Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Newy25

Newy25 7692

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Well this entire line of discussion was kicked off by an extremely prominent independent saying he would vote for Trump over Biden, so I don't think Newy's concern is entirely fabricated or off-base.

Joe Rogan did not kick this off. He may have been the first prominent person to say it out loud but Biden himself made this the issue with his interviews this week. Gaffes are one thing. But this isn’t Dan Quayle not knowing how to spell potato or Biden saying 150 million Americans died. This was the country cringing watching a man’s brain scramble into eggs right in front of our eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

kevwun

kevwun 15797

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'd still vote for his corpse.  Yall motherfuckers are arguing about Biden's mental acuity while Donald Trump hasn't able to speak in complete sentences for the last few years and is actively killing Americans with his disastrous handling of the virus response.  Biden doesn't matter, we need a functioning government again and getting rid of Trump is the only way to start that process.

Edited by kevwun
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newy25

Newy25 7692

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, kevwun said:

I'd still vote for his corpse.  Yall motherfuckers are arguing about Biden's mental acuity while Donald Trump hasn't able to speak in complete sentences for the last few years and is actively killing Americans with his disastrous handling of the virus response.  Biden doesn't matter, we need a functioning government again and getting rid of Trump is the only way to start that process.

I’m aligned with your last sentence. What I fear is that most Americans do not align with your first sentence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18922

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

I’m aligned with your last sentence. What I fear is that most Americans do not align with your first sentence.  

Most American voters voted for someone other than Donald Trump in 2016.

He was more popular then. He's going to lose the popular vote by an even larger margin in November. 

Will he get lucky again? We'll see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted

Too soon? Nah. Postmortems are interesting if they are more than trolling. (That's all it is here, of course, but it interests me so I'll respond as if it isn't.)

Iowa and NH aren't just all-white places, they are also heavily-involved places. They pay very careful attention and have essentially a year with the candidates to themselves to test them out and kick the tires. Biden, despite every advantage, couldn't get them because Biden is extremely weak.

SC revealed that it was probably impossible for anyone who isn't Joe Biden to win the nomination on the backs of typical Democratic voters.

It shouldn't be terribly surprising given Biden's eternal domination of the overall polling and no one in that "lane" every making a dent in Biden's hold on black voters and older voters. Also, he dominates among voters who aren't really paying attention to the primary competitors and choosing between them. He's likeable personally and Obama's VP, that's all it takes for low-info voters.

Everyone who wasn't Joe was gambling. (From most to least successful...)
- Bernie's gamble was on independents, non-voters joining what he could scrounge of the typical Democratic voterbase. It worked really well until it didn't. (It still could, technically, but we all know it's extremely unlikely.)
- Pete gambled that he could eventually get voters who weren't white people making 6 figures. It didn't pay off.
- Klobuchar hoped to steal conservative olds from Joe and that kind of worked for NH & Iowa and then it failed.
- Warren tried to be an all-things-to-all-people candidate and ended up failing most spectacularly of all.

For Bernie and Liz, however, it wasn't just about winning, but about a materially different platform than Biden's. They were never capable of doing the Pete or Klobuchar campaigns because to do so would mean abandoning what made them want to run in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newy25

Newy25 7692

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Most American voters voted for someone other than Donald Trump in 2016.

He was more popular then. He's going to lose the popular vote by an even larger margin in November. 

Will he get lucky again? We'll see. 

Have you seen his approval ratings? High fucking water mark. The people that dislike him dislike him with greater intensity today. He is not less popular with his base or independents  today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29192

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

Have you seen his approval ratings? High fucking water mark. The people that dislike him dislike him with greater intensity today. He is not less popular with his base or independents  today. 

look again. polls are going back down after a fun few days for trumpers. it’s over. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 43004

Posted
Posted (edited)

As the death toll mounts, his poll numbers will drop. His crowing about H1N1 killing more than this is going to haunt him. His idiot base will still vote for him. But as people lose jobs, loved ones, friends, and money, they'll find somebody to blame. That's not Joe Biden. 

Edited by mdmost
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Too soon? Nah. Postmortems are interesting if they are more than trolling. (That's all it is here, of course, but it interests me so I'll respond as if it isn't.)

Iowa and NH aren't just all-white places, they are also heavily-involved places. They pay very careful attention and have essentially a year with the candidates to themselves to test them out and kick the tires. Biden, despite every advantage, couldn't get them because Biden is extremely weak.

SC revealed that it was probably impossible for anyone who isn't Joe Biden to win the nomination on the backs of typical Democratic voters.

It shouldn't be terribly surprising given Biden's eternal domination of the overall polling and no one in that "lane" every making a dent in Biden's hold on black voters and older voters. Also, he dominates among voters who aren't really paying attention to the primary competitors and choosing between them. He's likeable personally and Obama's VP, that's all it takes for low-info voters.

Everyone who wasn't Joe was gambling. (From most to least successful...)
- Bernie's gamble was on independents, non-voters joining what he could scrounge of the typical Democratic voterbase. It worked really well until it didn't. (It still could, technically, but we all know it's extremely unlikely.)
- Pete gambled that he could eventually get voters who weren't white people making 6 figures. It didn't pay off.
- Klobuchar hoped to steal conservative olds from Joe and that kind of worked for NH & Iowa and then it failed.
- Warren tried to be an all-things-to-all-people candidate and ended up failing most spectacularly of all.

For Bernie and Liz, however, it wasn't just about winning, but about a materially different platform than Biden's. They were never capable of doing the Pete or Klobuchar campaigns because to do so would mean abandoning what made them want to run in the first place.

So who is Bernie going to pass the torch to in 2024/2028?  Hopefully not someone who will be over 70 at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

So who is Bernie going to pass the torch to in 2024/2028?  Hopefully not someone who will be over 70 at the time. 

No idea. I don't even really know what "pass the torch" means in any practical sense aside from endorsing and maybe campaigning with.

Hopefully some kind of progressive champion rises up, takes the best of Bernie's platform, improves on it, and gives the left someone new to rally behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29192

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No idea. I don't even really know what "pass the torch" means in any practical sense aside from endorsing and maybe campaigning with.

Hopefully some kind of progressive champion rises up, takes the best of Bernie's platform, improves on it, and gives the left someone new to rally behind.

for someone who doesn't know what "pass the torch" means, you defined it really well in your second sentence.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

for someone who doesn't know what "pass the torch" means, you defined it really well in your second sentence.

"Pass the torch" is about one person appointing/anointing his successor, which isn't what that second sentence is.

I am not into dynastics. Let a new champion rise on his/her own.

22 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

Bernie's gamble was on independents, non-voters joining what he could scrounge of the typical Democratic voterbase.

Yeah dude progressivism is getting owned it's hilarious and cool.

giphy.gif

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29192

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

"Pass the torch" is about one person appointing/anointing his successor, which isn't what that second sentence is.

so you don't know what it means, but now you've defined it twice. 🙂

i would think in this situation, it's more metaphorical/figurative, and more in the eyes of the supporters than a literal announcement/endorsement from bernie.  how deep is the progressive bench?  is there anyone in congress or local politics who's on the bernie track but a few decades younger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6413

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Too soon? Nah. Postmortems are interesting if they are more than trolling. (That's all it is here, of course, but it interests me so I'll respond as if it isn't.)

Iowa and NH aren't just all-white places, they are also heavily-involved places. They pay very careful attention and have essentially a year with the candidates to themselves to test them out and kick the tires. Biden, despite every advantage, couldn't get them because Biden is extremely weak.

SC revealed that it was probably impossible for anyone who isn't Joe Biden to win the nomination on the backs of typical Democratic voters.

It shouldn't be terribly surprising given Biden's eternal domination of the overall polling and no one in that "lane" every making a dent in Biden's hold on black voters and older voters. Also, he dominates among voters who aren't really paying attention to the primary competitors and choosing between them. He's likeable personally and Obama's VP, that's all it takes for low-info voters.

Everyone who wasn't Joe was gambling. (From most to least successful...)
- Bernie's gamble was on independents, non-voters joining what he could scrounge of the typical Democratic voterbase. It worked really well until it didn't. (It still could, technically, but we all know it's extremely unlikely.)
- Pete gambled that he could eventually get voters who weren't white people making 6 figures. It didn't pay off.
- Klobuchar hoped to steal conservative olds from Joe and that kind of worked for NH & Iowa and then it failed.
- Warren tried to be an all-things-to-all-people candidate and ended up failing most spectacularly of all.

For Bernie and Liz, however, it wasn't just about winning, but about a materially different platform than Biden's. They were never capable of doing the Pete or Klobuchar campaigns because to do so would mean abandoning what made them want to run in the first place.

spacer.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20966

Posted
Posted
I'm not the one running for the presidency against Donald Trump.


The Bernie movement had a big problem with alienating potential allies. The idea that that is separate from the campaign or quarantined within Twitter where people aren’t real or whatever is silly. It is a reason why as soon as the choice became binary it ceased being a close race.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

The Bernie movement had a big problem with alienating potential allies. The idea that that is separate from the campaign or quarantined within Twitter where people aren’t real or whatever is silly. It is a reason why as soon as the choice became binary it ceased being a close race.

 

I don't buy this at all. While it's true that a significant chunk of Buttigieg/Warren loyalists went to Biden because they hate online Bernie Bros, I don't think those have been a meaningful chunk of the post Iowa/NH electorate.

Nevada:
Sanders - 41%
Biden - 19%
Buttigieg - 14%
Warren - 10%

South Carolina:
Biden - 49%
Sanders - 20%
Steyer - 11%
Buttigieg - 8%
Warren - 7%

The Biden base isn't on Twitter and couldn't pick David Sirota and his home aquariums out of a lineup. While it might be true that Bernie Bros being nicer to NPR liberals online would have given Bernie 3-5% more votes along the margins, the idea that they are the difference between Bernie winning and losing SC-and-beyond is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29192

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't buy this at all. While it's true that a significant chunk of Buttigieg/Warren loyalists went to Biden because they hate online Bernie Bros because they're primarily interested in beating donald trump in november and could see which way the wind was blowing

just a little reality check.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20966

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't buy this at all. While it's true that a significant chunk of Buttigieg/Warren loyalists went to Biden because they hate online Bernie Bros, I don't think those have been a meaningful chunk of the post Iowa/NH electorate.

Nevada:
Sanders - 41%
Biden - 19%
Buttigieg - 14%
Warren - 10%

South Carolina:
Biden - 49%
Sanders - 20%
Steyer - 11%
Buttigieg - 8%
Warren - 7%

The Biden base isn't on Twitter and couldn't pick David Sirota and his home aquariums out of a lineup. While it might be true that Bernie Bros being nicer to NPR liberals online would have given Bernie 3-5% more votes along the margins, the idea that they are the difference between Bernie winning and losing SC-and-beyond is laughable.

Agree that specifically butthurt Warren/Buttigieg people defecting to Biden is not the reason for Bernie losing decisively post SC.  The reason for that is because that is when all of the not Bernie people got aligned behind a single candidate.  The dynamic of Bernie supporters alienating other types of democratic voters is not isolated to Twitter and even where it is, it permeates outwards.  It's not something that is easily measurable but I think that it did have a lot to do with why, when the choice became Bernie or Biden, Biden started cruising.  Just to be clear - you're discussing where Buttigieg/Warren voters went, I'm discussing why the Bernie movement was more successful at picking up opposition than picking up support (which they were also successful at).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6169

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

just a little reality check.  

Every person who doesn't like Dotard should be voting for the Democratic nominee in November and every available resource we have should be used to further that goal. Many of us are not thrilled that Biden is the nominee, but he gets my vote. The choices here are completely abhorrent evil or Biden. That's it. Those are the choices whether anyone likes that or not. The fence-sitters can either do the right thing and get behind Biden or just be indignant and selfish because their candidate is not the nominee. I feel certain that most of the voters who were not supporting Biden in the primaries will vote for him.

To again borrow from Brisket's plane analogy, the plane wound up crashing and Dotard walked away from it unscathed so here we are 3 plus years later still dealing with the wreckage. This is the mess we're in right now and it's up to all of us to do what we can to fix it and it begins with getting this narcissistic manchild out of the Oval Office. 

Edited by UpperWestside
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

The dynamic of Bernie supporters alienating other types of democratic voters is not isolated to Twitter and even where it is, it permeates outwards.  It's not something that is easily measurable but I think that it did have a lot to do with why, when the choice became Bernie or Biden, Biden started cruising.  Just to be clear - you're discussing where Buttigieg/Warren voters went, I'm discussing why the Bernie movement was more successful at picking up opposition than picking up support (which they were also successful at).

Bernie's campaign was FAR more successful in picking up support than any other campaign that didn't have a de facto Obama imprimatur on it.

Sanders built a massive and durable national movement as a DemSocialist independent from Vermont with the entire political and media establishment against him. Even now, at his most profound ebb and with every wind blowing against him, he's got ~30% of the Dem electorate firmly in his corner. Not enough to win, but waving it off as some kind of obvious joke is silly (and, ultimately, pyrrhic).

Are all Biden votes "opposition" to Bernie? That's more based on feelings than on reality. I haven't seen polling on this in a few weeks, but Bernie has been extremely popular among mainstream Democratic voters for years at this point. The hatred of Bernie and his Bros is a Very Online phenomenon. I phonebanked for him for dozens of hours and the only time I ever heard of someone being mad about Bernie Bros was from a Buttigieg supporter who was extremely online.

If I was to diagnose an outreach failure on the Bernie campaign it had nothing to do with the Very Online crowd who cares about Twitter, but about parking in South Carolina and reaching out to the on-the-ground black community and offering them the excellent vision of a more economically just vision of the world. Pointless, though, really, because Clyburn and the like were never going to endorse Bernie regardless of what Sanders did. Jim turned out to be a kingmaker more than basically anyone could have predicted, and that miscalculation was not Bernie's alone.

Think about all the online support for Buttigieg and Warren and what that turned into? Vapor. It's fun to laugh at the Bernie Bros and their misguided activism, but there seems to be zero introspection from the Buttigieg and Warren crowds. All of it sublimated into "lol Bernie" trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20967

Posted
Posted

Buttigieg was an absolute nobody 14 months ago. Bernie has been campaigning and organizing for President for 5 years with almost 100% national name recognition. The fact that Pete won Iowa, and barely lost to Bernie in NH, is not a sign of Bernie's strength. 

Bernie currently is way underperforming compared to 2016. At this point he was gaining momentum vs. Hillary, now he's cooked vs. Biden. 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20966

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie's campaign was FAR more successful in picking up support than any other campaign that didn't have a de facto Obama imprimatur on it.

Sanders built a massive and durable national movement as a DemSocialist independent from Vermont with the entire political and media establishment against him. Even now, at his most profound ebb and with every wind blowing against him, he's got ~30% of the Dem electorate firmly in his corner. Not enough to win, but waving it off as some kind of obvious joke is silly (and, ultimately, pyrrhic).

Are all Biden votes "opposition" to Bernie? That's more based on feelings than on reality. I haven't seen polling on this in a few weeks, but Bernie has been extremely popular among mainstream Democratic voters for years at this point. The hatred of Bernie and his Bros is a Very Online phenomenon. I phonebanked for him for dozens of hours and the only time I ever heard of someone being mad about Bernie Bros was from a Buttigieg supporter who was extremely online.

If I was to diagnose an outreach failure on the Bernie campaign it had nothing to do with the Very Online crowd who cares about Twitter, but about parking in South Carolina and reaching out to the on-the-ground black community and offering them the excellent vision of a more economically just vision of the world. Pointless, though, really, because Clyburn and the like were never going to endorse Bernie regardless of what Sanders did. Jim turned out to be a kingmaker more than basically anyone could have predicted, and that miscalculation was not Bernie's alone.

Think about all the online support for Buttigieg and Warren and what that turned into? Vapor. It's fun to laugh at the Bernie Bros and their misguided activism, but there seems to be zero introspection from the Buttigieg and Warren crowds. All of it sublimated into "lol Bernie" trolling.

As I indicated above, I agree with you on your first point.  I don't know if the obvious joke comment was towards me as that is clearly not what I'm doing or saying.  Not all Biden votes are opposition to Bernie but probably most of them post SC are in one way or another.  And for what it's worth (although here I am talking about a problem for the Bernie campaign that you are minimizing and not about whether I think Bernie is shitty or great or whatever) I thanked every single Bernie person who called me for putting their effort into the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Buttigieg was an absolute nobody 14 months ago. Bernie has been campaigning and organizing for President for 5 years with almost 100% national name recognition. The fact that Pete won Iowa, and barely lost to Bernie in NH, is not a sign of Bernie's strength. 

I didn't say it was a sign of Bernie's strength. What are you talking about?

I said that Bernie was a more successful vote-getter than anyone not named Biden, and that's true by a huge margin.

Bernie built himself up over years to very high name recognition, it's true. He also had a national media that either ignored his existence or actively worked against him. He had a legion of dedicated followers. He had a legion of dedicated haters. Obviously Bernie's campaign suffered from a lot of factors, internal and external, and obviously it wasn't a winner. Perhaps it never could've been a winner even if perfectly run. We don't know and can't know.

Maybe Buttigieg will run again in 2024/8 with universal name recognition and sweep it all. Maybe he disappears. Don't know yet.

As for the 2020 race, there was only so much Pete could do. Does Pete sit in SC for months trying to build up black support and lose valuable time in Iowa/NH? Can he even make it to SC if he bombs in Iowa/NH by ignoring them for SC? Resources and candidate time are limited for everyone. Bernie, Liz, and Klob had basically the same calculation.

Biden's game was to just give up on Iowa, NH, and Nevada and park in SC and build up on his biggest strength and count on a desperate media establishment to throw a never-ending parade for his victory there (or for anyone who could get ahead of Bernie). No one else could do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20967

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Biden's game was to just give up on Iowa, NH, and Nevada and park in SC and build up on his biggest strength and count on a desperate media establishment to throw a never-ending parade for his victory there (or for anyone who could get ahead of Bernie). No one else could do that.

Biden got lucky as fuck, no doubt. His primary campaign sucked ass and he didn't do shit until SC. 

But the "media establishment" didn't turn the tide for him. It was Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropping out, Warren's campaign flailing, Bloomberg being crippled at the debate, and a lot of voters who were ready to get in line behind a candidate they were satisfied with and who they think could beat Trump.  All the pieces dropped in place for Uncle Joe. 

It's understandable why Berners try to overcomplicate the reasons why Biden surged, but IMO the reality is the majority of D voters don't want a "revolution" candidate going up against Trump in 2020. Simple as that. 

Bernie overplayed his support from 2016 (a significant portion of it was anti-Hillary), and had absolutely no desire to build a coalition with your average D voter. That's a death sentence in a 2 person race vs. a brand name like Biden. The end. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Biden got lucky as fuck, no doubt. His primary campaign sucked ass and he didn't do shit until SC. 

But the "media establishment" didn't turn the tide for him. It was Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropping out, Warren's campaign flailing, Bloomberg being crippled at the debate, and a lot of voters who were ready to get in line behind a candidate they were satisfied with and who they think could beat Trump.  All the pieces dropped in place for Uncle Joe. 

It's understandable why Berners try to overcomplicate the reasons why Biden surged, but IMO the reality is the majority of D voters don't want a "revolution" candidate going up against Trump in 2020. Simple as that. 

Bernie overplayed his support from 2016 (a significant portion of it was anti-Hillary), and had absolutely no desire to build a coalition with your average D voter. That's a death sentence in a 2 person race vs. a brand name like Biden. The end. 

You say "the media establishment didn't turn the tide for him", then you parrot exactly the same line that the media establishment sold you for a year+. It's like a parishioner insisting on the mental independence of the flock by quoting the pastor's favorite lines verbatim.

But if that is some kind of truly independent thought that you came to on your own and not just consent that was manufactured because it validates you, let me ask you...

- Which of Bernie's ideas scared "the majority of D voters" as too much of a "revolution"? Which of his concepts or messages?

None of them. Exit polls have all showed majority support for M4A and even positive feelings for the scary word "socialism". Surely, if people were frightened of the "revolution" organically, they would be rejecting Bernie's "revolutionary" ideas, right?

- Why would voters think Bernie is dangerous to run against Trump?

Bernie, who has beaten Trump consistently for 5 years at this point in head-to-head polling and had/(still has, probably) the most highly enthusiastic voter support and the biggest movement of organizers/donors/volunteers from coast to coast. An objective analysis of the race throughout 2019 wouldn't put Bernie as some huge risk relative to the rest of the field, but that's the line that was almost universally promoted by the media establishment.

An unfortunate thing here is that the only actual substantive response I'll get to a media critique is, "SOUR GRAPES BERNIE BRO!", but media narratives matter tremendously and anyone being even slightly honest will admit that. You can't rationally go from claiming that name recognition is important to claiming that the media doesn't matter, at least not honestly.

I agree 100% that voters were ready to get in line behind the candidate who could get behind Trump, but why did voters think it so much more likely that Biden would beat Trump than Sanders?

It's not because they all pored over years worth of polling data, they went with who they have been told forever is the safer bet. Told by whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20967

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You say "the media establishment didn't turn the tide for him", then you parrot exactly the same line that the media establishment sold you for a year+. It's like a parishioner insisting on the mental independence of the flock by quoting the pastor's favorite lines verbatim.

But if that is some kind of truly independent thought that you came to on your own and not just consent that was manufactured because it validates you, let me ask you...

- Which of Bernie's ideas scared "the majority of D voters" as too much of a "revolution"? Which of his concepts or messages?

None of them. Exit polls have all showed majority support for M4A and even positive feelings for the scary word "socialism". Surely, if people were frightened of the "revolution" organically, they would be rejecting Bernie's "revolutionary" ideas, right?

- Why would voters think Bernie is dangerous to run against Trump?

Bernie, who has beaten Trump consistently for 5 years at this point in head-to-head polling and had/(still has, probably) the most highly enthusiastic voter support and the biggest movement of organizers/donors/volunteers from coast to coast. An objective analysis of the race throughout 2019 wouldn't put Bernie as some huge risk relative to the rest of the field, but that's the line that was almost universally promoted by the media establishment.

An unfortunate thing here is that the only actual substantive response I'll get to a media critique is, "SOUR GRAPES BERNIE BRO!", but media narratives matter tremendously and anyone being even slightly honest will admit that. You can't rationally go from claiming that name recognition is important to claiming that the media doesn't matter, at least not honestly.

I agree 100% that voters were ready to get in line behind the candidate who could get behind Trump, but why did voters think it so much more likely that Biden would beat Trump than Sanders?

It's not because they all pored over years worth of polling data, they went with who they have been told forever is the safer bet. Told by whom?

Again, the Monday Morning Quarterbacking from Bernie supporters of what went wrong is understandable. I just think you're wrong. 

Joe Biden did horribly in Iowa. And even worse in NH. The media thought he was cooked at that point. I thought he was done as well. While he was generally leading in national polling throughout the primary, his numbers solidly dipped for months. At one point, I believe Warren actually took the lead in RCP average for a day or two in October. 

Everyone was looking for a reason not to vote for Joe Biden. That's why Pete won Iowa, why Klobuchar got almost 20% in NH, and why Bloomberg was taken seriously by the media for a few months and had solid polling numbers prior to actual primary voting. The media "establishment" being in the tank for Joe is revisionist history. The mainstream newspaper journalism world LOVED Elizabeth Warren. Klobuchar got like a dozen endorsements from editorial boards. 

RE: this question "but why did voters think it so much more likely that Biden would beat Trump than Sanders?"

I think the answer is simply that most voters generally feel more comfortable with Biden than Sanders.  Bernie people REALLY care about policy, but the majority of voters don't.

I'm reminded of Buttigieg quote that stuck with me "“So much of politics is about people’s relationships with themselves. You do better if you make people feel secure in who they are.”  Bernie's rhetoric and "revolution" - while clearly appealing to 25-30% of voters - felt like a threat to a lot of people. And people don't like to be threatened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Again, the Monday Morning Quarterbacking from Bernie supporters of what went wrong is understandable. I just think you're wrong. 

What am I saying now that I haven't been saying for a year?

Quote

Joe Biden did horribly in Iowa. And even worse in NH. The media thought he was cooked at that point. I thought he was done as well. While he was generally leading in national polling throughout the primary, his numbers solidly dipped for months. At one point, I believe Warren actually took the lead in RCP average for a day or two in October. 

Not for months. Sanders led Biden in the RCP national average for the month of February.

Quote

Everyone was looking for a reason not to vote for Joe Biden. That's why Pete won Iowa, why Klobuchar got almost 20% in NH, and why Bloomberg was taken seriously by the media for a few months and had solid polling numbers prior to actual primary voting. The media "establishment" being in the tank for Joe is revisionist history. The mainstream newspaper journalism world LOVED Elizabeth Warren. Klobuchar got like a dozen endorsements from editorial boards. 

Not "everyone" was looking for a reason not to vote for Joe Biden. You're confusing yourself and your own class of people for "everyone". Highly educated white people of means were looking for a non-Biden. A class wildly over-represented in NH and Iowa. (Also, the media class, the corporate class, and most of the posters here.)

As you say, the media punditry members were huge Warren boosters for a while, massive Pete boosters for even longer. And once it became obvious those shinier objects wouldn't cut it, they moved on smoothly to Biden.

But the entire time, they were anti-Sanders.

You can pretend that's meaningless, but if you were being honest with yourself you know that's bullshit. You know the results would be different if the media was as generous to Bernie as it was to Liz and Pete. You can feel about me however you want and think I'm a whining asshole, but you know the reality of how media narratives work and how determinative they can be. Would it have been enough to beat Biden? Maybe, maybe not. But it would've been a massive difference.

Hell, the results would have wildly different with even neutral coverage of Sanders from the liberal media establishments.

You can say, "He deserved what he got, because he's a bastard" or "He deserved it because you and your online friends are assholes", but that doesn't change the reality of the consent manufactured by the media. You can like what happened, but don't deny that it happened.

Quote

RE: this question "but why did voters think it so much more likely that Biden would beat Trump than Sanders?"

I think the answer is simply that most voters generally feel more comfortable with Biden than Sanders.  Bernie people REALLY care about policy, but the majority of voters don't.

I'm reminded of Buttigieg quote that stuck with me "“So much of politics is about people’s relationships with themselves. You do better if you make people feel secure in who they are.”  Bernie's rhetoric and "revolution" - while clearly appealing to 25-30% of voters - felt like a threat to a lot of people. And people don't like to be threatened. 

Again, you're just confusing yourself and your own class position for the masses. But let's work with it anyway, what made them feel threatened?

Was it Bernie's policy platform or was it the image of Bernie perpetuated in the media for years?

He lost. I lost. I am defeated. I am owned. I have no idea what it profits you guys at this point to try and pretend like the media narrative being strongly against Sanders meant nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...