• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Where's the Bernie Bump?

Current projections by FiveThrityEight give Sanders 2 in 5 chance. No One comes in second at 1 in 3

Buttigieg came in second in both so far (but first in delegates thanks to primary math) but apparently wasn't showing much support in other states down the line. His good initial showing will probably help him, but not likely enough to win. His projection is 1 in 25 currently.
 
Considering that the first two states have less than 5% of the delegates, it's silly to make much of who won or lost in those states. Sure, in the past, most, but not all of the people who won those states went on to win the nomination, but this has been the most unusual Democratic primary that I can remember. The left leaning moderates got far more votes than Bernie. A lot will depend on how long the left leaning moderate stay in the race. I think we should wait until after Super Tuesday before we make predictions. Right now, we are like a punch of pundits making predictions without enough evidence.

And, when it comes to Bloomberg, he's quite to the left when it comes to social things, but moderate when it comes to financial things. He was able to convince New Yorkers to give him a third term, which was quite amazing. New York City isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism, so despite his wrongs, he must have done something right.. Think of how people praise FDR, despite the fact that he rounded up and imprisoned innocent Japanese citizens and was supposedly a friend of Mussolini. I'm not so sure he handled WWII all that well either, but I'm not a historian so I'm sure there are things I don't know. No politician has ever been perfect or consistent. Or think of the years when Bernie praised dictators like Castro. Should we still hold that against him? People change over time. We all do. I don't understand this idea that consistency is something honorable. To me, consistency can be a sign of stubbornness, or a failure to change with the times. I prefer people who are able to grow, admit their past mistakes and change their views as new evidence comes into view. All presidents make a lot of mistakes, but the best ones apologize for their mistakes.

Bloomberg has been a Republican, an independent and a Democrat. Bernie is only a Democrat when it suits him. So, imo it's silly to label either of those two men as being part of any party. They both. have many negatives as well as some positives. Again, both Warren and Sanders have said that they will support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, even if it's Bloomberg. I think that's because they both have enough common sense to realize that we must unite against Trump. Since the impeachment, the man has become even more unhinged and dangerous. Are we so afraid of Bernie or Bloomberg, depending on one's perspective, that we'd rather have 4 more years of Trump? I don't plan to vote for either of them in the primaries, but I will vote for either of them if they are the nominee.
 
Bloomberg would be an even more racist and power-abusing president than Trump, but he wouldn't be obnoxious about it and would hire a PR team to make it palatable in ways that would satisfy liberals as he carries out Trump's exact agenda but more effectively
 
Bloomberg would be an even more racist and power-abusing president than Trump, but he wouldn't be obnoxious about it and would hire a PR team to make it palatable in ways that would satisfy liberals as he carries out Trump's exact agenda but more effectively

Satisfy liberals with too much money and too little sense.
 
Well, she out performed expectation by nearly double in NH. That energy has to count for something?
She will likely take votes from Biden (moderate voters) and Warren (want woman for president). Vultures are circiling those two campaigns anyway, Warren's more so then Biden's though. I can't imagine them collecting too many donations in the next week. I hope they were more frugal with their money than Kamala Harris.
 
Bernie in the 2016 N.H. primary: a 60% win.
Bernie this week: 25.7%.
That burn is a fairly small sizzle. I agree with Mr. Penguin above: Emperor Trump would squat pretty hard on Bernie.

Where does this notion that Bernie can't win come from? According to all the polls I've seen, he seems to be leading Trump as handily as everyone else, so what's the basis of him being somehow unelectable? Are there various swing states he somehow sucks in or something?

He looks as viable as any other candidate to me:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
 
Considering that the first two states have less than 5% of the delegates, it's silly to make much of who won or lost in those states.
Those two states do not have many delegates between them, but they are important in terms of establishing viability, and thus gaining or losing momentum and donors. That's why I think it is important that they are smaller states where one can campaign at a retail level and do not need huge bucks (for example for TV ads in California) right away. That makes less known candidates breaking through possible.

Sure, in the past, most, but not all of the people who won those states went on to win the nomination, but this has been the most unusual Democratic primary that I can remember.
You are not kidding!

The left leaning moderates got far more votes than Bernie. A lot will depend on how long the left leaning moderate stay in the race. I think we should wait until after Super Tuesday before we make predictions. Right now, we are like a punch of pundits making predictions without enough evidence.
The moderate vote is fractured far more than left-wing vote. If Warren drops out (very likely after Nevada if she fails to make 2nd or at least close 3rd) Sanders will have a cleared left lane, so if Klob, Pete, Biden and Bloomberg all contest Super Tuesday it will help Bernie most of all. Unless Uncle Joe can win in SC he should drop out.

And, when it comes to Bloomberg, he's quite to the left when it comes to social things, but moderate when it comes to financial things.
Depends on which social thing. Right now hating police is popular on the Left, but Bloomberg has the Stop and Frisk thing, which is very much hated by the FTP leftists.
He is rather left on nanny statism (his big gulp ban is a case in point) so I'll give you that.

Or think of the years when Bernie praised dictators like Castro. Should we still hold that against him?
Has he disavowed it? If not, we should.
 
Where does this notion that Bernie can't win come from?
1972.

According to all the polls I've seen, he seems to be leading Trump as handily as everyone else, so what's the basis of him being somehow unelectable? Are there various swing states he somehow sucks in or something?
I think he would have been more competitive in swing states Hillary lost than Hillary was. But that was 2016 Bernie, an iconoclast even on the Left - for example he eschewed . 2020 Bernie surrounded himself with identitarians like AOC and Ilhan Omar and even more toxic characters like Sharia-supporter Linda "Cockroach" Sarsour. I wish we could ditch this New Bernie and get back Bernie Classic!

He looks as viable as any other candidate to me:
Imagine the negative campaigning and commie ads that will inevitably follow. Bernie's face morphing into Stalin for example. It will get ugly.
 
Bernie in the 2016 N.H. primary: a 60% win.
Bernie this week: 25.7%.
That burn is a fairly small sizzle. I agree with Mr. Penguin above: Emperor Trump would squat pretty hard on Bernie.

Where does this notion that Bernie can't win come from? According to all the polls I've seen, he seems to be leading Trump as handily as everyone else, so what's the basis of him being somehow unelectable? Are there various swing states he somehow sucks in or something?

He looks as viable as any other candidate to me:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

55% of Americans own stocks in some form or another. If Bernie gets the nomination and it spooks the markets, buyers remorse will kick in and there goes his lead.
 
Bernie isn't principled enough to maintain his praise for Castro. He has already showed his true colors about Venezuela, China, and Bolivia (though he was the only one to acknowledge the coup that happened there and has previously been friendly with Morales). I have heard arguments from fellow socialists that Bernie is just "hiding his power level" during the election, but in my view he is not actually a socialist, and not actually an anti-imperialist. He is just the best America has ever gotten this close to electing. In the end, the best course of history will be a Bernie Sanders presidency that is subsequently overthrown by popular revolution, but that's unlikely to happen.
 
He looks as viable as any other candidate to me:
Imagine the negative campaigning and commie ads that will inevitably follow. Bernie's face morphing into Stalin for example. It will get ugly.

So, in other words, exactly as viable as any other candidate. The GOP has those ads already made for everybody and just plucks them from the folder when they learn who the nominee is.
 
I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?
 
I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?

Because electability arguments don't actually mean anything. They have no informational content and are purely cynical tactics to preserve the status quo, so there should be no expectation that they will follow any kind of identitarian logic.
 
I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?

Because our society is more tolerant of misogyny than those other two things.
 
I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?
The Jewish angle it was raised with Lieberman. And people are raising the gay angle with Buttigieg... even here.
 
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that nobody agrees are representative of the nation as a whole, Bernie won the most votes, and did so by winning the most votes from minorities, immigrants, union members, renters, and minimum wage workers. He is only going to do better in states that are not as white and affluent compared to these.
Mr Sanders did not win the most votes in Iowa.
 
Actually, Bernie did.

From Vox
[h=2]Iowa 2020 Presidential Democratic Caucus[/h]Last updated: 2/14/2020, 12:38:36 AM


CandidateVotesPercent
Bernie Sanders 45,896 26.54%
Pete Buttigieg 43,316 25.04%
 
I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?

I call bullshit. There is nobody in the Democrat race that is pushing a narrative of "women can't win". That is entirely a talking point that Klobuchar and Warren are pushing in order to try to identity politics themselves onto the ticket. Warren didn't go there until Clintoncrats infected her campaign staff. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I do think Trump may bring up the gay and jewish identities and try to galvanize homophobia and anti-semitism against those two candidates, just as they tried to raise racist sentiment against Obama. But just like Obama, these two both seem capable of cutting through that. Warren and Klobuchar can also cut through any anti-woman thing Trump may try to raise on them.
 
I don't get how you're seeing Bernie specifically as a the cause of low voter turnout, here. The "young people" were free to vote for whomever they liked. If one of the other candidates were going to be more appealing to that tier of voters, wouldn't they have done so? Are you just holding out hope that Michael Stop-and-Frisk Bloomberg is going to be the voice of the disenfranchised youth of the nation? It seems to me that the Party itself is the problem, and indeed very low confidence in the political process as a whole.

I note that most young folks are busy as hell on Tuesdays, perhaps voting in a primary didn't seem worth risking their jobs over in New Hampshire, let alone standing around in a barn all night or however the hell Iowa caucusing works. I literally cannot imagine any of my Generation Z students voluntarily participating in a "Democracy Hoot'n'Holler" with their grandparents of an evening. Iowa has some PR problems if nothing else.

I'm not blaming Bernie for the low turnout. For four years, I've heard that the line that we should elect Bernie because he has the ability to motivate this hidden resource of disenfranchised voters (younger voters and far left) who will of a sudden start voting democratic. And due to this, we don't need the moderates anymore to win. And therefore, we should nominate Bernie, even if he gets fewer votes. And it's BS. The dems can only win with a very large tent. Someway we need to find a candidate who can unite the left and moderates to beat back the trumpsters. But to claim that we should accept a candidate with fewer votes but who can possibly motivate the far left non-voters is fools gold.
 
Back
Top Bottom