Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary

[Ruairi77]

(In other words, respondents like Bernie Sanders better when you tell them that he is a socialist than they do when you remind them that he is a Democrat).

That might be the case now but the GOP/Trump haven't even started.
There's no way independents (or any republicans) will go for medicare for all with no private option.
They'll tie 'no private option' to socialism and federal government take over.
Then Sanders has problems with black and old voting blocks.
The Democratic party needs to be united to beat Trump and Sanders wont unify the party,
It's a huge gamble to run him with this economy. Trump could destroy him.

I hope he continues to prove me wrong!

but I guess

 

[Ruairi77]

wow, the democrats really dont help themselves.
Still, if you're willing to throw all your ideals out the window, Bloomberg could beat trump

 

[abelard]

wow, the democrats really dont help themselves.
Still, if you're willing to throw all your ideals out the window, Bloomberg could beat trump

With all the usual caveats about polls, especially in elections like these, there is a very real possibility that none of the remaining contenders can stop Sanders. Even the likes of the Times/Post or CNN/MSNBC have had to acknowledge this.

So the Party is belatedly panicking. What worries them most of all, by far, is that Sanders will beat Trump. This would be cataclysmic.

Short of somebody else defeating Trump instead, Sanders winning the nomination and then losing to Trump would be the DNC's second-best outcome. But the risk that Sanders will win is far too great.

Shoe-horning Bloomberg into the Biden role at the last minute is therefore a desperate attempt to thwart Sanders, or at least blunt him enough that they can take back control at a brokered convention. It is a doubtful gamble. Bloomberg at least does not yet suffer accelerating dementia like Biden, but he is vastly less likeable.

Of course, we shouldn't expect the Party that couldn't stop Donald Trump to have the slightest understanding of why Sanders appeals to moderate, blue-collar, or independent voters. He is probably the only electable candidate left.

In any event, in a head-to-head contest, Trump would annihilate Bloomberg... though this would at least allow Sady Doyle and Rebecca Traister to spend the next ten years on the Clinton family dime pumping out 'See, I TOLD you Hillary Was Brilliant After All' hot takes, and attempting to gloat on Pod Save America.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

(In other words, respondents like Bernie Sanders better when you tell them that he is a socialist than they do when you remind them that he is a Democrat).

National polls are meaningless though, as we all know.

The swing state poll margins are much, much tighter for Sanders (and every Dem tbf except Biden, depressingly). Would be interesting to know what those three measures above look like in those states.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

With all the usual caveats about polls, especially in elections like these, there is a very real possibility that none of the remaining contenders can stop Sanders. Even the likes of the Times/Post or CNN/MSNBC have had to acknowledge this.

So the Party is belatedly panicking. What worries them most of all, by far, is that Sanders will beat Trump. This would be cataclysmic.

Short of somebody else defeating Trump instead, Sanders winning the nomination and then losing to Trump would be the DNC's second-best outcome. But the risk that Sanders will win is far too great.

Shoe-horning Bloomberg into the Biden role at the last minute is therefore a desperate attempt to thwart Sanders, or at least blunt him enough that they can take back control at a brokered convention. It is a doubtful gamble. Bloomberg at least does not yet suffer accelerating dementia like Biden, but he is vastly less likeable.

Of course, we shouldn't expect the Party that couldn't stop Donald Trump to have the slightest understanding of why Sanders appeals to moderate, blue-collar, or independent voters. He is probably the only electable candidate left.

In any event, in a head-to-head contest, Trump would annihilate Bloomberg... though this would at least allow Sady Doyle and Rebecca Traister to spend the next ten years on the Clinton family dime pumping out 'See, I TOLD you Hillary Was Brilliant After All' hot takes, and attempting to gloat on Pod Save America.

Bold bit: Oh good lord.

And that would be Pod Save America who praise Bernie's work on building a solid supporter and fundraising operation on basically every episode, and pretty openly (though not explicitly) support Warren, who is the furthest from the DNC mainstream of any of legitimate candidates with the exception of Bernie, right?

Oh, and who've also had every candidate EXCEPT the most "establishment" candidate of them all on for an interview?

 

[longers]

bellends if true

 

[sdk]

The caucus system is grievously antidemocratic compared to state primaries.

In 2016, only 52% of eligible voters participated in the New Hampshire primaries.

Not a good number at all until you compare it with the amount of eligible voters who participated in the Iowa caucuses that year: 15.7%.

It's a travesty.

 

[tsubaki]

Whatever the antics of the DNC, the failure to identify and develop a plausible candidate after 2016 really is completely astonishing. I like Bernie a lot but for a nearly 80 year old bloke, who has just had a heart attack, to be where he is now is a massive indictment of the party leadership. I’d thought Harris was the pick of a bad bunch but somehow they thought that her record of putting people in prison wouldn’t play well with swing voters.

The Corbyn parallels will no doubt be made a million times before this is done, but it’s emphatically true to say that both men have been able to do this because the party machines are both idiotic and useless at the one task they are meant to exist for.

 

[Ruairi77]

Caucusing, bananas system, but interesting!

 

[wm02]

Caucusing, bananas system, but interesting!

Re-assignment is an interesting wrinkle. Looks like it’s either Sanders or Buttigieg

 

[Ruairi77]

Well the Iowa democrats seem to have screwed up their already screwy system.

 

[abelard]

Whatever the antics of the DNC, the failure to identify and develop a plausible candidate after 2016 really is completely astonishing. I like Bernie a lot but for a nearly 80 year old bloke, who has just had a heart attack, to be where he is now is a massive indictment of the party leadership. I’d thought Harris was the pick of a bad bunch but somehow they thought that her record of putting people in prison wouldn’t play well with swing voters.

The Corbyn parallels will no doubt be made a million times before this is done, but it’s emphatically true to say that both men have been able to do this because the party machines are both idiotic and useless at the one task they are meant to exist for.

The lack of talent and experience emerged mostly because Obama discarded the mass popular movement he had built immediately after taking office (to disastrous effect), and spent eight years ignoring politics at the state and local level, losing 13 statehouses and more than 800 state legislator positions before the dust had settled.

It is imperative that the Party chooses a leader who will not repeat Obama's many mistakes, but there are only two candidates (and arguably only one) who understand this.

More recently, the Party elders' attempt to nip the success of AOC in the bud by blacklisting anyone who works for a non-incumbent candidate won't help either.

Harris lost not because she couldn't appeal to swing voters but because she couldn't even win over mainstream Democrats. Apart from performative wokeness she had nothing to offer anyone, least of all on health care - the single most important issue in American politics.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

What a victory for Bernie, it is NID that DNC establishment is trying to hide the results. Terrified bunch

 

[tsubaki]

lol

 

[tsubaki]

The lack of talent and experience emerged mostly because Obama discarded the mass popular movement he had built immediately after taking office (to disastrous effect), and spent eight years ignoring politics at the state and local level, losing 13 statehouses and more than 800 state legislator positions before the dust had settled.

It is imperative that the Party chooses a leader who will not repeat Obama's many mistakes, but there are only two candidates (and arguably only one) who understand this.

More recently, the Party elders' attempt to nip the success of AOC in the bud by blacklisting anyone who works for a non-incumbent candidate won't help either.

Harris lost not because she couldn't appeal to swing voters but because she couldn't even win over mainstream Democrats. Apart from performative wokeness she had nothing to offer anyone, least of all on health care - the single most important issue in American politics.

Perhaps, and I agree about the Obama stuff, but none of them have a healthcare plan that could survive the inevitable attacks. I just think that in a matchup with Trump, Harris was the one that stood the best chance (or at least the one that the GOP had the worst attack ads against - not black enough ffs).