Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[washparkhorn 9939]

Ahh - thanks Pete.

By the way, what the fuck happened to this Pete? 

[washparkhorn 9939]

6 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Yeah I don't see a revolution in those numbers especially when you consider the '08 raw numbers were much bigger. 

I don't see a win against Trump if we run an Establishment candidate like 2016. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

Such kind words about Sanders . . . Thanks Pete.

https://twitter.com/_ericblanc/status/1226567574613155840

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

23 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Yeah I don't see a revolution in those numbers especially when you consider the '08 raw numbers were much bigger. 

Also, Bernie is selling being able to reach rural middle-aged white Trump voters. Those numbers were down for the Dems.

No one can win then. Have you taken a look at any polls and who all the other non-Bernie candidates poll well with? None of them have the base that Bernie does. It was one caucus in a state that's turning more red, you're being hyperbolic by comparing it to 12 years ago.

Edited February 10, 2020 by GSU&UT

[gmr548 16637]

4 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Yeah I don't see a revolution in those numbers especially when you consider the '08 raw numbers were much bigger. 

Also, Bernie is selling being able to reach rural middle-aged white Trump voters. Those numbers were down for the Dems.

Tl;dr: The small portion of Sanders supporters that crossed over to Trump was enough to change the outcome in MI, WI, and PA, and therefore the election. However the bigger take away is that Democrats don't need to focus on this crowd - and from what I have seen Sander's messaging has been more focused on energizing voters historically more likely to vote D, but also more likely to sit out, which is wise. Clinton badly underperformed Obama in two states with very small margins of victory, directly leading to her defeat - two states in which Bernie Sanders beat her in the Democratic primaries. Sanders is at the top of the D field vs Trump in PA and is best positioned to bring new voters into the fold, which is probably the single biggest key there given Trump's strength. To say he isn't as well positioned to deliver WI, MI, PA as other candidates is incorrect. Full disclosure, I am going to vote for Elizabeth Warren unless the writing is just on the wall by the time TX votes. So I am not saying this as a Sanders supporter.

If you have free time:

I will concede the data is limited (WaPo notes three surveys), but the data that does exist indicates the number of Sanders voters that went for Trump over Clinton in the general was greater than Trump's margin in WI, MI, and PA. The same surveys also show that these voters actually hold a lot of the opinions associated with middle aged, uneducated white voters (I haven't seen any reporting on age): Low approval of Obama, don't believe whites have an inherent advantage, high opposition to free trade.

This is your "economic anxiety" crowd. A moderate is not the way to reach them. Structural economic and political reform is.

That is still secondary to the fact that untapped votes in the historically low participation/disenfranchised groups outnumber the unicorn swing voting white moderate in the midwest and everywhere else. Sander's messaging has been predominantly about getting these groups involved and that's for good reason.

Even if every single Trump voter shows up for him again, in these states where he is underwater in approval (-10,-12, -2 respectively in WI, MI, and PA per Morning Consult):

Trump won Michigan by 10k votes. Wayne County (Detroit - 66 percent D) turnout decreased by 40-45k from 2012 and Clinton underperformed Obama by 75k votes. Trump got about 15k more votes than Romney. Assume that those 40k missing voters also vote at a 66 percent D clip (in reality they'd likely vote D at a higher rate because nonvoters trend young and minority) and that flips the state.

Milwaukee County, WI - Clinton got 50k fewer votes than Obama. You'd think, okay, well yeah she lost the state and he won; but Trump got 30k fewer votes than Romney, so we have a turnout decrease of ballpark 65-70k when accounting for third parties. Trump won Wisconsin by a little under 25k votes. Those 65-70k missing voters voting at Milwaukee County's 65-29 percent D clip flip the state. Further, Trump won but also underperformed Romney in the counties adjacent to Milwaukee - the suburbs. Clinton just underperformed Obama too. Trump didn't run up the score with Obama voters, Democrats just stayed home.

So this wasn't some Obama-Trump voter/middle aged white moderate wave that flipped WI and MI. Or rather, if it made the difference, it wasn't because it was a ton of them, but because Democratic voters stayed home. There are Obama voters on the sideline, and knowing what we know about the Obama coalition, they likely trend younger and more racially diverse. This crowd is Sander's strongest bloc.

I'll also concede I don't see a similar trend in PA just by eyeballing for this post. Turnout was up across the board and generally the state appeared to consolidate along urban vs rural lines. Trump got 2.9mm votes statewide, about 65k more than Obama 2012 and over 750k more than Romney. In the other two states, Trump's numbers basically tracked Romney's while Clinton just underperformed Obama terribly. Between that and the approval rating gap between PA and the other two, I have to admit I think I need to reevaluate my previous stance that PA is essentially a Democratic lock. It almost looks like WI and MI are lower hanging fruit and PA is where the work is really going to be cut out for Ds.

Still between the 2018 midterms, where Democrats absolutely wiped the floor with the GOP statewide, and the fact that the areas driving growth in PA are Democratic and trending more so, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that Trump's performance in the state probably peaked in 2016. I'm not sure there are many new Trump voters waiting in the wings. New voters in PA are more likely to lean D, and in a state where the margin of victory was 45k votes, that matters inherently. Sanders is the leading candidate among young voters, which is among the biggest untapped Democratic voting blocs. Sanders also outperforms every Democrat not named Joe Biden in polls vs Trump in PA. Democrats are going to have to fight for the state, but Bernie is as well positioned as anyone to pull it off.

Edited February 10, 2020 by gmr548

[406W30th 1111]

13 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Yeah I don't see a revolution in those numbers especially when you consider the '08 raw numbers were much bigger. 

Also, Bernie is selling being able to reach rural middle-aged white Trump voters. Those numbers were down for the Dems.

I'll wait until we have a sample size larger than one.

I also think getting traditional non-voters out to vote is a much easier sell in the general election, rather than in an early primary. Getting that same demographic out to the long, tedious caucus is exponentially more difficult.

 

[bad_teammate 13302]

I just love how this campaign gets corporate media attacks and responds with, "FUCK YOUR FRAMING"

The Buttigieg way of not answering what he is asked is to talk in vague platitudes around the question.

The Sanders way is to just point out the rank hypocrisy and/or inhumanity that exists in the framing of the question.

Those two survive

Warren tries/tried to take bad faith questions as good faith questions and bend herself into a pretzel to satisfy the corporate ghouls and whores.

Edited February 10, 2020 by bad_teammate

[GSU&UT 1798]

@bad_teammate I'm all in for Nina Turner to be the VP. I know it could be awful given Bernie's age and her inexperience in national politics (I think she only served on the Ohio House of Reps) but I don't want a situation where Bernie's old ass gets sick and immobilized and a center-left VP does absolutely nothing to carry on his message of a revolution.

[David Dennison 19120]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I just love how this campaign gets corporate media attacks and responds with, "FUCK YOUR FRAMING"

The Buttigieg way of not answering what he is asked is to talk in vague platitudes around the question.

The Sanders way is to just point out the rank hypocrisy and/or inhumanity that exists in the framing of the question.

Those two survive

Warren tries/tried to take bad faith questions as good faith questions and bend herself into a pretzel to satisfy the corporate ghouls and whores.

She never answered the question. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She never answered the question. 

Bernie has already said that we'd fund M4A by a tax everyone pays if that's what you're referring to.

[David Dennison 19120]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

Bernie has already said that we'd fund M4A by a tax everyone pays if that's what you're referring to.

You need legislation to do that. The question then becomes, how does Bernie Sanders get that bill through Congress?

[Biff Tannen 45767]

M4A is a fucking pipe dream unless corruption in Washington is addressed.  And the Ds have to have full control and eliminate the filibuster.  I see no reason to even talk about it until this happens.

[bad_teammate 13302]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You need legislation to do that. The question then becomes, how does Bernie Sanders get that bill through Congress?

By defeating the Republican majority in the Senate through a mass popular movement to take both houses of Congress. Then pressuring all hesitant Democrats with pressure from the left.

[GSU&UT 1798]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You need legislation to do that. The question then becomes, how does Bernie Sanders get that bill through Congress?

Good lord, the same could be said for any candidate's big platform. What is Nina supposed to say to make you feel better? This is literally her going on TV to drive enthusiasm, not turn into a wonk.

[Biff Tannen 45767]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

By defeating the Republican majority in the Senate through a mass popular movement to take both houses of Congress. Then pressuring all hesitant Democrats with pressure from the left.

How do you propose we do this?  There is a cult and a bunch of criminals that manipulate the system to get past first.  

[David Dennison 19120]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

By defeating the Republican majority in the Senate through a mass popular movement to take both houses of Congress. Then pressuring all hesitant Democrats with pressure from the left.

You'll have to change the Senate rules, too.

[GSU&UT 1798]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

M4A is a fucking pipe dream unless corruption in Washington is addressed.  And the Ds have to have full control and eliminate the filibuster.  I see no reason to even talk about it until this happens.

Holy shit, the whole point is to move the Overton Window, I don't personally think anything close to a real M4A passes during a two-term Bernie presidency. I want someone to push as literally as hard as possible to make it happen to get people to start understand that this should be the norm and is something that all politicians will eventually have to truly support at a minimum. It's my dream that my daughter doesn't have to deal with the healthcare industry in the way I did at some point in her life, it starts now.

[David Dennison 19120]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Good lord, the same could be said for any candidate's big platform. What is Nina supposed to say to make you feel better? This is literally her going on TV to drive enthusiasm, not turn into a wonk.

Oh, it's not me that needs to feel better. I know how Washington works and I know Bernie's plans have as much chance of becoming law as Donald Trump's budget.

Most voters don't. They believe what politicians promise in campaigns. And when those politicians don't deliver, they get angry and we wind up with a president like Donald Trump.

[heso 2822]

Pay for part of it with a fat tax. No fee for under 25% body fat. Goes up from there. Can’t afford it? Go for a jog or drink 1 less pop a day.

would reduce the prevalence of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mental health issues, and many many more, which in turn would reduce spending on chronic illnesses. 

[bad_teammate 13302]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How do you propose we do this?

By bringing a unified national message that resonates with working class voters and the non-voting demographics that are our natural allies. You swing districts not by saying, "Hey I'm a nicer Republican" but by naming the unfairness and lies that actually impact their real, everyday lives.

Quote

There is a cult and a bunch of criminals that manipulate the system to get past first.  

Yes, of course.

This is true for every single Democrat.

[GSU&UT 1798]

  

Just now, David Dennison said:

Oh, it's not me that needs to feel better. I know how Washington works and I know Bernie's plans have as much chance of becoming law as Donald Trump's budget.

Most voters don't. They believe what politicians promise in campaigns. And when those politicians don't deliver, they get angry and we wind up with a president like Donald Trump.

How many disenfranchised and underrepresented  are turning on MSNBC right now, seeing this, and wanting to hear every single detail of Bernie's M4A bill? Nina, Bernie, and so many on his campaign are using these talking points because the whole idea is to drive the Democratic party away from a decades slip to the right in terms of how we raise taxes, fight inequality, racial justice, etc. Maybe Bernie will get slaughtered if he wins and runs a similar re-election campaign because the average voter will think he lied, but his whole idea is to try and motivate people to get involved in the political process and completely change it. We'll see if he's right or not, but by god he is going to try.

[Biff Tannen 45767]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You swing districts not by saying, "Hey I'm a nicer Republican" but by naming the unfairness and lies that actually impact their real, everyday lives.

Pfft, fake news.

[heso 2822]

Legalize weed and and put a federal sales tax on it. 

[David Dennison 19120]

Just now, heso said:

Legalize weed and and put a federal sales tax on it. 

I can't figure out why Donald Trump hasn't done this yet. He'd win in a landslide.

[heso 2822]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I can't figure out why Donald Trump hasn't done this yet. He'd win in a landslide.

Because a huge segment of his base is old white people and religious zealots. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

Relevant,

 

[David Dennison 19120]

15 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Relevant,

 

But disappointment leads to apathy, and apathy leads to demagoguery. Enter, Donald Trump.

The electoral process matters because the promises made by politicians must eventually come to a vote. The ACA exists as it does because one man, Joe Liebermann (a Democrat!) would not budge on the public option. He placed the insurance industry above the needs of the people. The legislative process matters. Voters need to understand that. A great many of them do not. They do not understand that the president cannot just make something happen with the wave of a magic wand. They do not understand that progressive legislation requires massive amounts of grassroots and professional lobbying as well as compromise with an opposition that includes moderates in the Democratic Party. Without compromise, the promises that Bernie Sanders is making will never become law. Where is Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter, willing to compromise on their progressive agendas?

Edited February 10, 2020 by David Dennison

[David Dennison 19120]

50 minutes ago, heso said:

Because a huge segment of his base is old white people and religious zealots. 

Plus, "he's a fucking moron."

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But disappointment leads to apathy, and apathy leads to demagoguery. Enter, Donald Trump.

The electoral process matters because the promises made by politicians must eventually come to a vote. The ACA exists as it does because one man, Joe Liebermann (a Democrat!) would not budge on the public option. He placed the insurance industry above the needs of the people. The legislative process matters. Voters need to understand that. A great many of them do not. They do not understand that the president cannot just make something happen with the wave of a magic wand. They do not understand that progressive legislation requires massive amounts of grassroots and professional lobbying as well as compromise with an opposition that includes moderates in the Democratic Party. Without compromise, the promises that Bernie Sanders is making will never become law. Where is Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter, willing to compromise on their progressive agendas?

Who says Bernie won't compromise? The idea is that you don't do so until you are forced, everyone is making predictions about the future before we've even gotten to the second state in this presidential primary cycle.

You are also completely ignoring all the grassroots social movements that have been successful in this country that have driven change that is literally outlined in the tweet thread I posted. If it doesn't work, then my point is we will have at least tried to go through a process where we drive social change through a movement rather than hoping a few hundred politicians cast the right vote.

[Biff Tannen 45767]

30 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Where is Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter, willing to compromise on their progressive agendas?

I don't believe Sanders will compromise.  I think Warren would.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Biff Tannen

[bad_teammate 13302]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't believe Sanders will compromise.

Not interested in arguing against this, but what is it that leads you to believe this?

[Todd Gack 432]

10 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Who says Bernie won't compromise? The idea is that you don't do so until you are forced, everyone is making predictions about the future before we've even gotten to the second state in this presidential primary cycle.

You are also completely ignoring all the grassroots social movements that have been successful in this country that have driven change that is literally outlined in the tweet thread I posted. If it doesn't work, then my point is we will have at least tried to go through a process where we drive social change through a movement rather than hoping a few hundred politicians cast the right vote.

In a Sanders presidency, the majority (bipartisan) vote against MFA is an absolute certainty.  The question is how big of a movement do those corrupted votes elicit in response.  I ultimately think it won't matter as the pull of corporate greed is too strong amongst too many politicians.  Marching in your streets and calling your state reps will only serve to make them become hermits.  They'll still vote to preserve the massive healthcare machine as-is.  

But the key question IMO is how many old guard dems are challenged by the future AOCs and Ro Khana's of the world. And how much awareness do the marches in the streets raise among the general population so that they will actually vote out these corporate dems.   

[David Dennison 19120]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not interested in arguing against this, but what is it that leads you to believe this?

His rhetoric on M4A and the elimination of private insurance might lead one to believe he is dug in on that particular issue.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13302]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

His rhetoric on M4A and the elimination of private insurance might lead one to believe he is dug in on that particular issue.

Can you expound upon how his rhetoric for M4A is different from any other candidate's rhetoric about their plans?

Is it common for candidates to say, "but I'm open to compromising these values for votes" out loud whenever they're discussing their vision of the world?

Specifics and examples would be helpful.

[David Dennison 19120]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Can you expound upon how his rhetoric for M4A is different from any other candidate's rhetoric about their plans?

Is it common for candidates to say, "but I'm open to compromising these values for votes" out loud whenever they're discussing their vision of the world?

Specifics and examples would be helpful.

It's not different. He is different. He holds himself out as the most progressive candidate on this particular issue. That means he is viewed by many non-progressives as a radical who wants to end employer based health insurance. Many of these people oppose any plan that will eliminate their employer provided health care. Bernie Sanders cannot win unless he can convince those people to vote for him.

[bad_teammate 13302]

You aren't Biff so you didn't say this exactly, but do you believe Bernie himself is either unwilling to compromise in a legislative process or unable to do so?

[David Dennison 19120]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You aren't Biff so you didn't say this exactly, but do you believe Bernie himself is either unwilling to compromise in a legislative process or unable to do so?

No, but I'm not the type of voter Bernie Sanders needs to convince. I don't think he's a radical. I think he's a progressive and that's fine by me. But he needs moderates to vote for him or he has no chance.

[Biff Tannen 45767]

Just now, David Dennison said:

No, but I'm not the type of voter Bernie Sanders needs to convince. I don't think he's a radical. I think he's a progressive and that's fine by me. But he needs moderates to vote for him or he has no chance.

Mostly this.  I think Bernie would compromise in the end, but I don't think his followers would and I'm worried a lot of voters have that same perception.  It's a turn off.  M4A to the extent Bernie is preaching needs to transition over many years.  Last I checked he literally was talking about ending private insurance entirely within 5 years?  That would be a complete and total cluster fuck.

[bad_teammate 13302]

You're both arguing why Bernie won't win, not how Bernie would govern if he won.

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Last I checked he literally was talking about ending private insurance entirely within 5 years?  That would be a complete and total cluster fuck.

So this isn't about electability or the "turn-off" factor of the Bros, but literally just policy stuff?

That's fine, but the conflation of "the Bernie Bros are mean and people hate them" with "Policy X is unpopular" doesn't make for clear discussions.

[GSU&UT 1798]

30 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

In a Sanders presidency, the majority (bipartisan) vote against MFA is an absolute certainty.  The question is how big of a movement do those corrupted votes elicit in response.  I ultimately think it won't matter as the pull of corporate greed is too strong amongst too many politicians.  Marching in your streets and calling your state reps will only serve to make them become hermits.  They'll still vote to preserve the massive healthcare machine as-is.  

But the key question IMO is how many old guard dems are challenged by the future AOCs and Ro Khana's of the world. And how much awareness do the marches in the streets raise among the general population so that they will actually vote out these corporate dems.   

Right, I'm skeptical too but he has declared he will literally hold rallies (yes almost like Trump OMG) in states where senators are opposed to his expansion, even Democratic senators. This is why I think the party heads have been so vocal against him, him basically shitting on sitting democratic senators isn't a good look because he does not care about their re-election chances. I'm all for it and I honestly think it will, at the very least, help drive this conversation into something that people internalize and accept as a given rather than some crazy socialist agenda.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, but I'm not the type of voter Bernie Sanders needs to convince. I don't think he's a radical. I think he's a progressive and that's fine by me. But he needs moderates to vote for him or he has no chance.

Bernie's problem isn't "moderate voters", it's Plutocrats that are spinning the phrase "electablility" while throwing us garbage candidates like Biden and Bloomberg because they know they can be controlled.

[bad_teammate 13302]

So let's go back to Lieberman shoving a knife in the public option. I think all this really establishes is how hard it is to get things done when there is no mechanism of discipline.

Trump gets his votes because if he doesn't, the CHUDs will make the intransigent legislators' life a living hell. Romney was 100% justified and correct in his vote, but he's terrified as he's making his stand and he can only make it because he's in the very specific insulated bubble of Utah.

What did Lieberman face? Obama met with him privately once to try to convince him.

- Imagine if Obama had flown to his home district and held a rally with dozens of Congressmen in front of tens of thousands.

- Imagine hundreds of young people having die-ins at his offices.

- Imagine if Lieberman's challengers were able to raise a million dollars in a week to primary him.

- Imagine if Obama said to him, "If you vote against this, the doors of this party are closed to you forever. You won't be wiped from our books, your name will be destroyed. Every person that dies for lack of insurance will be on your name and we will make sure everyone knows it."

Instead, we said, "Well, gosh, Joe, we sure do feel bad you aren't with us" and our uninsured rate is climbing right back towards where it was and tens of thousands are dying.

[washparkhorn 9939]

I don't think Sanders would compromise the goal, but he isn't running for Dictator and he respects the democratic process and institutions. 

No reason for Democrats to negotiate against themselves at this point. Universal health care is standard in the industrialized world. It would save us $600B a year. It isn't that big of an ask.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

Universal Health Care - nations in Green. 

[Biff Tannen 45767]

Saudi Arabia and Russia have universal health care?

[bad_teammate 13302]

I've been saying this to the Bernie haters for a YEAR now...

Y'all motherfuckers need to bone up on how Jane stole a college. That's the fresh stuff to throw at Bernardo.

[heso 2822]

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I've been saying this to the Bernie haters for a YEAR now...

Y'all motherfuckers need to bone up on how Jane stole a college. That's the fresh stuff to throw at Bernardo.

And in the least surprising news of the day: the guy that was responsible for getting that investigation opened in 2016 was Trump’s Vermont campaign manager and ended up being given a job working for Barr at the DOJ. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by heso

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

lol at quoting that account ITT that has shit on Bernie since 2016.

[David Dennison 19120]

That Burlington College thing is going to be an issue moving forward. That's just politics.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

lol at quoting that account ITT that has shit on Bernie since 2016.

facts...something something attack the messenger.