it'd be. You could ask General Wesley Clark.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
I don't think giving in the second the GOP calls you a socialist is a winning strategy. That's what Dems do, they cringe and say "oh no please don't call me that I'll even support your ideas from the 90s if you want" and then they run against those ideas from the right anyway and tell voters they'll never ever do a thing for them. And then no one shows up and they lose. If yelling that someone is a socialist for offering health care without backing down actually worked Ted Cruz would have been the 2016 nominee and Sanders wouldn't be the country's most popular senator right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Warren and Biden have been added!Party Plane Jones posted:side note if anybody shits up this thread on either side I'm going to end run around the normal sixers and give you a week as of this post. ya'll have been warned  and thanks for editing it into the OP while I was otherwise indisposed.Pinterest Mom posted:Merkley has been spending time and hired staff in IA/NH, he should probably be on the list. Hickenlooper too~ Ego-bot posted:Montana Governor Steve Bullock should be added to the list. He's been to Iowa a lot lately. I guess Starbuck's CEO Howard Schultz has made some noise about running, he's going to appeal to young people about how centerism is cool.  until papers are filed. Bloomberg, Steyer, and Avenatti have been doing poo poo at least.On that note-candidate profiles will change dramatically once campaigns start distributing literature and candidates start building platforms. The field typically starts narrowing around that point as well. For now, they're mostly off of what I know, with a bit of wikipedia and newsmag profiles added in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
A couple quick notes on Berniechat.VitalSigns posted:Now I know the counterargument is "but it shows he can't make deals" and I'm going to say no it doesn't no more than it showed Obama couldn't make deals when Republicans were relentlessly ideologically opposed to his agenda VitalSigns posted:No because you're not right, it's not an established fact that he "polled badly among minority voters" the way you mean it, it's established fact that he polled well with younger voters and badly with everyone else regardless of ethnicity. You helpfully link the breakdown of his support by age and race, and that an age gap was present. But there's another notable gap that isn't displayed by the NBC poll (and I cannot for the life of me find the graphic I'm looking for to demonstrate it, though it can be inferred from the overall age breakdown):  Courtesy of CivicYouth(pg4) and looking only at Super Tuesday (again, a similar effect can be inferred from polling data later in the primary and nationwide), voters under 30 provided Sanders with his best performance with black voters and the largest gap in support between black voters and white voters. Which is to say that the age gap may contribute, but is not an adequate explanation for his poor showing with black voters. Why should this factor into anyone's decisionmaking? Because getting to understand and borrow the perspective of others can lend tremendous insight (ask KM how she feels about people who are surprised by the Trump admin's bigotry and extremism!). Did media bias and nefarious insider strategies contribute? Maybe! But there may have been other reasons his message and campaign failed to resonate nearly as well with black voters as it did with whites (especially in the youngest group). Those reasons could make you reconsider the way you view Sanders, or any other candidate--we'd certainly be better off if everyone who stanned because of November/viability put in the effort to understand why Trump won more young voters during the primary than she did. Whether SEC primaries in March "distorts reality" or not, they're there and Bernie's known since 11/9/16 he'll need to do markedly better there. For me, how seriously he takes it, the resources he allocates, and how he and his campaign speak about the contests that black voters impact the most will be very important. If the main strategy is rolling with state legistators from out-of-state and celebrities again, that'll be deeply concerning to me. The last headliners I planned were Harris and Gillibrand. Any requests for profiles on particular less notable candidates? Or, for that matter, curiosity about their reason for inclusion in the roll call.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
Rocks a Republican. Both of them, "The" and Kid. Is this going to be the all purpose primary thread for those intending to primary Trump, or strictly Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Intent was Dem only, in part because I don't think anything other than vanity and perennials will go after Trump (and if there is a serious challenge, Trumpthread could use the LOLs). Most Rock theorizing has had him running as a D. And hey, if Taylor can declare for a side (belatedly, and for the most centrist of Dems), then maybe he can too. Rock/Swift 2020!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Purely anecdotal, but a lot of my African-American friends were highly skeptical of Sanders and very pro-Clinton because he seemed to them like someone who was unwilling to do the work of listening to or addressing their "identity politics" concerns. He seemed so focused on economic messaging tailored to the white working class, which was admirable, but for whatever reason (and not just because of unfriendly media coverage and whatever nasty plan Donna Brazile put together in Martha's Vineyard) Sanders struck them as a tone deaf opportunist catering to people immersed in white privilege. This is probably the legacy of many people trying to trivialize racial issues by responding "Well, why don't we just attack class instead? Then racism will go away." Also, I think a small, but very vocal segment of his supporters did a supremely outsized job pissing them off. Anyway, if Sanders campaigns again, I really hope he fixes that because I can't deal with another round of "Bernie Bros" bashing it out with Clinton-loving Centrists. If this is a big derail from the purpose of this thread, I'll erase it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Which is to say that the age gap may contribute, but is not an adequate explanation for his poor showing with black voters. This has been brought up and adequately covered. -He still got a majority of 18-29 year-old black voters when all the primaries were said and done which points to name recognition, familiarity, machine politics, risk aversion, conservatism of old people who lived through the Reagan years, etc rather than a problem talking to black people (does this problem magically not work on 20-year-old black people?) -notice that this argument could be turned around, but never is, did Clinton come off especially racist to 18-29 year-old black voters, or are black people allowed to vote for someone without it being assumed that they must believe the other candidate is a racist? -In that vein, Clinton overwhelmingly won more-racist voters, should we assume that it must be because they perceived her as the most racist? -When you look at actions the Clinton campaign was objectively at least as lovely to black people if not shittier ("you're defending drug dealers", "why don't you run for something then", calling security on BLM etc), so the only support for this narrative is cherry-picking some polling data and ignoring everything that doesn't fit. -By the following year he was as popular with African Americans as Hillary ever was, why does this narrative that he's bad with black people persist? -He's still the most popular senator in America. This narrative was never well-supported by the facts, was based on some cherry-picked data that ignores inconvenient evidence and is open to interpretation, seems to be based on some weirdo racial ideas that black people only ever vote based on perceived racism and nothing else, is obviously not relevant anymore (if it ever was) judging from subsequent polling that has shown Sanders is mindbogglingly popular among all demographics for a steady two years. It's like the endless repetition of "Sanders is a racist" from the Clinton campaign worked its way into everyone's subconscious and now it's this collective religious belief that has to be repeated forever and is pretty much immune to new evidence. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
One thing that probably should be talked about is the large-scale changes to the primary schedule which if anything is perhaps the biggest chance of this primary. If one candidate can lock up 2 big states early (New York/Texas/California), it is going to be nearly impossible to stop them considering the media narrative that will be created. I don't know how Bernie or Warren would be able to accomplish this. We know the establishment wing is going to be opposing Bernie and Warren just doesn't have much support and at worst (as another poster said), is effectively a spoiler if she runs. That leaves Harris, Biden, and Booker, and I think Harris has the edge here. Biden honestly sucks, has tons of baggage and most of his support seems to be equivalent of checking the "other column." He may make some noise, but I wonder if he actually going to run. In comparison, I think the real battle is between Harris and Booker and Harris probably has the institutional edge here especially in California. Of course there is Cuomo, but honestly, besides denying New York to either Harris or Booker he has little to no nationwide appeal. There you have the usual honest of more minor candidates which honestly are going to be pushed aside considering you will very well have 4-5 candidates that have name-recognition. As for party politics, I think the 2016 divide is going absolutely be there and I don't think Booker/Harris really have an ability to mend fences with the left. It is probably going to be a close general election unless Trump dies/incapacitated/actually impeached and convicted (probably less likely than the first two) or takes too much heat for a recession that will eventually come along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
both texas and california are on march 3rd with new york not having picked a date yet. unless the february primaries winnow the field, the clownshow is unlikely to allow for the lopsided victories needed to avoid a second ballot
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:both texas and california are on march 3rd with new york not having picked a date yet. unless the february primaries winnow the field, the clownshow is unlikely to allow for the lopsided victories needed to avoid a second ballot March 3rd is still pretty early in the primary, and there is such a huge amount of delegates up for that date, that it could easily swing the rest of the primary. (I thought New York moved up their primary nm on that point). If anything there has to be a "winner" after March 3rd simply because the media is going to demand it, and let's be honest it probably won't be Bernie looking at the schedule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
What date does super tuesday fall on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:One thing that probably should be talked about is the large-scale changes to the primary schedule which if anything is perhaps the biggest chance of this primary. If one candidate can lock up 2 big states early (New York/Texas/California), it is going to be nearly impossible to stop them considering the media narrative that will be created. Oh lol Ardennes continues "I'm a leftist who just thinks the left is impotent despite all the evidence of the past year:. Also lol Booker and Harris, both uninspiring clods. now if there is anyone who could take it it is Basta. Shithead could play to the left with his horseshit while also being so anti Trump to get the stillwithher crowd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:What date does super tuesday fall on? *flashes back to 2016* which super tuesday? march 3rd, 2020 is the traditional one though e: loving hell we had 4 in 2016?!?!?!? e2: THEY INVENTED SUPER SATURDAYS JESUS gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:What date does super tuesday fall on? March 3rd?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:March 3rd is still pretty early in the primary, and there is such a huge amount of delegates up for that date, that it could easily swing the rest of the primary. (I thought New York moved up their primary nm on that point). They never have before. The media loving loves a horse race, and in 2016 they were still doing the "is THIS the state where Bernie stages his comeback?" thing all the way up to California. Ardennes posted:March 3rd? Thank you. Suspected it, but wanted it confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
4 super tuesdays and a super saturday no wonder we all went insane
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:They never have before. The media loving loves a horse race, and in 2016 they were still doing the "is THIS the state where Bernie stages his comeback?" thing all the way up to California. The last couple primaries it was usually a 2 horse race that was fairly close for a while, by March 3rd/Super Tuesday there is going to be a strong desire to create a narrative unless it absolutely ends up a complete wreck. Also, Trump is an additional factor that didn't exist in previous primaries. I don't think the primary is going to actually end but in all likelihood, someone is going to get an advantage considering the states in play and the delegates at stake. Bernie will probably still do well in his traditional areas of strength (New England/Mountain states/Pacific NW) but the real fight is for California/Texas and the Southern states (Tennesse, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina) on Super Tuesday # 1. Warren, if she runs, would weaken Bernie in New Hampshire (a big deal) and Massachusetts early on which is probably enough to doom his campaign. I think like 2016, the issue is going to be apathy and turn-out and an increasingly divided party. Also, there is plenty of other random fuckery that could happen in the next 18 months. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Bernie is still the only good candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The last couple primaries it was usually a 2 horse race that was fairly close for a while, by March 3rd/Super Tuesday there is going to be a strong desire to create a narrative unless it absolutely ends up a complete wreck. In what sense? Trump was present in 2016. He was crowned the GOP nominee long before the media stopped talking about Bernies path to victory. And 2016 wasnt an absolute wreck, at least from a delegate standpoint. Super Tuesday went very decisively to Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
the GOP does winner take all to the democrats propositional so IIRC trump had his nomination sewn up with pledged delegates earlier whereas according to wikipedia hillary didn't have the nomination secured on pledged delegates alone until june. that is probably what gave the horserace enough oxygen to continue despite hillary having won with pledged and super delegates earlier than june
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
Come on Raskol, don't tell Mark Penn.VitalSigns posted:This has been brought up and adequately covered. Your premise is that to the extent there was a racial disparity in support for Sanders, it can be explained by age. To your point, polling shows that he connected better and garnered more support from young black voters-to the point of edging Clinton with that group. My point is that the age explanation gets muddled (at best) upon further inspection. Voters under 30 represent the largest underperformance by Sanders with black supporters relative to white voters (-26%, compared to -21% and -20%). The image and report linked cover exclusively Super Tuesday, but you can look at other preference-by-age polling and infer from the gap between his 52% and the 72-28 overall split within that age range (sorry for the WSJ link) that the dynamic remains. You're correct that for a whole host of reasons it may not be relevant this cycle. The burgeoning field, though, doesn't seem to think that Bernie's as invincible as the polling you've cited suggests. As for the rest of it, neither I nor anyone else in the thread have called Sanders racist? Nor have we suggested that black voters make their voting decisions on racism? Raskolnikov38 posted:both texas and california are on march 3rd with new york not having picked a date yet. unless the february primaries winnow the field, the clownshow is unlikely to allow for the lopsided victories needed to avoid a second ballot Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:In what sense? Trump was present in 2016. He was crowned the GOP nominee long before the media stopped talking about Bernies path to victory. Super Tuesday made Clinton not only the frontrunner, but the primary was mostly wrapped up at that point. The race obviously kept going (and will this time), but emotionally Bernie did far better than people expected and put up a fight and thats why the story continued. I think there is going to be a greater push for unity this time considering the stakes. Trump wasn't president, and we didn't know what we know now. Also, he was expected to be "easy to beat", I don't the Democrats don't make the same mistake twice. punk rebel ecks posted:Bernie is still the only good candidate. Yeah, unfortunately, we don't seem to be in a world with a positive trajectory. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:the GOP does winner take all to the democrats propositional so IIRC trump had his nomination sewn up with pledged delegates earlier whereas according to wikipedia hillary didn't have the nomination secured on pledged delegates alone until june. that is probably what gave the horserace enough oxygen to continue despite hillary having won with pledged and super delegates earlier than june Alternatively, the media are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:44
|
|