What, aside from wishful thinking, makes anyone think...

[Garrett78]

...that Bernie Sanders is likely to be our nominee?!?

I keep seeing posts to that effect. Were those folks asleep or living in a cave throughout 2016? Are they really that fooled by name recognition polling? Have they looked at the primary schedule? Are they aware that there will be fewer caucuses in 2020? Do they just not really follow politics?

What makes anyone think Sanders is going to do *much, much* better than last time among POC and non-millennial women? Because if he doesn't, he's basically done after New Hampshire.

It's dumbfounding.

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Who is this Harris person you speak of?

I think Kamela is a wonderful, dynamic human being. If she gets the nom, I'm all over it. But why diss fellow Dems with this divisive post?

[Garrett78]

26. It's not a diss, and I made no mention of Harris.

The fact of the matter is, Sanders has to do much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women in order to contend, much less be the frontrunner. What reason is there to think he will do so? He has continued to stick his foot in his mouth with regard to matters of race and sex.

If anything, he'll lose supporters, partly because other candidates appeal to the same constituency as Sanders does.

Politics isn't just a matter of guesswork. Demographic and regional trends are telling. Having fewer caucuses matters. The number of candidates and who those candidates are matters.

[pnwmom]

64. Who is the Harris person YOU are speaking of? The OP didn't say anything about Harris. My fear

with Bernie is that he resorted to negative campaign tactics against Hillary -- such as patting himself on the back for not being negative while announcing how corrupt she was. And I'm worried he'll do the same thing this time around.

[katmondoo]

2. I am not sure Bernie will have the same following as before

Too many very interesting candidates this time

[Garrett78]

3. No, in all likelihood, he'll do worse than last time.

[NurseJackie]

7. Agreed!

I think the old saying of "familiarity breeds contempt" may be an accurate and truthful representation for most except for the die-hard followers.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/familiarity-breeds-contempt

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/familiarity-breeds-contempt

[Garrett78]

27. I don't know that familiarity will hurt or help him, but...

...not doing much better among POC and non-millennial women (not a guarantee but very likely), having fewer caucuses and having competitors who appeal to the same constituency would all indicate that Sanders will do worse than he did in 2016. So, suggesting that he's a contender or even the frontrunner is just plain strange.

[Progressive2020]

38. Another Point

I think another reason Sanders chances are not good is that he and Elizabeth Warren will split the left/progressive vote between them in the primaries. In 2016, Bernie was the main progressive alternative to Hillary. He no longer is the only major progressive candidate in this race.

[Garrett78]

39. That's what I mean by appealing to the same constituency.

Making matters worse for Sanders is that Warren is also from New England. NH is crucial for both of them. Biden is also from New England.

Of course, Warren and Harris have the same voting record, but perception is powerful, even when wrong.

[Progressive2020]

43. Yes, Agreed

They will split the progressive/left vote. I would say that perception does matter, as you say. Just because two people have similar voting records does not mitigate that some people might be viewed as a "true blue progressive" versus someone who votes based on a political calculus that gets them ahead.

I am not accusing anyone of this, but what I am saying is that hard core progressives want someone who is progressive in their core, not just someone who votes on their issues. That said, I am a pragmatist. If someone votes in a way that I like, is a person of good character, and can beat the tar out of Trump, then I very likely will support them.

Just a minor note- I am not sure that Biden is from New England as you say. My understanding is that he is from Pennsylvania, a mid-Atlantic state, not a New England state.

[Garrett78]

46. Progressive, of course, is an ambiguous term that nobody owns.

What really separates Sanders and his ilk from others is their view on identity politics and the notion that classism is essentially all that matters. This is among the reasons why Sanders does so poorly among POC and non-millennial women, even if most Democrats agree with many of his positions and don't dislike him. And Sanders has not done himself any favors by continuing to stick his foot in his mouth on matters of racism and sexism--he just can't help himself.

And there is also some difference of opinion over how we best get from point A to point B (e.g., how we get from where we are to a universal health care system, which has been part of our platform for a very long time).

[Progressive2020]

53. Is That Accurate?

Does Sanders disregard positions based on race, gender, and so on? Does he only care about class issues at the expense of identity politics or issues? This does seem to be a perception of some commentators, but I am wondering if there is hard evidence about it one way or another.

[Garrett78]

55. He's been very dismissive of "identity politics" and the role racism played in Trump's so-called win

And, more recently, he's said things such as, "I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American."

This is a real problem, not something fabricated by the media.

Anyway, you can't have Republican-esque numbers among POC and also do very poorly among non-millennial women and win the Democratic Party nomination. No way, no how.

[Progressive2020]

57. Fair Enough

I did not mean to imply it was fabricated by the Media or anyone else. I was just wondering where it came from. I do appreciate the response.

I would also agree that whoever wins the nomination must address everyone's issues in the party- black, white, male, female, gay, straight. If Bernie does not appeal to enough people, POC, non-millennial women, etc (as you point out), then his chances of success are not good.

[TCJ70]

10. I mean...that's just a function of math.

When there are only two choices, getting 43% isn’t great, but it isn’t bad either. With 10+ choices? It just makes sense for that number to decrease.

[Garrett78]

19. There won't be 10+ candidates for long. By Super Tuesday, maybe 5 or 6. If that.

[lindysalsagal]

109. agreed.

[honest.abe]

4. He's not looking good in NH already where he has near 100% name recognition.

That is a telling sign.

[KPN]

5. Right, so why is anyone concerned and fretting

that he is running. It doesn’t follow. Makes no sense.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

6. I'm sure you know why.

[KPN]

17. I frankly don't and don't understand it.

Granted, I don’t buy the argument we lost in 2016 because of him. I’m glad he’s in. But otherwise??

He and Warren are more outwardly and obviously focused on what I think is most important — social and economic justice for all, an economy and system that works for everyone. So there’s that. But I’m open-minded at this point. I need to learn and hear more from all candidates including both of them over the next year before making up my mind.

[Garrett78]

15. A person can stand no chance and cause harm. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

[KPN]

20. I don't think anyone can say that with any

certainty about any current or potential 2020 candidate at this point. I do agree that primaries can cause harm to candidates and their chances. But there’s nothing new in that. That’s why parties avoid primaries for their incumbents. It’s what it is.

[MrsCoffee]

67. And history tends to repeat itself.

It’s not like trash talking the party stopped after 2016.

Anyone who isn’t high on cognitive dissonance is probably concerned about a repeat.

[Garrett78]

68. I understand the concern, but here's why I don't think history will repeat itself, per se:

Sanders won't be in a 1-on-1 race, and he won't be running against someone who millions had been conditioned to hate over a period of decades. 2016 was tailor-made for Sanders. The only place for the anti-Clinton crowd to go was Sanders--this is why pointing to his popular vote percentage (43% or whatever it was) in the 2016 Democratic Primary is basically meaningless. Plus, there will be fewer caucuses this time around. It seems to be a popular theory among Sanders supporters that vote-splitting is a binary phenomenon where only the non-Sanders candidates are hurt by vote-splitting. This, of course, is absurd, and I've explained why in posts #21 and #47 within this thread.

2nd in Iowa and 1st in New Hampshire propelled Sanders forward. I don't see him doing as well in those states in 2020, even as they remain 2 of the whitest and most rural states in the US (how wonderful that we give undue influence to a couple of states that don't remotely reflect our electorate). If he does relatively poorly in Iowa and doesn't win New Hampshire, it'll be quite embarrassing for him. So much so that I could see him dropping out before South Carolina, if not before Nevada. Certain states are more critical for some than for others (think Klobuchar and Iowa, or Sanders and New Hampshire or Warren and New Hampshire).

And Super Tuesday, assuming he hasn't already dropped out, will be even worse for him than it was in 2016. He'll lose badly in nearly every contest that takes place on March 3, 2020. Not to mention South Carolina 3 days earlier (where Sanders got Republican-esque support among Black voters in 2016: 14% to Clinton's 86%). I can't help but wonder how many people have actually looked at the primary schedule.

Anyway, he'll find it much tougher to justify sticking around, and I suspect there will be quite a bit of pressure on him to leave the race (including pressure from within his camp).

That there are people who seriously think he's a contender, or even the favorite, is dumbfounding. Reality will provide a swift smack.

[honest.abe]

76. He is a bull in a china shop.

Bernie is very good at attacking Democrats for what he perceives as being too corporate, too close to Wall Street, not progressive enough, etc, etc, etc. In the process he damages our candidates and creates an impression that Democrats are not good enough. That turns off many voters who then either don't show up to vote, or vote write-in, or "hold their nose" and vote for the eventual Dem nominee but wont sincerely back the person or donate or work for him/her. Much like what happened in 2016.

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. Wrong post placement. Self deleting. n/t

[WheelWalker]

8. I'm gobsmacked.

Just learned that term in another thread. And already found a place to use it.

[Cha]

16. lol

[Garrett78]

63. Yeah, it's pretty gobsmacking.

Not one person has addressed the last question in my OP, which is critical. What reason is there to believe Sanders is going to do considerably better this time around among POC and non-millennial women? Because if he doesn't, he's done after New Hampshire.

[Skinner]

9. Most of the declared candidates' campaigns are based on wishful thinking.

This criticism could be aimed at just about any potential Democratic presidential candidate, except maybe Biden who was vice president.

[Garrett78]

18. That's not really true. The reason we knew on Super Tuesday in 2016 that the race was over...

...was because of demographic information. Politics isn't purely a guessing game.

If Sanders doesn't do much, much better among POC and non-millennial women, he has no chance. And there's no reason to think that he will.

[BeyondGeography]

78. It's the equivalent of February 2015 now

and we have more candidates than most people can name. At this point in time, anyone who thinks theirs is The One is engaged in wishful thinking.

[Garrett78]

85. It's not about thinking any candidate is the one. But it's simply not the case that...

...every candidate has an equal chance. Politics is not purely a guessing game.

If Sanders doesn't do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, he can't win.

[Butterflylady]

11. Too much of a choice.

It definitely will not bea repeat of 2016.

[TCJ70]

12. I dunno. He has some advantages this time around.

- got a decent number of votes last time
- has a solid fundraising base
- multiple candidates work in his favor since the vote will be further split

Makes sense to me.

[KayF]

13. another one

voters chose a "safe" candidate in 2016 and we ended up losing to Trump. Voters might think differently this time about who is "safe"

[Garrett78]

21. Vote-splitting has a variety of causes and impacts.

The field may consist of 20+ heading into the first debate this June, but well before Super Tuesday on 3/3/20 the field will be down to half a dozen at most.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, how votes are split may have more to do with demographics (region, race, sex, etc.) and perceptions about policy positions than with actual policy positions or ideology. For instance, Warren, Sanders and Biden will probably make it tougher on one another in New Hampshire with all 3 of them being from New England.

And, after New Hampshire, many won't have the funds or the justification to continue. Sanders will essentially be eliminated from contention if he were to, say, finish no better than 3rd in Iowa and New Hampshire. The same goes for Warren, Klobuchar, Brown and maybe even Biden.

[TCJ70]

73. So it could go favorably or unfavorably...

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2019, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

...sounds like that could be said for any candidate at this point.

“What, other than wishful thinking, makes anyone think [insert your non-preferred candidate here] will be the nominee?”

[Garrett78]

22. 2016 was much more favorable for Sanders.

Sanders won't be in a 1-on-1 race, and he won't be running against someone who millions had been conditioned to hate over a period of decades. 2016 was tailor-made for Sanders. He was the only option for the anti-Clinton crowd.

2nd in Iowa and 1st in New Hampshire propelled Sanders forward. I don't see him doing as well in those states in 2020, even as they remain 2 of the whitest and most rural states in the US (how wonderful that we give undue influence to a couple of states that don't remotely reflect our electorate). If he does relatively poorly in Iowa and doesn't win New Hampshire, it'll be quite embarrassing for him. So much so that I could see him dropping out before South Carolina, if not before Nevada.

And Super Tuesday, assuming he hasn't already dropped out, will be even worse for him than it was in 2016. He'll lose badly in nearly every contest that takes place on March 3, 2020. Not to mention South Carolina 3 days earlier.

Plus, there will be fewer caucuses in 2020.

He'll find it much tougher to justify sticking around, and I suspect there will be quite a bit of pressure on him to leave the race (including pressure from within his camp).

That there are people who seriously think he's a contender, or even the favorite, is dumbfounding. Reality will provide a swift smack.

[smirkymonkey]

118. Losing a lot of the votes he got last time.

A lot of us are not making that mistake again. And that is a broadly shared sentiment.

[Garrett78]

120. Yep, as I suggested in the post (#22) right above yours, a large field doesn't...

...necessarily help Sanders, as so many are assuming. Far too many are assuming that vote-splitting will only have a negative impact on the non-Sanders candidates, which is absurd.

Sanders was a huge beneficiary of being in a 1-on-1 race against someone who had been vilified for a quarter of a century.

And there will be fewer caucuses.

And nobody has addressed the most critical point of all from my OP, which is this: What makes anyone think Sanders is going to do *much, much* better than last time among POC and non-millennial women? Because if he doesn't, he's basically done after New Hampshire.

[CentralMass]

14. That is why we hold elections.

[Garrett78]

23. But it's not purely a guessing game.

We knew on Super Tuesday in 2016 that Clinton had it in the bag. Not because Sanders was mathematically eliminated but because of demographic and regional trends. And because of what was happening in primaries vs. caucuses.

Unless Sanders somehow does much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, he simply can't contend.

[Progressive2020]

40. Demographics

I would be careful of relying too much on data, demographics, and trends. I think that was part of what did Hillary in during the 2016 race. The numbers looked alright in the Midwest, so she did not campaign strongly enough in some key states.

The lesson is, do not take anything for granted and do not rely too much on data and predictions. Campaigning hard on the ground is the way to win, not playing a guessing game with stats and demographics.

[Garrett78]

45. I'm not talking about where one campaigns, nor am I talking about a general election campaign.

I'm talking about how absolutely terrible Sanders did among POC, as well as non-millennial women in the Democratic Primary of 2016. Unless that changes pretty drastically in 2020, he can't win.

[IluvPitties]

24. He won't be the nominee.

I just hope he leaves the race as quickly as that becomes evident.

[Garrett78]

25. That's really the only question, and it'll depend on IA and NH.

Sanders, like Klobuchar and others, is wholly dependent upon doing very well in the first 2 contests to justify continuing.

Sanders could then maybe do okay in Nevada. But he will get crushed in South Carolina and Super Tuesday will more than likely be even worse for him than it was in 2016, which is when we knew that particular race was over.

[WeekiWater]

28. He keeps half of his support in a twelve person field.

That’s how.

It’s a strong argument for how he can do it. I think most people get that. If they didn’t, ops like this would be non-existent. I say that respectfully. It’s clear he is causing people serious concern. I’m one of them. He hasn’t stopped campaigning.

[Garrett78]

30. See posts #21 and #22.

I'm only concerned that his rhetoric will discourage people, especially impressionable millennials, to not support our eventual nominee. But because that person won't be someone who has been the target of ruthless attacks for the last 25 years like Clinton was, I'm not as concerned as I was in 2016.

But he has no shot at the nomination. Again, see posts 21 and 22.

[WeekiWater]

32. I strongly disagree with 21.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2019, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I think the early states are where Sanders will do best.

In 2016 Sanders got almost 50% of the Iowa Caucasus. I don’t think it’s far fetched to think he will get 25% this go around. Now tell me how the other 75% will be allocated. At this point in time, I think there is a stronger argument that Sanders will come away 1st in Iowa over anyone else.

Sanders won New Hampshire pretty big last time around. 60-38. Let’s say he gets 80,000 votes this time. Just over half of his last haul. Tell me how you think the other 160,000 will be allocated?

I think Sanders is in a much stronger position than you do. I think he has held onto half of his support.

[Garrett78]

37. Of course the first 2 states are where he's likely to do best. That's kind of the point.

He's utterly dependent upon doing very well in IA and NH. But there are numerous reasons to believe he will do worse in those states this time around.

Sanders sure as hell better hope he still has much more than half his support from last time.

Again, vote-splitting isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. It's not a simple binary relationship. Where there's Sanders and everyone else splitting the non-Sanders vote. That isn't how things play out. Vote-splitting has a variety of causes and effects. Demographics and regions and perceptions all play different roles in different ways.

Klobuchar, likewise, will be very dependent on doing well in Iowa, which borders her home state. The New Englanders all have an advantage in New Hampshire, but that becomes a disadvantage if several New Englanders are in the race. And so on and so forth.

[WeekiWater]

41. Votes are votes and there are only so many to go around.

They actually are pretty simple. I’m under the assumption that Sanders is going to hold half of his support from 2016. He hasn’t stopped campaigning and will have the deepest pockets. Of course demographics and regions have their own impact. I haven’t argued against that. Simply that I believe Sanders can easily be the front runner going into Super Tuesday. I don’t see where you have made an argument against that. Just saying demographics and regions doesn’t make it so.

[Garrett78]

47. I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying.

You're making vote-splitting out to be a simple binary relationship (where only the non-Sanders candidates are hurt/impacted by vote-splitting). And that's just not accurate. Klobuchar can hurt Bernie's chances in Iowa, Warren and Biden can hurt his chances in New England, the demographics of Nevada, South Carolina and many of the Super Tuesday states will hurt his chances in those states, and so on. By Super Tuesday, the field of candidates will be considerably reduced from where it will be when debate season starts in a few months.

If Sanders has lost half his support from 2016, he's in even more trouble than I imagine. If you think he's lost half his support, I'm curious as to where you think that half is going to go.

Look, if Sanders doesn't do considerably better than he did in 2016 among POC and non-millennial women, his goose is cooked, no matter how much money he has.

[comradebillyboy]

29. CNN, MSNBC and Politico just love him and will carry his water

just like they have in the past. They show no interest in actually vetting Bernie or holding him to the standards they have for other Democrats.

[Garrett78]

33. The last question in my OP is the most crucial. Media love can't overcome that.

[comradebillyboy]

36. Indeed, almost as many people disapprove of Bernie as approve of him

He has the highest negatives of any candidate, but he's still the media's darling and that's a big asset.

[Garrett78]

48. Even if Sanders isn't disliked, per se, he simply can't win without doing considerably better...

...among POC and non-millennial women. Clinton beat him by a 50-point margin among Black voters in 2016. Fifty! In South Carolina, the last state to vote before Super Tuesday, Clinton won 86% of the Black vote. Those are the kinds of numbers we see when a Democrat is running against a Republican.

What has Sanders done or said to make anyone think he'll do better (and not worse) among POC or non-millennial women in 2020 when he's not running against a sole competitor who was the target of ruthless attacks by Republicans and the media for a quarter of a century? Nobody in this thread has addressed that question, and I think we know why.

[comradebillyboy]

62. I don't disagree. My point is Bernie is still the media's darling and the media

will push a pro Sanders narrative no matter what. And that media bias is a big plus for him.

[Shemp Howard]

31. Picking ANY likely nominee now is "wishful thinking"!

Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton was the likely nominee from the get-go. Anyone else was an underdog.

But this is not 2016. The field is now wide open. Hoping that Sanders will be the nominee is no different than hoping that Harris or Biden will be the nominee.

So why dump on the Sanders supporters? It just doesn't make sense.

[Garrett78]

34. It's completely different. Again, this isn't pure guesswork.

Read my other posts in this thread, and read again the last question I asked in the OP.

[Progressive2020]

35. Sanders

I think a drawback for Sanders is that his campaign is not a novelty like it was in 2016. People know who he is, and he is no longer a new face to many people. This is also a sort of argument against Biden as well. We need new faces and a new generation in the Party.

People want certain policies, yes, but they also want new, fresh candidates. So, a mix of youth and experience. Add Warren into the mix and you have the progressive/left vote split between her and Sanders. So, I like both of their progressive positions, but I also want someone who can also energize the Party and knock Trump out.

Despite that, I would love to see Sanders or Warren debate Trump, but that might be wishful thinking. I am looking at Kamala Harris and Booker right now, but I am still undecided. I think that it is good that we have so many candidates, and I hope that we have a relatively clean fight.

[aikoaiko]

42. With a crowded field, it possible that EW, CB, KH, and AK split up the HRC and ex-Bernie vote

leaving Bernie with the largest percentage in the early races.

You have to admit that his fundraising game is good.

[Garrett78]

49. See posts 21, 37 and 47. Vote-splitting isn't a binary phenomenon.

[aikoaiko]

50. You asked how people can see a path and I gave you one.

Sure you can make a case for Bernie not winning or even doing well, but to say that he has no chance is to ignore the lessons of politics.

[Garrett78]

52. And I responded to your post by pointing out that that's not how vote-splitting works.

I've been seeing a number of posts indicating that only the non-Sanders candidates will be hurt/impacted by vote-splitting. And that's just plain silly.

How votes will be distributed has to do with all sort of factors and will vary from place to place.

[bhikkhu]

44. I've no idea who the nominee will be

If it's Sanders that's not my first choice, but (as long as he releases his tax returns) I'll vote for him happily. His character and team work style is a bit rough, I think, but that is still one way to get the job done.

[shanny]

51. Maybe the fact that he got 43% of D primary voters last time

which a LOT more than anybody else in the race this time. Don't you follow politics enough to know that? And if he gets anywhere close to that in a crowded field....say hello to our nominee.

[Garrett78]

54. See posts #21 and #22.

[shanny]

56. ...

that's what makes horse races...and what are elections these days but horse races?

[Garrett78]

58. In 2016, there were people who still thought it was a horse race after Super Tuesday. It wasn't.

The writing was written very clearly on the wall. But many insisted that Sanders still had a chance, even a *good* chance. He didn't. This is where the term "Bernie Math" originated from. People refusing to understand what the demographic data had already made very clear.

I'm very much reminded of those posts when reading some of the replies in this thread.

[LongtimeAZDem]

59. "Add ten momentum points for every state he won in a row,"

"and multiply that by how much birds like him."

[Garrett78]

61. It pretty much was that silly. Hundreds of posts from those in denial. I was here. I remember.

That guy from The Young Turks was also engaging in Bernie Math. It was rather sad, actually. And it was divisive. It helped contribute to the narrative that Bernie was cheated.

And red states with a large percentage of persons of color were dismissed as irrelevant, while red states that are relatively white were completely relevant and proof of Bernie's nomination potential. Again, it was pretty sad.

[MrsCoffee]

69. Bernie math.

[LongtimeAZDem]

75. I really want to post the video, but who needs another alert? :D

[MrsCoffee]

77. Gonna have to pace myself, lol.

Gonna be a long ass primary.

[shanny]

60. OK

[pnwmom]

65. And there's no reason to think he'll get any more this time. I don't know any Hillary voters

who would consider him after all his accusations last time that she was corrupt; and his refusal to concede till just before the election; and his waiting to campaign for her till two events in September.

[Garrett78]

66. There seems to be this assumption that vote-splitting is a binary phenomenon.

As if vote-splitting only hurts the non-Sanders candidates. So, there's Sanders and then vote-splitting among the rest of the field. You see this theory put forth in numerous posts. The problem is that it's absurd. In posts #21 and #47 of this thread, I wrote about why.

Plus, nobody has addressed the most critical question from my OP, which is the last question I asked. What reason is there to think Sanders will do considerably better among POC and non-millennial women this time around?

[pnwmom]

74. What reason is there to think he'd do considerably better among ANY group of Hillary voters,

including POC and non-millennial women?

He hasn't been doing much to repair relationships with them.

[Garrett78]

125. And the Never Hillary voters aren't necessarily going to opt for Sanders in 2020.

He's done the opposite of repair relationships. He continues sticking his foot in his mouth.

After New Hampshire, I really think it's over for Sanders.

[Lazy Daisy]

70. 223k donors think you're wrong

He raised almost $6M from 223k people in the first 24 hrs of announcing.

And yes, this post is divisive. You're basically calling his supporters stupid.

[Garrett78]

71. Not stupid but naive, perhaps. And donors don't determine outcomes.

If Sanders doesn't do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, he can't win the nomination.

I wonder how many people have actually looked at the primary schedule and realize which dozen or so states follow New Hampshire. NV, SC, CA, TX, AL, NC, VA, TN, etc.

[Lazy Daisy]

98. and there you go again being divisive

you are calling a large part of the Democratic voters names.
I wonder, why not point out the same for supporters of any of the other candidates? Kirsten Gillabrand, John Hickenlooper? Why not call their supporters naive? You really think either of them have any real chance? What about Tulsi Gabbard? You think she has any real chance?

Several of the candidates will drop out quickly, yet their supporters aren't thought of as "naive", Just the supporters of Bernie Sanders.

Pfft.

[Garrett78]

104. I don't see anyone claiming those you named are likely to be our nominee.

When you find at least a handful of such posts, get back to me.

[frazzled]

84. 223K donors? Thirty million people voted in the last Democratic primary

223,000 strong supporters willing to donate on day one is fewer than 1% of the Democratic voting population (it's less than 3/4 of 1%). These 223,000 people can keep sending in $27 donations for the next year and a half, and that will keep his war chest going strong. And that number of donors could even double. But it will have nothing to do with how the other 29,777,000 Democrats will vote in the various primaries across the land.

[Lazy Daisy]

99. Think about that

Then I suppose we shouldn't have any problem with large corporate donors and PAC's influencing elections, you just said money doesn't matter in elections.

[Garrett78]

101. Frazzled said nothing of the kind, just that Bernie's donors won't determine the outcome.

If Sanders doesn't do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, it won't matter how big his war chest is.

[frazzled]

108. I never said money doesn't matter, just that it's not dispositive

of eventual outcomes. The candidate who raises the most money, from whatever source, is not always the winner.

For example, in the 2016 Republican Primary, Ted Cruz out raised Donald Trump (in donations and outside-group spending), but still lost. Rubio's totals were also higher than Trump's.

The candidate with the most money does not always win. That's all I'm saying.

[betsuni]

72. I was freaked out by his "If I run" email.

"Last time we ran, we made the financial elite pay a price for their attacks on our progressive agenda." What?

Freaked out by his announcement comment: "We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age. I mean, we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for." What?

It's dumbfounding.

[Garrett78]

86. Bernie is tone-deaf. He's the kind of guy who can't grasp colorblind racism.

Again, the last question I asked in the OP is the most critical of all.

[George II]

117. When I got that "if I run" email, I fell off my chair. It's as if "if" was equivocal.

[Quixote1818]

79. The betting odds which tend to be pretty accurate. Harris and Sanders are neck and neck

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination

For one thing you have a crap load of traditional candidates drawing from one another and Sanders is the main outsider. It sets him up in a very strong position. Had Hillary and Biden been splitting the vote last time Sanders probably would have won.

[Garrett78]

90. Vote-splitting won't work the way some are imagining it will.

See posts #21 and #47.

[Amimnoch]

80. I think some of them are hoping he pulls a Trump.

That the rest of the real Democratic Party candidates (the ones that don't just throw the title on for convenience) will split the votes that went to Hillary giving him a victory even if he never takes a majority of a vote by actual % of voters.

[Garrett78]

91. We don't have winner-take-all primaries like the GOP does. And vote-splitting isn't...

...the binary phenomenon some are imagining it to be. See posts #21 and #47.

[Garrett78]

92. The notion that he moved the party left is more myth than reality.

What separates him from others is his view on identity politics and the supremacy of classism. He's proven to be tone-deaf and he has no chance (regardless of his war chest) if he doesn't do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women.

[leftynyc]

82. He wont even poll in the top 5

in 6 months. WE have too many candidates who are heads and shoulders above him and are actual Democrats.

[Cartoonist]

83. Your last question is irrelevant

In fact, 2016 is irrelevant. Bernie is not competing with Hillary this time. If he was, he'd lose.

[Garrett78]

88. The last question is the most critical of all.

If he doesn't do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, his goose is cooked. And he keeps demonstrating his tone-deafness.

[Blue_Tires]

87. Actually, his chances are much better than any of us want to believe

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2019, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

and like the GOP primaries in '16, there is a very deep field with a lot of candidates that might cannibalize each other if there isn't a clear-cut forerunner...

And just like the GOP primaries in '16, the cable news lurves them some St. Bern so he'll get to enjoy a LOT of free exposure while the rest of the field might get caught fighting for crumbs.

Finally, I'm told he has a campaign manager and advisory staff who *DON'T* have their heads up their asses or only joined just to sabotage Hillary... How well he can take advantage of these things, nobody knows...

EDIT: Nevermind, I see the unlovely and untalented Nina Turner is one of the co-chairs (and no doubt the one tasked with luring in the black vote)... Sanders is fucking DEAD.

[Garrett78]

89. Vote-splitting isn't the binary phenomenon that some seem to think it is.

See posts #21 and #47. Furthermore, there is a crucial difference between our primary system and that of the GOP. Unlike them, we don't have winner-take-all primaries.

Nobody has yet answered the last question in my OP, which is the most critical of all.

[Quixote1818]

94. Just wanted to point out that the one block Sanders struggles with is white men

Contrary to popular belief that Sanders main block is whites and he struggles with minorities, that is actually not correct.


Bernie Sanders is distinctly less popular than Biden at 44-42 and, accordingly, is less uniformly popular across demographic groups.

African Americans (55-26) and Latinos (52-26) like Bernie, but he’s slightly underwater (43-45) with whites, faring especially poorly with white men (40-51) and working-class whites (38-44).
Young people really like Sanders (57-29), but old people do not (40-45).
Democrats like Sanders (74-13), but independents do not (39-43).

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/19/18148681/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-approval-rating

[Garrett78]

102. Primary votes is a whole other matter.

Sanders had Republican-esque numbers among Black voters in 2016, losing by a 50-point margin. He also did poorly with non-millennial women and Latino voters. He also did poorly in primaries as compared to caucuses.

Those who are most oppressed can ill afford to take chances. And being dismissive of identity politics doesn't help.

[Garrett78]

96. The field will get much smaller after the first few primaries. If Sanders doesn't...

...do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, he will not get anywhere close to the requisite number of delegates. Bernie Math, made famous in 2016, won't change that reality.

Just as not all white people will vote for white candidates, not all POC will vote for candidates of color. But nobody who does as poorly as Sanders did in 2016 among POC and non-millennial women will become our nominee. No way, no how.

[Runningdawg]

95. Some people think he "deserves" to be the nominee because he lost last time

[Garrett78]

100. I don't get the sense that people feel that way. Instead...

...his supporters seem to be in denial about the fact that nobody who does as poorly as Sanders did in 2016 among POC and non-millennial women is going to be the Democratic Party nominee for president. No way, no how. Not in 2020.

And nobody has offered a reason to think Sanders will do better among POC and non-millennial women in 2020.

Also, a lot of folks have a simplistic and false idea about vote-splitting (see posts 21 and 47). They seem to think only non-Sanders candidates will be negatively impacted by the way votes are distributed, which is nonsense.

[Awsi Dooger]

103. Once the Mueller stuff fades, Trump's approval rating will automatically rebound

This is stuff I predicted in 2017. Properly applied generalities can absolutely dominate a day-to-day obsession with specifics.

Other sports bettors in Las Vegas were frustrated when I could do more with one generic angle than they could manage by painstakingly following every detail of every team. But I kept trying to tell them the generality approach was superior because it is not attempting to win 100% of the time. It is an easy way to be correct more often than not, with virtually no time expenditure. Conversely if you try to subjectively bob here and weave there, then the 50% threshhold is in major jeopardy, and you fall prey to your own biases while desperately attempting to justify the time expenditure and all the related sacrifice and stress.

Likewise, I'm sure everyone who followed the Mueller probe continually had to believe it would eventually reach Trump. In essence, they knew too much. Rachel Maddow flunks as prognosticator because she knows too much. I can just sit back and understand we have an atrocity as president but bottom line the system is not designed to deal with a snake in the White House, and incumbents own massive advantages toward re-election.

[Garrett78]

105. I think you posted in the wrong thread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. The first actual votes are almost a year away. ANYONE can catrch fire

for any number of reasons. There are reasonable arguments for why Sanders is not by any means a long shot, but even long shots sometimes win. The same question can be asked for at least half of our candidates who all poll far worse than Bernie Sanders does now. As candidates fall by the wayside as they inevitably do, their support drifts to other remaining candidates which can totally scramble whatever picture we may see now.

[Garrett78]

111. The last question in my OP is the critical one. Nobody has addressed it.

Instead, they make naive statements about how vote-splitting will only negatively impact the non-Sanders candidates and other such nonsense.

If Sanders doesn't do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, he has no chance of getting the requisite number of delegates.

[liftallboats]

110. I smell fear, and a lot of it at that.

[Garrett78]

112. LOL. Try answering the last question in my OP. You'd be the 1st to do so.

[BannonsLiver]

121. From Bernie's fans?

You’re right I do smell fear.

[Gothmog]

113. I am glad that all candidates will be vetted this cycle

Vetting is important https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

[Garrett78]

114. He definitely got treated with kid gloves. And the media was actually quite favorable, contrary...

...to what some claim.

After NH, the schedule gets very rough for Sanders.

[George II]

115. With two black candidates and several woman running he'll do much worse overall.

[Garrett78]

116. I think he's essentially done after New Hampshire.

NV, SC and Super Tuesday will not be kind to Sanders.

[BannonsLiver]

122. Prediction

Even after he is eliminated he will stay in and complain bitterly about the DNC and those who run it. See, Bernie doesn’t lose. And when he does it’s always because of some nefarious shenanigans perpetrated by someone else.

[Garrett78]

123. As I said in post #22, I think he'll find it tougher to justify doing what he did last time.

[Politicub]

119. There is a cult of personality built around him

That is a powerful drug.

It is also dangerous because it blots out consideration for other points of view, because it creates this all-or-nothing mentality. We all fall victim to it to a certain extent.

I will vote for the dem nominee. Full stop. Doesn't matter if it's Bernie or anyone else.

I believe, however, that others in the primary align more with my views than Bernie. Harris is running as a progressive, for instance. As a progressive, she looks toward the future and doesn't get weighed down by the past or terms like socialism which carry a lot of baggage. Bernie is running as a democratic socialist. Which is fine, and I share many of his views, too, but he is weak on issues important to me as a gay man and other minorities.

[Garrett78]

124. Agreed.

It blinds people to realities. Not 1 person has addressed the last question I asked in the OP.

[liftallboats]

126. It is a cult of policy.

The guy has little personality. What he does have, is a lifetimes dogged determination to promote equal rights and policies that help working families. It really is just that simple.

[forklift]

127. I don't care about logic or analysis

Emotionally, deep down in my heart, I know Bernie is going to win and that's all that matters to me.

[liftallboats]

128. 6 milly on the score board makes me emotional!!!

[Garrett78]

129. I appreciate your honesty.