US POLITICS XX: Stuck In a Caucus You Can't Get Out Of - Page 47 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-05-2020, 12:49 PM   #921
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,455
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Bernie won't break 30%. in California.

ceiling.

the greater electability argument is over.

sure, he could beat Trump in the general. but the idea that he is a better choice vis-a-vis greater turnout amongst the youngs and the nons is dead.


I’m not sure what you’re talking about. He’s at 34%
__________________

LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 12:56 PM   #922
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,469
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
yes, surely multiple candidates dropping out and endorsing him in addition to receiving multiple endorsements from congresspeople the day before super tuesday had absolutely no effect on the outcome. the notion that the democrat establishment had anything to do with it is just another one of crazy bernie’s whacko conspiracy theories.


Other than Clyburn, all that happened after churchy black folks in SC overperformed for Biden.

Hopefully, they and white suburban women will be the “working class rust belt white guys” of 2020.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 12:57 PM   #923
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,195
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Warren will not endorse anyone today.

lol
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 12:58 PM   #924
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,469
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. He’s at 34%


Fair enough. When I last looked he was at 29%. He’s now at 33.8%.

In 2016 he was at 47%.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:00 PM   #925
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,195
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
yes, surely multiple candidates dropping out and endorsing him in addition to receiving multiple endorsements from congresspeople the day before super tuesday had absolutely no effect on the outcome. the notion that the democrat establishment had anything to do with it is just another one of crazy bernie’s whacko conspiracy theories.
Who were the voters that put him over the top?

Where was the mythical youth vote unicorn?
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:21 PM   #926
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,455
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Fair enough. When I last looked he was at 29%. He’s now at 33.8%.

In 2016 he was at 47%.


I just don’t understand why you’re not willing to accept that there’s 4+ candidates in the running? This repeated logic is a one way bias. By your logic, Clinton finished with 52% and Biden can’t even get above 25%. Explain that to me.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:26 PM   #927
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,973
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Who were the voters that put him over the top?

Where was the mythical youth vote unicorn?
i didn't say you were wrong.

but the unmasked derision at the idea that the party establishment was also influential in moving the needle (by however much) at the last minute for biden is just a nutso whackadoo conspiracy theory "maaaaaaaaan" is a little much.
DaveC is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:33 PM   #928
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,455
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Who were the voters that put him over the top?

Where was the mythical youth vote unicorn?


Your youth voter concerns are entirely valid.

You’re still not considering that loads of people voted for Bernie. Something like 4.5 million people voted for Biden and 3.5 million voted for Sanders (that have been counted so far) on Super Tuesday.

With a ton of southern states.

Massachusetts was a big freaking deal. So was Minnesota. The rest are very understandable.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:35 PM   #929
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,469
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I just don’t understand why you’re not willing to accept that there’s 4+ candidates in the running? This repeated logic is a one way bias. By your logic, Clinton finished with 52% and Biden can’t even get above 25%. Explain that to me.


He’s running at half to 2/3rds support than he ran at in 2016. And in 2016, the CA primary was in June, after he had already lost.

Even though Warren and Bloomberg are sharing 25-30% of the vote, he wouldn’t even get half of that. They cost Biden far more votes. And this was supposed to be Bernie’s big prize.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:42 PM   #930
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,232
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
i didn't say you were wrong.

but the unmasked derision at the idea that the party establishment was influential in moving the needle (by however much) at the last minute for biden is just a nutso whackadoo conspiracy theory "maaaaaaaaan" is a little much.
I get that it's frustrating for Bernie supporters to see long-term Dem elected officials endorse Biden. But that frustration has been cultivated and stoked by Bernie, by lumping them all together into this "establishment" category, giving the very intentional label of being somehow, untrustworthy, not on the same team, etc...
This is another example of Sanders using tactics that create a smaller, but very strong base, but in the end, it's also what keeps him from succeeding.

Here though is the difference between 16 and 20.

Clinton endorsements were I believe in the hundreds by this point in the race. "superdelegates" were already saying they were behind Clinton, There were obvious slights to Bernie along the way.

Not so this time. Biden was looked at with skepticism getting into the race, was doubted all along, was completely left for dead after NH, and had maybe a handful of endorsements from Congresspeople. I think fewer endorsements than Bernie. Bernie was talked about with much more respect and seriousness the whole way. He was the one to beat.

It took Biden actually proving himself in NV and SC, and the voters, NOT the DNC, or establishment put him there. Black voters in SC did. Black voters, educated women, suburban voters, and yes, a fairly broad swath of old/middle/young, professional and working class to get him to frontrunner on Super Tuesday.
Not only did he have to prove himself to voters, but he had to win big enough to win over the other candidates running. And show them, that he was the one to carry on. Pete and Amy of course should have dropped. And their endorsement wasn't going to Biden because he's "establishment" - but because they align policy wise, and they want Trump gone, and they want the Senate.

It turns out that in 16, there was a LARGE block of voters that were not really voting FOR bernie, as they were against Clinton. This has become clear. Also, the whole premise of just getting Trump out, doesn't help Sanders this time either.

But given all that, this time, the "establishment" had nothing to do with Biden's rise.

Bernie surrogates still saying it over and over, may be doing more harm than good this time. It's like when Trump lies about something over and over that people know isn't true. It just drives moderate voters more against him.
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:46 PM   #931
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,455
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
He’s running at half to 2/3rds support than he ran at in 2016. And in 2016, the CA primary was in June, after he had already lost.

Even though Warren and Bloomberg are sharing 25-30% of the vote, he wouldn’t even get half of that. They cost Biden far more votes. And this was supposed to be Bernie’s big prize.


I’m sorry but you just ignored my entire counter point. Explain to me why Joe Biden can’t get over 25% in California.

You’re just plugging your ears. There’s a big difference between having five or six candidates on the ballot and two. It’s obnoxious to think that of the other 41% that isn’t Biden or Sanders, you genuinely think that Sanders can’t take 20% of that. In California. Really, all he “needs” to match his 2016 numbers is about 13%, anyways. Like holy hell, how biased do you have to be to genuinely believe that that’s not possible?

And your point about the election happening after he had already lost is also circular and moot. You can’t quantify if he got more or less support in California because of the election already being over. It’s not clear which voters were more disinterested - Clinton’s or Sanders’.

You can keep going with alternative math all you want but your point just doesn’t hold up.

Sanders has lost support because he isn’t everyone’s first choice, but the same isn’t true for the losing candidate.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:49 PM   #932
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Warren will not endorse anyone today.

lol
My gut says she won't endorse Bernie. If she was going to, then she'd do it now, when it could still stand to matter.

So she either won't endorse anyone or is striking a backroom deal with Biden.
anitram is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:59 PM   #933
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,455
Local Time: 05:04 PM
She refused to endorse either candidate in 2016 so I’m not sure why anyone thinks she will now.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:01 PM   #934
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,195
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I’m sorry but you just ignored my entire counter point. Explain to me why Joe Biden can’t get over 25% in California.
States with large early voting numbers saw higher Bloomberg voting and lower Biden voting, i.e. California and Colorado.

But he did technically get over 25. 5 days earlier it was a serious question if he'd hit 15, let alone 25.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:01 PM   #935
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
She refused to endorse either candidate in 2016 so I’m not sure why anyone thinks she will now.
Um...because the circumstances are totally different? She wasn't running in 2016, didn't have any delegates to symbolically bequeath and didn't have any influence over a group of voters who had pledged support for her.

And she did endorse Hillary once the primary had played out but before the convention. She actually endorsed on the same day as Obama.
anitram is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:06 PM   #936
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,455
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Um...because the circumstances are totally different? She wasn't running in 2016, didn't have any delegates to symbolically bequeath and didn't have any influence over a group of voters who had pledged support for her.



And she did endorse Hillary once the primary had played out but before the convention. She actually endorsed on the same day as Obama.


If Bernie Sanders won the primaries in advance, she would endorse him. If Joe Biden won the primaries in advance, she would endorse him.

She holds her position firmly as a friend to all and a bridge between the left and the center, and she isn’t about to tarnish that reputation right now.

If she genuinely has the ability to influence her platform on either candidate, I bet she does endorse them. Until then, I’m not sure. She’s probably trying to make one of them give in.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:08 PM   #937
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,469
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I’m sorry but you just ignored my entire counter point. Explain to me why Joe Biden can’t get over 25% in California.

You’re just plugging your ears. There’s a big difference between having five or six candidates on the ballot and two. It’s obnoxious to think that of the other 41% that isn’t Biden or Sanders, you genuinely think that Sanders can’t take 20% of that. In California. Really, all he “needs” to match his 2016 numbers is about 13%, anyways. Like holy hell, how biased do you have to be to genuinely believe that that’s not possible?

And your point about the election happening after he had already lost is also circular and moot. You can’t quantify if he got more or less support in California because of the election already being over. It’s not clear which voters were more disinterested - Clinton’s or Sanders’.

You can keep going with alternative math all you want but your point just doesn’t hold up.

Sanders has lost support because he isn’t everyone’s first choice, but the same isn’t true for the losing candidate.



Joe Biden can't get over 25% in California because of all of the Bloomberg vote and probably 60% of the Warren vote. so, no, i don't think Sanders gets half of the other 41%. i don't think there's a significant number of Bloombergers who's #2 is Bernie. the lack of Warren/Sanders crossover has been discussed in here quite a bit -- white suburban women aren't hungry for a revolution.

facts: Bernie is less popular now than he was 4 years ago, regardless of whether or not there's 2 people in the race or 12. he did not deliver on promised results in exactly the place where he was expected to. this was supposed to be his big moment when he was supposed to deliver as the front runner in the biggest and most important blue state and what should have been the heart of Bernie country. he has a ceiling that i correctly predicted at roughly 30-35% ... in the state where he was expected to dominate.

the big story is this underperformance, and how it has torpedoed his electability argument. you can be pedantic about uncertainly in any electoral results in elections that happen 4 years apart, and, fine, sure, we don't -- but, also, we kind of do?

when you're dealing with politics, where narratives are critical, these kinds of objections ignore the bigger picture and the context and story surrounding the numbers -- it's not the numbers, it's the story the numbers give us. that's not bias, that's understanding how this works.

but also, no one predicted Biden would be brought back to life like this even a week ago. Sanders isn't out of it because anything can happen.

what has happened is every doubt i've had about Sanders and his electability has come true -- even in California.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:09 PM   #938
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,455
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
States with large early voting numbers saw higher Bloomberg voting and lower Biden voting, i.e. California and Colorado.

But he did technically get over 25. 5 days earlier it was a serious question if he'd hit 15, let alone 25.


I know, and I don’t doubt that Biden probably would’ve won California in a two pony race.

Probably very similar to 2016. A tight bidding somewhere within 55-45.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:15 PM   #939
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,232
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Bernie just shouted at a reporter - " Don't believe what you read in the media" sigh...

Bottom line -

Bernie's problems are self-made, not "the establishment"

Bernie did not change his message or approach from 16 to 20
He did not expand his base of support among older voters
He did not significantly expand his base of support among black voters (other than generationally)
He did bring in some more latinx voters, but again, it followed generational lines.
He did not open himself to be more supportive of the party that he is running for.
He didn't even stop implying the DNC was the enemy.

These things are why Sanders is in the position he is in.
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:19 PM   #940
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
. the lack of Warren/Sanders crossover has been discussed in here quite a bit -- white suburban women aren't hungry for a revolution.
Of all the candidates, interestingly enough Warren supporters had the highest % who would "vote blue no matter who." These are not your revolutionaries and I think people totally misunderstand who most of her demographic is comprised of.
__________________

anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×