2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[SezMe]

Dems start to panic over Sanders:

Panic??? Some early discussions. Your panic meter needs calibration.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

In today's episode of "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics":

Only 53% of Bernie Sanders Voters Will Definitely Support 2020 Democratic Nominee if He Doesn't Win: Poll

The National Emerson College Poll of 1,128 registered voters between January 21 and January 23 found that 53 percent of Sanders supporters said "yes" when asked if they would support the Democratic nominee even if it is not their candidate.

Another 31 percent of Sanders supporters said it depends on who the nominee is and 16 percent flat-out said no. The poll, conducted via landline calls and an online panel, has a 2.8 percentage point margin of error.

The poll suggests some Sanders supporters are out of step with their own chosen candidate on the question of supporting the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

The "definitely" is quietly doing a lot of heavy lifting in this headline, along with the framing and order of introduction of the response groups.

Also a "national poll" of ~1,100RV. This is useless. If it's not 2,000LV in the early primary states, take it with a grain of salt.

I could also write the headline as "84 percent of Sanders voters are willing to support the eventual nominee."

and rather than that "out of step" line, I could end the opening setup with "Even as Bernie's numbers climb above the others, a majority of his supporters are willing to honor the process wherever it leads."

Thanks for playing along.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Speculation about how people disposed to voting for Sanders may vote if he isn’t the Dem candidate are another distraction from the issues.

“I don’t like Sanders because of his supporters.”
“The cult of Sanders.”

More avoiding discussion and comparison of policies but rather framing negative perceptions of Sanders.

 

[angrysoba]

It's incorrect. In the US, even with insurance you will likely go deeply into debt or bankrupt with any major medical issue.

Most people who go bankrupt from medical costs have insurance. Before Obamacare, my older brother would have just straight been allowed to die from his cancer. Even after, my friend with what is billed as 'top tier' health insurance from her bank job is going to end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from her cancer.

No matter how profoundly broken you imagine health insurance and health care in the US, you're likely an order of magnitude off.

Bingo. When I worked for an oncology practice patients would come in confident in their wonderful, wonderful insurance that would cover 80% of the costs-- 80%, that's a lot!

Then they find out their total cost for their treatment is $400,000. So they only owed us $80,000. Will that be cash or check? Oh, you don't have $80K lying around? I guess you can sell your house. Don't own a house? Did you hope to retire, or send kids to college? Ha, ha, that was a cute dream but it's over now.

Wow...just wow!

That is incredible.

Still, it beats having to deal with the annoying government to get the commie medicine, right?

 

[Venom]

It's sad that some Democrats appear to rather have Trump as president than a leftist.

What happened to party unity?

 

[Aridas]

You think that was a defense of totalitarianism? Wow, your reading comprehension sucks.

Scapegoating the problems of totalitarianism onto something that's pretty close to the exact opposite is, indeed, a defense of totalitarianism.

What you're doing isn't much different than claiming that people being executed by cannon or rocket in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is grounds for criticism of democracy. It's absurd. I get that you, as a right-winger, would not want to accept that your left-wing boogeyman is actually a right-wing boogeyman with a thin facade of left-wing philosophy propaganda as a fig leaf to appease the masses, but that's exactly what it is.

 

[Aridas]

It's sad that some Democrats appear to rather have Trump as president than a leftist.

What happened to party unity?

Democrats are not Republicans. Nor are all supporters of any particular candidate Democrats. "Party unity" is something that's being pointedly emphasized by the candidates, many of the more ardent supporters of the Democrats, and those who very thoroughly oppose Trump, but... that's not even remotely everyone.

 

[Minoosh]

Wow...just wow!

That is incredible.

Still, it beats having to deal with the annoying government to get the commie medicine, right?

I have heard that hospitals are pretty willing to negotiate on the huge bills. Still, it should be the last thing you need to worry about if you're fighting cancer. Seeing that bill could give you a heart attack.

 

[Kestrel]

Speculation about how people disposed to voting for Sanders may vote if he isn’t the Dem candidate are another distraction from the issues.

“I don’t like Sanders because of his supporters.”
“The cult of Sanders.”

More avoiding discussion and comparison of policies but rather framing negative perceptions of Sanders.

Some vocal Sanders supporters are best described as conspiracy theorists.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Some vocal Sanders supporters are best described as conspiracy theorists.

Vacuous vaguery that fails to address Sanders’ policies or ability to have them implemented. The kind of empty memes that are being wielded against him. Cheap and dumb politics. Excellent example of what I am talking about in the post you responded to.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The best response to this pointless attack is to lean into it.

The Sandernistas will accept no one but Sanders. We will take our ball and go home. Anyone but Sanders means Trump will win.

Bernie bros are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until Sanders is elected.

Antagonizing pearl clutchers is the right thing to do.

 

[Kestrel]

Vacuous vaguery that fails to address Sanders’ policies or ability to have them implemented. The kind of empty memes that are being wielded against him. Cheap and dumb politics. Excellent example of what I am talking about in the post you responded to.

Clinton lost thr 2008 nomination race to Obama. She accepted the loss and supported the parties candidate. Her supporters did the same. Sanders lost the 2016 nomination race to Clinton. He accepted the loss and supported Clinton in the general election. Most of his supporters did the same but a vocal minority did not. They are still claiming that Sanders was cheated out of the 2016 nomination. Those claims of conspiracy and unfairness to Sanders continue today. Poisoning the well if any other Democrat wins the nomination.

 

[Donal]

Clinton lost thr 2008 nomination race to Obama. She accepted the loss and supported the parties candidate. Her supporters did the same. Sanders lost the 2016 nomination race to Clinton. He accepted the loss and supported Clinton in the general election. Most of his supporters did the same but a vocal minority did not. They are still claiming that Sanders was cheated out of the 2016 nomination. Those claims of conspiracy and unfairness to Sanders continue today. Poisoning the well if any other Democrat wins the nomination.

Except as many as 28% of Clinton supporters polled said they were going to support McCain when she conceded. Granted, that number went to down significantly by that November, but they made a hell of a lot of noise leading up to the election. Remember PUMA? At the end, it ended up being 10-25% of self identified Clinton supporters who ended up voting for McCain (depends on whose polling you are looking at). about 10-12% of self identified Sanders supporters are estimated to have voted Trump. For further reference, about 10% of self identified Democrats voted Bush in 2000

In either case, that is insane. None of the Republican candidates came anywhere close to the Democratic runners up in terms of policy or platform. Its a bigger issue with the way American politics work. Our two party, winner take all, binary choice system creates a lot of ill will and hard feelings between people who should otherwise be more aligned. It also creates an atmosphere where a voter gets more involved with the personality they see on TV over the actual issues.

 

[Ziggurat]

Scapegoating the problems of totalitarianism onto something that's pretty close to the exact opposite is, indeed, a defense of totalitarianism.

Marxism isn't the exact opposite of totalitarianism. That's the whole point: it always ends up as just another variant of totalitarianism. And why would I be excusing totalitarianism when my fundamental objection to Marxism is that it's a version of totalitarianism? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.

What you're doing isn't much different than claiming that people being executed by cannon or rocket in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is grounds for criticism of democracy.

If every country that called itself a democracy was like North Korea, you might have a point. But that's not the case.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Clinton lost thr 2008 nomination race to Obama. She accepted the loss and supported the parties candidate. Her supporters did the same. Sanders lost the 2016 nomination race to Clinton. He accepted the loss and supported Clinton in the general election. Most of his supporters did the same but a vocal minority did not. They are still claiming that Sanders was cheated out of the 2016 nomination. Those claims of conspiracy and unfairness to Sanders continue today. Poisoning the well if any other Democrat wins the nomination.

So, does Warren and the former DNC chair.

Washington (CNN)Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she believes that the Democratic National Committee was "rigged" in favor of former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary.

Asked Thursday by CNN's Jake Tapper whether she believes that the Democratic campaign organization was tipped in favor of Clinton over her primary opponent, independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Warren responded without hesitation: "Yes."
"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile that the Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said, continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months before Clinton won the nomination.​

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html

Regardless, to focus on Sanders’ supporters and not the candidate and policies is dumb politics. I expect we will see a lot more of such hand wringing among the Dem base.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Regardless, to focus on Sanders’ supporters and not the candidate and policies is dumb politics. I expect we will see a lot more of such hand wringing among the Dem base.

The whole "Bernie Bro" thing stinks of desperation. Boring candidates are trying to spin the intense enthusiasm for Bernie into some kind of negative.

Enthusiastic voters is a good thing, no matter what these idiotic pundits say.

 

[Kestrel]

I actually see a lot to like in Bernie. So do many other Democrats who have a different first choice in the primaries. And regardless of your personal preference, every candidate in the Democratic field is a mature, component, adult that will be a vast improvement over the current occupant of the Oval Office.

What I fear is that many Bernie supporters will stay home and pout if he doesn't win the nomination.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I actually see a lot to like in Bernie. So do many other Democrats who have a different first choice in the primaries. And regardless of your personal preference, every candidate in the Democratic field is a mature, component, adult that will be a vast improvement over the current occupant of the Oval Office.

What I fear is that many Bernie supporters will stay home and pout if he doesn't win the nomination.

I could see Bernie supporters being quite upset if Bernie is robbed, but not if he just straight up loses. It is conceivable that this primary goes to a brokered convention. Say Bernie has the plurality, but ends up getting screwed in a brokered convention...

 

[Segnosaur]

In today's episode of "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics":

Only 53% of Bernie Sanders Voters Will Definitely Support 2020 Democratic Nominee if He Doesn't Win: Poll

The National Emerson College Poll of 1,128 registered voters between January 21 and January 23 found that 53 percent of Sanders supporters said "yes" when asked if they would support the Democratic nominee even if it is not their candidate.

Another 31 percent of Sanders supporters said it depends on who the nominee is and 16 percent flat-out said no

I could also write the headline as "84 percent of Sanders voters are willing to support the eventual nominee."

Ok, most Sanders supporters said they would either definitely or possibly vote for another Candidate if Sanders loses the nomination. The question is, how to the supporters of the other Candidates feel? Are there Biden Buddies who won't vote democrat if he loses? Are there many Warren Warriors who demand "Liz or bust"? Do Yang Yahoos exist that won't vote democrat if someone else is nominated?

From your article:

87 percent of former vice president Joe Biden's supporters said yes to voting for whoever wins the nomination, 9 percent it depends on the winning candidate, and 5 percent said no to anyone that is not Biden. And 90 percent of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren's supporters said they would vote for whoever is the nominee, while the remaining 10 percent said it depended on who won the nomination.

So, only half of the Bernie Bros care enough about Democratic or left-wing causes to say "Yeah, I'll still vote democrat regardless". The rest say "Bernie or bust" (at best) or "Maybe, but if I don't like the alternative I'll be happy to let Stubby McBonespurs run the country another 4 years". That ain't a rational way to look at things. On the other hand, almost all (~90%) of Warren's or Biden's supporters are rational enough to say "If my candidate loses its still best for the country to defeat Trump".

So you want Sander's "medicare for all program". You want his "Free schooling". If you don't get it, is it really the smart thing to do to say "screw it, I'm not getting medicare for all so I'm happy to see millions of people lose their Obamacare".

 

[Segnosaur]

I could see Bernie supporters being quite upset if Bernie is robbed, but not if he just straight up loses.

The problem is how someone defines 'robbed'.

After all, plenty of people think he was robbed because of various emails between people in the DNC expressing support for Clinton, even though the DNC did not have any direct control over the primaries.

Even a made up/perceived slight against Sanders might be enough to think he was 'robbed', even if it didn't really factor into the outcome.