US POLITICS XX: Stuck In a Caucus You Can't Get Out Of

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

She refused to endorse either candidate in 2016 so I’m not sure why anyone thinks she will now.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[womanfish]

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.

 

[anitram]

. 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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

You can call WHATEVER you want “facts.” You can’t back up your statement about popularity at all. I have NO clue what you’re talking about him not delivering IN CALIFORNIA. He’s about to win the state by almost 10%. Youre making an argument that the first place finisher, in a two person race, can’t claim 19% of the remaining votes. THINK ABOUT THAT. You’re saying that less than 3 in 10 people who didn’t pick Biden or Sanders would pick Sanders. In California. THINK. ABOUT. THAT. Holy crap. I can’t believe I have to write that. Because 3 in 10 would do the trick to be at his 2016 numbers. That’s it.

And I have no clue what you’re talking about. HE HIT HIS POLLING TARGETS IN CALIFORNIA EXACTLY.



Like, I don’t understand how you’re not seeing that.

You correctly predicted a ceiling. Give me a break dude. You’re just making fake statements now. You have no way of backing that statement up. The only way to test his ceiling is to run him against 1 candidate. Oh, we’ve seen that before. In 2016.

 

[Hewson]

Very good post on all points. Maybe VP would be the better choice to see if she could spring board it into a presidential run.

...

Plus considering Uncle Joe's age, he might choose to be a single term Prez if elected making Harris the front runner in 2024 if she were VP,

Spoiler

plus you know the fact that he might not even make it 4 years and she would become Prez that way

If she still has Presidential aspirations, I think taking VP slot under Biden if he gets the nomination would be a good move.

 

[womanfish]

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.

You've always had great insight on this.
My best understanding is that she does best with middle class educated, white professionals, leaning well to the female side, but also does well with college educated men.
I think her base is best described as a blend of liberal to moderate, more than "progressive". And I think she just has a strong backing of strong, feminist women, who were also strong supporters of Clinton.
She has that band of the middle class where they are fortunate enough to have decent jobs and a roof over their head, but they also know that they are being squeezed more and more just to sustain their current lifestyle, and ensure their kids can do better.

She also worked incredibly hard to get minority support, and did make gains, but with Bernie on one side getting all the youth minority vote and Biden getting the 40+ minority vote, she struggled.

I hope she continues to do great things.

 

[Hewson]

Bernie just shouted at a reporter - " Don't believe what you read in the media" sigh...

He might as well just go with "Fake news!" and make the transition complete.

 

[womanfish]

Plus considering Uncle Joe's age, he might choose to be a single term Prez if elected making Harris the front runner in 2024 if she were VP,

Spoiler

plus you know the fact that he might not even make it 4 years and she would become Prez that way

If she still has Presidential aspirations, I think taking VP slot under Biden if he gets the nomination would be a good move.

Oh yeah, I've thought about this as well. I could absolutely see a handoff from Biden to the VP in 2024. And Harris would be a great choice. (so would Warren)

 

[mikal]

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.

Great post all around. Nailed it.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

He might as well just go with "Fake news!" and make the transition complete.

It is very cringey for him to go down that path.

 

[Irvine511]

You’re saying that less than 3 in 10 people who didn’t pick Biden or Sanders would pick Sanders. In California. THINK. ABOUT. THAT. Holy crap. I can’t believe I have to write that. Because 3 in 10 would do the trick to be at his 2016 numbers. That’s it.

correct. basically, you're voting for Sanders or you're not, which is how it will be moving forward. his numbers would not reach 47% even in a two person race, which is less than 2016.

Bloomberg and Warren are currently at 14% and 12%. if he got half the Warren votes that's 6%. let's pretend Pete doesn't exist. i'll give Bernie half the Buttigeig votes -- that's 3%. we're not yet to 10%.

the other fact: he will get less delegates out of CA this year than he did in 2016.

The only way to test his ceiling is to run him against 1 candidate. Oh, we’ve seen that before. In 2016.

the point about the lack of Sanders crossover votes has been made, but you're right, we don't really yet know, so i guess we'll see.

Bernie was above 35% in ... Colorado (36%) and Vermont (50%). he was below 30% in more states than that.

sounds like a ceiling to me.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Here comes the youth turnout to save the day

 

[LuckyNumber7]

the other fact: he will get less delegates out of CA this year than he did in 2016.











sounds like a ceiling to me.

I can’t deal with you right now. This is like listening to an alternative facts monologue by Sean Hannity.

Congratulations, he did get fewer delegates in CA than he did in 2016. Because 4 major candidates were active, 3 additional were active for the early voting, there were with 19 total candidates (13 of which appeared on debate stages).

In 2016, there were 7 on the ballot. And 2 who appeared on the debate stage.

 

[womanfish]

Just another example of a trend I'm noticing. This is a big time Warren supporter that I check the Twitter feed of every once in a while - middle aged, probably middle class white guy from NY.

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1235354645075288064

Sorry, this tweet, but also please look at the replies to this tweet. That's what I'm getting at. The Warren to Biden crossover seems real.

 

[Irvine511]

I can’t deal with you right now. This is like listening to an alternative facts monologue by Sean Hannity.

Congratulations, he did get fewer delegates in CA than he did in 2016. Because 4 major candidates were active, 3 additional were active for the early voting, there were with 19 total candidates (13 of which appeared on debate stages).

In 2016, there were 7 on the ballot. And 2 who appeared on the debate stage.

I wrote a long response and deleted it because I like and respect you and I feel like you’re missing the point. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Irvine511]

Just another example of a trend I'm noticing. This is a big time Warren supporter that I check the Twitter feed of every once in a while - middle aged, probably middle class white guy from NY.

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1235354645075288064

Sorry, this tweet, but also please look at the replies to this tweet. That's what I'm getting at. The Warren to Biden crossover seems real.

The Warren folks are super pissed at how the Bros have turned on them with their not so surprising pivot to misogyny.

As they continue to misunderstand the Warren voter.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I wrote a long response and deleted it because I like and respect you and I feel like you’re missing the point. I’ll leave it at that.

Well I appreciate it and just know that my flamboyant posts don’t mean I don’t like you as well. Just get frustrated.

 

[BEAL]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1235655245230829568?s=21

Thank you Mike

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1235655245230829568?s=21

Thank you Mike

Good .

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

He's doing it cause he's just like Trump

 

[anitram]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1235655245230829568?s=21

Thank you Mike

Excellent.

 

[womanfish]

Glad to see Bloomberg getting right to business.

Question on another topic...

If Biden wins the nom.

What about Val Demings for VP? She doesn't always thrill me, but she surely checks every box that any candidate would be looking for. Female, African American, popular in her home state of Florida, has had significant national attention, can debate, great speaker and has major clout with law enforcement community.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I have to imagine it will be someone from a swing state.