Democratic caucuses and primaries

[TurkeysGhost]

For both sides, no less.

In all seriousness, though, Sanders once again has taken the lead in the 538 model. If he wins SC, I'm not seeing how anyone can stop him on Super Tuesday.

Predicting is a fool's game, but here I go anyway. I don't expect Bernie to win in SC. Biden seems to have granted his campaign a little extra life by performing much better in NV than he had previously. That may be enough to stop the hemorrhage of support Biden has been experiencing in SC.

I suspect Bernie will come in a respectable second, with all the rest well below.

This is going to leave Bernie with a strong lead going into Super Tuesday. Not sure how non-Bernie voters are going to behave going into this. There doesn't seem to be a clear candidate for the anti-Sanders crowd to coalesce around and I suspect a good deal of these people see Sanders as their #2 choice if their candidate is not viable.

I'm doing my part this Sunday to try and get MA to go for Bernie, which would hopefully convince Warren progressives to support Bernie as the viable progressive. Door to door canvassing for the first time ever!

Then again, I didn't anticipate such a monster win for Bernie in NV, so maybe my crystal ball needs a recalibration.

 

[Delvo]

Getting the young'ns worked up is easy, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

It just never makes them vote...

The Democrats have got to stop pinning their hopes on some youth voter uprising that is never going to happen.

If your idea of what this "uprising" would be means some kind of vastly gigantic numbers that nobody anywhere has suggested, then of course not. But nobody's actually suggesting that what's happening this time will be wildly out of line with what happened for Bill and Barack, which was enough for them.

Sanders once again has taken the lead in the 538 model. If he wins SC, I'm not seeing how anyone can stop him on Super Tuesday.

Super Tuesday isn't the problem. The problem is the Convention. He could have 49% of the delegates and lose when the 50% threshold triggers the party's "We get to ignore the will of our own voters" clause, upon which they can be counted on to pick the DINOest DINO they can find.

 

[d4m10n]

He could have 49% of the delegates and lose when the 50% threshold triggers the party's "We get to ignore the will of our own voters" clause, upon which they can be counted on to pick the DINOest DINO they can find.

I really can't see a load of party loyalist superdelegates lining up behind the former Republican mayor of NYC.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They did enough to help Bill and Barack.

Super Tuesday isn't the problem. The problem is the Convention. He could have 49% of the delegates and lose when the 50% threshold triggers the party's "We get to ignore the will of our own voters" clause, upon which they can be counted on to pick the DINOest DINO they can find.

I have a hard time imagining a brokered convention going against the plurality winner unless the delegate counts were pretty close.

If Bernie comes in with like 35-49% of the pledged delegates and none of the other candidates are doing much better than low 20's, it would be political suicide to not give it to Bernie.

I'm not sure what the plan is for the lagging candidates after Super Tuesday. If they don't drop out, a brokered convention seems likely.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's naive to expect the Democratic Party's Leadership and old school establishment to be gung ho for someone who's only a Democrat when he feels like it.

There's way too much declaring the Democratic Party out of touch or dirty out of one side of his mind while still demanding Sanders get the same ride on their coat-tails that a candidate who isn't openly antagonistic of them a lot of them would get out of the other.

He's probably going to get the nom, but he's gonna make some enemies.

Sanders wants to get the numbers and political clout of the DNC behind him but still act like he's too good to be a part of it. He can't be "Schrodinger's Independent" with a "Why won't you stupid Democrats let me in your club that I think is stupid" mentality.

 

[d4m10n]

If Bernie comes in with like 35-49% of the pledged delegates and none of the other candidates are doing much better than low 20's, it would be political suicide to not give it to Bernie.

Suppose Bernie comes in around 40% but the two runners up total somewhat more than 40% and agree to run on the same ticket. Political suicide or pragmatic compromise?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Suppose Bernie comes in around 40% but the two runners up total somewhat more than 40% and agree to run on the same ticket. Political suicide or pragmatic compromise?

Alienating the progressive wing seems like a mistake to me. The pragmatic decision would be for one of the moderates to join Sanders.

Screwing Sanders out of a large plurality win will be interpreted, rightfully so, as a corrupt bargain to disfavor progressives.

 

[Distracted1]

Alienating the progressive wing seems like a mistake to me. The pragmatic decision would be for one of the moderates to join Sanders.

Screwing Sanders out of a large plurality win will be interpreted, rightfully so, as a corrupt bargain to disfavor progressives.

If Warren heads that hypothetical ticket do you think the Progressives support would still evaporate?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"The best solution is for things to go the way I want them to and everyone else to compromise" is assumed, nobody has to actually say it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If Warren heads that hypothetical ticket do you think the Progressives support would still evaporate?

It's hard to imagine Warren even having double digits.

I think any scenario where the large-lead plurality candidate is not at the top of the ticket will rightly be considered a screw-job by the party elites.

 

[d4m10n]

I think any scenario where the large-lead plurality candidate is not at the top of the ticket will rightly be considered a screw-job by the party elites.

I'm having trouble understanding how these two propositions can exist side-by-side:

1) Sanders is the uniquely progressive candidate in the Democratic race

2) Even if Sanders only gets 35-40% (of pledged delegates) it would be wrong for party elites to conclude there is no manifest (intraparty) mandate for a bold new wave of progressivism

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm having trouble understanding how these two propositions can exist side-by-side:

1) Sanders is the uniquely progressive candidate in the Democratic race

2) Even if Sanders only gets 35-40% (of pledged delegates) it would be wrong for party elites to conclude there is no manifest (intraparty) mandate for a bold new wave of progressivism

I think it is a mistake to assume that everyone not voting for Sanders is explicitly opposed to him. Not every voter sees things in strictly ideological terms.

Comparing Sanders vs. the combined moderate vote is a big assumption that these voters wouldn't see Sanders as their preferred #2 candidate.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Aside from the nomination vote itself, also consider what impact of a large influx of progressive voices these victories means for the convention. More of them will be in the platform committees, rules committees, credentials committees, etc.

I would anticipate some raucous votes in a few otherwise obscure proceedings early in the week...

ETA: It might not be out of the question for 1/4 to 1/3 of the delegates this year to prefer to spend after-hours in the free speech zone with the protestors rather than go to the schmoozing with industry lobbyist parties.

 

[Distracted1]

I think it is a mistake to assume that everyone not voting for Sanders is explicitly opposed to him. Not every voter sees things in strictly ideological terms.

Comparing Sanders vs. the combined moderate vote is a big assumption that these voters wouldn't see Sanders as their preferred #2 candidate.

I think that is a pretty safe assumption.

Although the Sanders supporters are trying very hard to make him seem like he is the most electable.
I suppose some of the "Biden because he is most electable" vote might make Sanders their second choice if they believe he is the next most electable.

 

[lobosrul5]

I don't see this at all.
For starters, never-Sanders would probably still vote the rest of the Democratic ticket, so the House won't flip.
Next, Sanders losing in the General might be the fastest, easiest way to better align the youth vote with the Democratic establishment.
2022 would see a more pragmatic Blue Wave taking the Senate and forcing an Impeachment Conviction.

Err, what? You know to convict, requires finding 19 more votes in the Senate right? Its barely even theoretically possible that the dems get that many more Senators by 2022. Unless you think several more rep Senators will "grow a pair" by then?

Its super early days yet, but I think Sanders has a 60/40 chance of winning the election. The south is probably a lost cause for Sanders, whereas Biden could take Florida, NC, and maybe just maybe Georgia. OTOH Sanders certainly takes CO, NV, and maybe just maybe AZ. Polling shows he's strong in Michigan (a state Trump took). So that would leave him just needing to carry PA or WI. I fear this election might be so close that a faithless elector or three could swing it, and thats a pretty scary thought.

That is,unless someone like Bloomberg runs as an independent, then its over. I don't think Bloomberg will though, because I believe he genuinely hates Trump and knows what his running will mean. But some other billionaire maybe?

 

[d4m10n]

I think it is a mistake to assume that everyone not voting for Sanders is explicitly opposed to him. Not every voter sees things in strictly ideological terms.

I didn't say anything about being explicitly opposed to him personally, but rather that he is a stand-in for revolutionary progressive structural change. If you're into that sort of thing, you should be supporting him or perhaps (less revolutionarily) Warren.

If, say, 60% of Dems support neither of these options, it seems fair to say there isn't a mandate for massive sudden changes (e.g. breaking up every financial institution large enough to be systematically important) but rather a consensus around more traditional Democratic incrementalism.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's very different to defend a 1st than a 2nd term President: a 2022 Trump has no leverage over Republicans, who know he won't be on the next ticket. But some of them might.
2022 is the last chance for Republicans to pretend that they were crypto-never-Trumpers all along.

So yes, I do think that a majority D Senate in 2022 would convict him.

 

[lobosrul5]

It's very different to defend a 1st than a 2nd term President: a 2022 Trump has no leverage over Republicans, who know he won't be on the next ticket. But some of them might.
2022 is the last chance for Republicans to pretend that they were crypto-never-Trumpers all along.

So yes, I do think that a majority D Senate in 2022 would convict him.

I see very few GOP senators changing their mind. For one that would require them to admit they were wrong, and thats highly unusual in politics. And, except in a few of the more moderate states, they still have to worry about being primaried. Have you done much traveling lately in any of the more right wing states? I have, and the Trump cheer leading that is still going on is still strong, and downright nauseating.

 

[Trebuchet]

I don't see this at all.
For starters, never-Sanders would probably still vote the rest of the Democratic ticket, so the House won't flip.
Next, Sanders losing in the General might be the fastest, easiest way to better align the youth vote with the Democratic establishment.
2022 would see a more pragmatic Blue Wave taking the Senate and forcing an Impeachment Conviction.

If, on the other hand, Bernie wins the 2022 midterm will be another debacle like 1994 and 2010; and for the same reason: Pushing for too much too soon on healthcare.

 

[lobosrul5]

If, on the other hand, Bernie wins the 2022 midterm will be another debacle like 1994 and 2010; and for the same reason: Pushing for too much too soon on healthcare.

Odds of the Dems getting to even 50 seats in the Senate this election are damn near 0. So, nothing is going to happen. Not sure what that means for 2022 exactly.