Is there any chance of the same thing happening with Trump, where Bloomberg sucks up all the moderate energy in the room and comes out as the reasonable and competant one compared to Sanders the...
Is there any chance of the same thing happening with Trump, where Bloomberg sucks up all the moderate energy in the room and comes out as the reasonable and competant one compared to Sanders the Socialist, Greenhorn Pete, and the rest of the has-beens? I know I'm catastrophising, but politics is slow motion catastrophe as of late.
I'll be very disappointed if this doesn't come up: Less than a year ago, referring to transgender people as "some guy wearing a dress" and "he, she, or it" and bringing up the tired old canard...
I'll be very disappointed if this doesn't come up:
Bloomberg’s sensitivity was far less apparent at a forum hosted by the Bermuda Business Development Agency on March 21, 2019, in Manhattan, where Bloomberg derided Democratic candidates for talking about transgender protections.
“If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he, she, or it can go to the locker room with their daughter, that’s not a winning formula for most people,” he said.
Bloomberg made a similar remark about a “man wearing a dress” in 2016, but his comments uncovered Tuesday — remarks he made less than a year ago — came amid the early stages of the 2020 Democratic primary.
Less than a year ago, referring to transgender people as "some guy wearing a dress" and "he, she, or it" and bringing up the tired old canard about doing it simply to sneak into locker rooms for voyeuristic purposes.
Exactly, that's the question for tonight. How much will Bloomberg be the target of criticisms from all other candidates? It's in the best interests of other moderates to go after Bloomberg instead...
Exactly, that's the question for tonight. How much will Bloomberg be the target of criticisms from all other candidates? It's in the best interests of other moderates to go after Bloomberg instead of Sanders because he's the one siphoning moderate support from them. And that support is flimsy at best and likely to falter, in contrast to the loyalty of the Sanders supporter base.
Debate transcript is here, for reference. I'll admit I read the transcript instead of watching the debate in real time; it's just too infuriating at this point. I hate the debate format and...
Exemplary
Debate transcript is here, for reference. I'll admit I read the transcript instead of watching the debate in real time; it's just too infuriating at this point.
I hate the debate format and moderation style, as I don't think it provides adequate time for sensible or informative response and rebuttal. Even with the field whittled down to six candidates, the debate seems contrived to generate sound bites.
Worse yet, the moderators' questions seem calculated to avoid issues that the Presidential role actually has real power to address (e.g. war powers, foreign policy, trade, executive power over the administrative and military bureaucracy, courts, etc.). Much of the questioning covers Congressional responsibilities instead, which sets the electorate up for an authoritarian view of executive power. None of the questioning is directed at the President's role in acting as leader of the Democratic Party, either - a role the prior Clinton and Obama presidencies spectacularly failed at.
While a President has the ability to advocate for Congressional action, and the bureaucratic power to ensure the laws are implemented effectively (or not), much depends on changing out Republicans in Congress as well. The impact of conservative court appointments remains to be seen, but isn't likely positive. As with the Obama administration, there's no way a President alone can achieve rapid wholesale change through Constitutional means, regardless of aspiration or popular support. Inviting the candidates' sweeping promises just lays the ground for future debate on Donald Trump's terms.
All that being said, Bloomberg's candidacy could well be a disaster for the party. He's campaigning for billionaires' right to rule, and the secret of power maintenance for the rich is that most people aspire to become wealthy. The bits of his campaign advertising I've seen pander to bourgeois aspiration rather than justice. Trump has proven that this, with a side of dog-whistle racism, works.
No questions were asked about how Bloomberg bought his way onstage, campaign finance reform or administrative enforcement of existing law (reform the Federal Election Commission, FFFS!). While the stop-and-frisk and harassment non-disclosure discussion was helpful in attacking Bloomberg's actions as Mayor of New York, there was no opportunity to discuss his subsequent and ongoing autocratic, paternalistic actions and media control (e.g. this), or his opportunities to entrench and broaden his family's wealth in office.
Altogether, the debate seemed calculated to create heat rather than light, and it's too easy to get sick of the whole process.
There had been the argument that the DNC's rule change to allow Bloomberg into the debates was an anti-Bloomberg, not pro-Bloomberg move: that Bloomberg's unorthodox strategy of overwhelming...
Exemplary
There had been the argument that the DNC's rule change to allow Bloomberg into the debates was an anti-Bloomberg, not pro-Bloomberg move: that Bloomberg's unorthodox strategy of overwhelming advertising while using his no-debts-to-donors policy as an excuse to avoid debates allowed him to gain enormously in the polls without any scrutiny, and that changing the debate rules eliminated his excuse and obligated him to participate in debates he would have preferred to avoid. After this debate, I'm not sure this view is wrong. After all, without being in any debates, this is a candidate who was doing quite well, and was likely the frontrunner, in the current competition to be the other candidate in an upcoming two-person race with Sanders.
And in some ways, it was a brilliant idea to include a sexist, billionaire former Republican who won't release his tax returns because they are too complicated. Does the media want a gruesome fight in order to get high ratings? Look, here's a blood sacrifice on the stage. Does Biden have a problem with seeming too much like a Republican when surrounded by Democrats? Now there's a real Republican on the stage. Do voters want to see how the candidates will debate Trump? Now they've just been given a demonstration with a great Trump stand-in, and Warren has been able to show something she really couldn't show in previous debates. Do party insiders want to show people what happens when the party really dislikes a candidate? Some of that felt like it had to have been coordinated: Warren the prosecutor, Biden the everyman, Sanders linking the personal to the political. The attacks against Bloomberg, unlike many previous attacks against Sanders and other candidates, seem like the sorts of attacks where the other candidates don't care about hurting a potential nominee.
Trump did not win the debates against Hillary. The one thing Trump does well is control the press. He gets 95% of the news articles talking about him. His one advantage is that Fox News is an...
Trump did not win the debates against Hillary.
The one thing Trump does well is control the press. He gets 95% of the news articles talking about him.
His one advantage is that Fox News is an extension of his campaign, and they aren't afraid to spread lies or conspiracy theories (and no other news organization has found the profit motive to call them out on it.)
I'm thinking about whether to vote for him anyway in the California primary. No other candidate has my vote yet. (I will of course vote for the Democrat in November.)
I'm thinking about whether to vote for him anyway in the California primary. No other candidate has my vote yet. (I will of course vote for the Democrat in November.)
Does anyone else feel like we might be heading towards sideshow/shitshow territory here? Seems like most people (myself included) are treating this debate more like a sporting event than previous...
Does anyone else feel like we might be heading towards sideshow/shitshow territory here? Seems like most people (myself included) are treating this debate more like a sporting event than previous debates because of the Bloomberg factor. With all the media coverage the past few days and the stories detailing some of the unorthodox Bloomberg campaign strategies, it feels like everyone is trying to turn him into a Democrat Trump.
I don't want to feel this way, but like others in this thread and on reddit/twitter, I'm anxious to see if the other candidates will take it to Bloomberg.
And thats pretty much what it was. People cheering on the drama much louder than any policy related question given the entire night. This is exactly what the GOP looked like half a decade ago and...
And thats pretty much what it was. People cheering on the drama much louder than any policy related question given the entire night. This is exactly what the GOP looked like half a decade ago and its infuriating to watch when you're on this side of it.
There is no more Mrs. Nice Warren. She’s either going to dominate this debate the next day or flame out spectacularly and take everyone whose name doesn’t rhyme with Sernie Banders with her. I am...
There is no more Mrs. Nice Warren. She’s either going to dominate this debate the next day or flame out spectacularly and take everyone whose name doesn’t rhyme with Sernie Banders with her.
I am here for it. Ride now! Ride for ruin! And the world ending!
Reminds me of that time she got a slam dunk on John Delaney Also honestly Bloomberg made it really easy for her to some degree. Not to take away from Warren's performance but but Bloomberg just...
Also honestly Bloomberg made it really easy for her to some degree. Not to take away from Warren's performance but but Bloomberg just did not have a good answer to the question of the sexual harassment NDAs other than rolling his eyes and going "nah it's fine, let's stop talking about this".
Quite a few people will be tuning in to see how Mike Bloomberg performs. This is after so many scandalous comments 'resurfaced' and other candidates are salivating at having a foil to burnish...
Quite a few people will be tuning in to see how Mike Bloomberg performs. This is after so many scandalous comments 'resurfaced' and other candidates are salivating at having a foil to burnish their own progressive credentials.
I hope that if Warren under performs in Nevada that she'll just drop out and endorse Bernie. Maybe that's premature, but I just really don't want to see the progressive vote split between her and...
I hope that if Warren under performs in Nevada that she'll just drop out and endorse Bernie. Maybe that's premature, but I just really don't want to see the progressive vote split between her and Bernie, allowing some stale toast moderate to win the nomination. I can honestly say that if the roles were reversed, I'd be hoping for the same of Bernie.
Let the progressives stand united and the moderates continue to cannibalize each other until it's too late.
(All numbers below are based on Morning Consult's tracking poll.) Voters are a lot less ideological than politics enthusiasts usually think. They vote more on style and relatability and it's...
Voters are a lot less ideological than politics enthusiasts usually think. They vote more on style and relatability and it's pretty clear Warren is doing a lot of work in keeping the more progressive moderates away from the corporatist candidates. Her weaknesses, so far, have been an inability to convert Pete and Amy fence-sitters to her side. Fewer than 40% of Warren supporters have Sanders as a second-choice option. The rest are predominantly split between Buttigieg and Klobuchar. The primaries where Warren hasn't done well have been ones where Pete or Klobuchar have had unexpectedly strong surges.
By the same token, only about 30% of Sanders' people have Warren as a second choice and Biden comes in almost even with her (and 15% for Bloomberg!) So if the situation was reversed, Sanders dropping out could have also end up boosting the non-progressives more than it helped Warren.
If you end up with a contested convention, the strongest position to be in when walking into it is to maximize the number of delegates behind progressive candidates overall. The best way for this to happen is by having both Warren and Sanders doing really well by maximizing their crossover appeal to different types of moderates and suppressing the moderate vote overall. That way, when it comes time for convention-day brokering you have two strong who might come out ahead in the horse-trading, giving you better odds of having someone you can live with being the winner. It also presents a much stronger argument that a progressive should lead the ticket since the progressives will have clout at the table.
In fact, a lot more happens at a convention than just picking the Presidential candidate. That's also where the party bylaws and platform get ironed out, it's where priorities and fundraising strategies for the DNC over the next 4 years are addressed, and it's where they decide what the rules for the next season's primaries are going to be determined. You want as many delegates as you can find on your side in those breakout sessions and negotiating tables, especially since you'll have all the moderate candidate delegates and party superdelegates managing things.
I'm skeptical of the idea that a contested convention will care if progressive candidates have lots of delegates between the two of them. I think they'll either pick the candidate with the most...
I'm skeptical of the idea that a contested convention will care if progressive candidates have lots of delegates between the two of them. I think they'll either pick the candidate with the most (if there is a clear winner) or go with the most "electable" candidate. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorest (I was a Clinton support - hopefully that fluffs my blasé cred) but I don't anticipate Sanders or Warren coming out of the convention as the nominee, unless they have ~45% of the vote.
Unless something dramatically shifts, Sanders is already at 1 in 5 odds of going in with a clear majority. Even if his odds tank and the moderates coalesce enough to cut his lead down to being...
but I don't anticipate Sanders or Warren coming out of the convention as the nominee, unless they have ~45% of the vote.
Unless something dramatically shifts, Sanders is already at 1 in 5 odds of going in with a clear majority. Even if his odds tank and the moderates coalesce enough to cut his lead down to being under 40%, him + Warren would still be very likely to be at or near a clear majority.
And then there is always the risk of Sanders having another health scare between now and the convention which would upend everything. Also the most "electable" (as determined by delegates at a Democratic convention, who are far from reliable judges of electability) candidate would still need to make a case for themselves and that case would be based on their delegate counts and the popular vote totals, and strong showings there would greatly bolster the case of the progressives in the race if it came down to it.
He did release as much as is really pertinent (post heart attack, bp, etc.) Everything else is just unduly invasive of an expectation to set up IMO. The other health concerns are basically priced...
This 100%. Bernie is refusing to release health records (a couple page doctors note is not that), tracking back from previous promises to do so once voting starts.
He did release as much as is really pertinent (post heart attack, bp, etc.) Everything else is just unduly invasive of an expectation to set up IMO. The other health concerns are basically priced into the fact that he’s 78. There are lots of health concerns based on that, but you already know them. Medical records don’t add any new information, they just provide more grist for cable news to chew on.
I worry about the “release every detail of your personal life” norm. I don’t think it actually tells us much about how they’ll govern and I think it critically disadvantages people who are disabled or on psychiatric meds. As long as their track record shows their judgement and capabilities we should judge them on that.
Same with the expectation of releasing all tax returns ever. As long as you’ve got the money to where you’re not a blackmail concern and you haven’t been dodging your taxes, I don’t really care that much. Most other things you can basically glean from public records and behavior. The records don’t add any knowledge, just another topic for arguments.
I don't mean to come off as entitled to her votes, but Sanders is the most similar candidate in a front runner position. They compliment each other really well and I don't think it's too...
I don't mean to come off as entitled to her votes, but Sanders is the most similar candidate in a front runner position. They compliment each other really well and I don't think it's too farfetched to expect an endorsement and migration of some supporters from her camp to his. But as others pointed out, I may be out of touch with where Warren supporters will turn if her campaign ends.
At the end of the day I really just want a return to normalcy with a Federal government that takes care of its citizens by way of healthcare, support programs, etc. Whether that's via Warren or Sanders doesn't really matter to me, although I do intend to vote Sanders. I'm not toxic about my support for him, I don't insult those who vote differently, and I detest the "Bernie Bro" stereotype because I've literally never encountered it with any of the Bernie supporters that I know personally.
I’m in a similar boat, although I would also say I’m inundated with more moderate and conservative friend groups telling me that Bernie is “unelectable” and that I should just give up. Telling me...
I’m in a similar boat, although I would also say I’m inundated with more moderate and conservative friend groups telling me that Bernie is “unelectable” and that I should just give up. Telling me that he’s ruining the Democratic Party and should have run as an independent (something they don’t proactively bring up about Bloomberg).
As a progressive who sees Warren as the only alternate progressive option, I’m stuck supporting my values above all to keep the discourse alive. There’s a certain pragmatism with politics I will eventually have to take (I’m not Bernie or bust), but I don’t see the point to cave in to staunch opposition for candidates I have relatively little alignment with my own values.
I think this “radical” leftism is what drives Bernie bro’s to be so obnoxious and unyielding, but the alternative (sans Warren) is an option I will never be happy with and I will need to undergo mental gymnastics to convince myself of the acceptance of the lesser of two evils.
I think Trump is a clear example that having a rabid group of supporters is much better than not having an excited group of supporters. Being said I think that the more troll Bernie supporters are...
I think Trump is a clear example that having a rabid group of supporters is much better than not having an excited group of supporters. Being said I think that the more troll Bernie supporters are in my experience the minority. Some of them are very far left who have opposed the democrats before Bernie came on the stage, and some of them are libertarian converts who hate both the Republicans and Democrats. Strong positions can create strange bedfellows, legalization of marijuana and pardoning offenders alone can really shape the conversation. When you stand a bit more independent, you're going to draw in new people who don't have a vested interest in keeping things civil with their fellow democrats, but if they stay in the party long enough they'll have to eventually. The new voters part is mostly good, them being belligerent sucks but it's also the internet so take it with a grain of salt.
I don't know that Klobuchar has the momentum to unify the party. I also can't confidently say that leftists will rally behind her. Warren has a much better chance of at least getting the reluctant...
I don't know that Klobuchar has the momentum to unify the party. I also can't confidently say that leftists will rally behind her. Warren has a much better chance of at least getting the reluctant votes of Bernie supporters in the general election (yes the general election). Keep in mind, not all Bernie supporters are dyed in the wool democrats. While most Bernie supporters are indeed democrats, some of them are republican converts who don't like Trump (an old friend of mine for example) , some of them are hard line socialists, some of them are green party voters who have rallied under his green new deal. I don't think that the hostility towards Warren is good organizing strategy. He's unifying a fair number of independents and I think that is part of the animosity you've seen against Warren being the closest competitor. They don't have a vested interest in playing nice with other democrats because they don't see themselves as democrats, and they may have a long history of actually disliking moderate democrats. While most Bernie supporters do agree with liberal social policy (hence leaving the republicans post Trump, having to look their party in the mirror), they don't necessarily agree with liberal economic policies. I can not confidently say that the more independent contingent will all "vote blue no matter who" because some of them don't like most democrats, they like Bernie. I'm personally a Bernie supporter but I did still turn out for Hillary in the general election, and I would do the same for Warren but with a good bit more enthusiasm. I like Warren quite a bit better than Hillary, and I view Klobuchar as somewhere between the two. I really don't appreciate Klobuchar's positions on democratic socialism as a label. I think it's about time we modernized with the rest of the world and put our tax dollars to benefit working Americans, and not allow anti-competitive and anti-labor business practices. Between Warren and Bernie, I much prefer his organizing and funding strategy and his narrative. In my opinion Warren is a much better option than Klobuchar and Klobuchar still probably is preferable to everyone else, even if she does have a reputation of threatening her staff, she at least has job experience. I would have a tired yay for Warren, a ho-hum for Klobuchar, and a "do I have to" for the others.
Warren was on fire this debate. Came out guns blazing against Bloomberg and then finished strong, and had everyone else joining with the harassment NDA she brought up. Fantastic. Honestly, if she...
Warren was on fire this debate. Came out guns blazing against Bloomberg and then finished strong, and had everyone else joining with the harassment NDA she brought up. Fantastic. Honestly, if she showed that much spirit for the rest of the campaign she'd be doing well.
I'd prefer Warren to be the nominee but I'm fine with Sanders too. Overall I think this debate was good for both of them and everyone else was pretty uninspiring, Biden (and Bloomberg) especially.
While I agree with both of you, I had never seen Buttigieg in action before and I was shocked at how smarmy he seemed...and the way he attacked Sanders was disturbing.
While I agree with both of you, I had never seen Buttigieg in action before and I was shocked at how smarmy he seemed...and the way he attacked Sanders was disturbing.
Yeah, I heard a Bloomberg radio spot for the first time today and the number of right-wing dogwhistles in it was kind of shocking for someone who's theoretically a Democrat.
Yeah, I heard a Bloomberg radio spot for the first time today and the number of right-wing dogwhistles in it was kind of shocking for someone who's theoretically a Democrat.
Really just hoping to see everyone dogpile on Bloomberg for being a hack.
If he doesn't get called out for being a Republican until two years ago and donating to Pat Toomey's Senate campaign, I will be very sad.
Is there any chance of the same thing happening with Trump, where Bloomberg sucks up all the moderate energy in the room and comes out as the reasonable and competant one compared to Sanders the Socialist, Greenhorn Pete, and the rest of the has-beens? I know I'm catastrophising, but politics is slow motion catastrophe as of late.
Pat Toomey is the worst.
It happened!
I'll be very disappointed if this doesn't come up:
Less than a year ago, referring to transgender people as "some guy wearing a dress" and "he, she, or it" and bringing up the tired old canard about doing it simply to sneak into locker rooms for voyeuristic purposes.
Exactly, that's the question for tonight. How much will Bloomberg be the target of criticisms from all other candidates? It's in the best interests of other moderates to go after Bloomberg instead of Sanders because he's the one siphoning moderate support from them. And that support is flimsy at best and likely to falter, in contrast to the loyalty of the Sanders supporter base.
Debate transcript is here, for reference. I'll admit I read the transcript instead of watching the debate in real time; it's just too infuriating at this point.
I hate the debate format and moderation style, as I don't think it provides adequate time for sensible or informative response and rebuttal. Even with the field whittled down to six candidates, the debate seems contrived to generate sound bites.
Worse yet, the moderators' questions seem calculated to avoid issues that the Presidential role actually has real power to address (e.g. war powers, foreign policy, trade, executive power over the administrative and military bureaucracy, courts, etc.). Much of the questioning covers Congressional responsibilities instead, which sets the electorate up for an authoritarian view of executive power. None of the questioning is directed at the President's role in acting as leader of the Democratic Party, either - a role the prior Clinton and Obama presidencies spectacularly failed at.
While a President has the ability to advocate for Congressional action, and the bureaucratic power to ensure the laws are implemented effectively (or not), much depends on changing out Republicans in Congress as well. The impact of conservative court appointments remains to be seen, but isn't likely positive. As with the Obama administration, there's no way a President alone can achieve rapid wholesale change through Constitutional means, regardless of aspiration or popular support. Inviting the candidates' sweeping promises just lays the ground for future debate on Donald Trump's terms.
All that being said, Bloomberg's candidacy could well be a disaster for the party. He's campaigning for billionaires' right to rule, and the secret of power maintenance for the rich is that most people aspire to become wealthy. The bits of his campaign advertising I've seen pander to bourgeois aspiration rather than justice. Trump has proven that this, with a side of dog-whistle racism, works.
No questions were asked about how Bloomberg bought his way onstage, campaign finance reform or administrative enforcement of existing law (reform the Federal Election Commission, FFFS!). While the stop-and-frisk and harassment non-disclosure discussion was helpful in attacking Bloomberg's actions as Mayor of New York, there was no opportunity to discuss his subsequent and ongoing autocratic, paternalistic actions and media control (e.g. this), or his opportunities to entrench and broaden his family's wealth in office.
Altogether, the debate seemed calculated to create heat rather than light, and it's too easy to get sick of the whole process.
Edit: apostrophes!
There had been the argument that the DNC's rule change to allow Bloomberg into the debates was an anti-Bloomberg, not pro-Bloomberg move: that Bloomberg's unorthodox strategy of overwhelming advertising while using his no-debts-to-donors policy as an excuse to avoid debates allowed him to gain enormously in the polls without any scrutiny, and that changing the debate rules eliminated his excuse and obligated him to participate in debates he would have preferred to avoid. After this debate, I'm not sure this view is wrong. After all, without being in any debates, this is a candidate who was doing quite well, and was likely the frontrunner, in the current competition to be the other candidate in an upcoming two-person race with Sanders.
And in some ways, it was a brilliant idea to include a sexist, billionaire former Republican who won't release his tax returns because they are too complicated. Does the media want a gruesome fight in order to get high ratings? Look, here's a blood sacrifice on the stage. Does Biden have a problem with seeming too much like a Republican when surrounded by Democrats? Now there's a real Republican on the stage. Do voters want to see how the candidates will debate Trump? Now they've just been given a demonstration with a great Trump stand-in, and Warren has been able to show something she really couldn't show in previous debates. Do party insiders want to show people what happens when the party really dislikes a candidate? Some of that felt like it had to have been coordinated: Warren the prosecutor, Biden the everyman, Sanders linking the personal to the political. The attacks against Bloomberg, unlike many previous attacks against Sanders and other candidates, seem like the sorts of attacks where the other candidates don't care about hurting a potential nominee.
Isn't Trump much better at rhetoric (or at least doing enough dumb shit so that noone cares about any actual policy issues) than Bloomberg?
Trump did not win the debates against Hillary.
The one thing Trump does well is control the press. He gets 95% of the news articles talking about him.
His one advantage is that Fox News is an extension of his campaign, and they aren't afraid to spread lies or conspiracy theories (and no other news organization has found the profit motive to call them out on it.)
Oh okay. So the (pro corporate but non-ideological) media are the ones with most of the real power here?
I miss Yang.
I'm thinking about whether to vote for him anyway in the California primary. No other candidate has my vote yet. (I will of course vote for the Democrat in November.)
Does anyone else feel like we might be heading towards sideshow/shitshow territory here? Seems like most people (myself included) are treating this debate more like a sporting event than previous debates because of the Bloomberg factor. With all the media coverage the past few days and the stories detailing some of the unorthodox Bloomberg campaign strategies, it feels like everyone is trying to turn him into a Democrat Trump.
I don't want to feel this way, but like others in this thread and on reddit/twitter, I'm anxious to see if the other candidates will take it to Bloomberg.
And thats pretty much what it was. People cheering on the drama much louder than any policy related question given the entire night. This is exactly what the GOP looked like half a decade ago and its infuriating to watch when you're on this side of it.
The question is, will someone emerge as the 'god emperor' of our party and will they go and win despite the electoral college?
There is no more Mrs. Nice Warren. She’s either going to dominate this debate the next day or flame out spectacularly and take everyone whose name doesn’t rhyme with Sernie Banders with her.
I am here for it. Ride now! Ride for ruin! And the world ending!
I thought that was the perfect balance of being tough while not sounding hostile.
School Teacher powers, activate!
Reminds me of that time she got a slam dunk on John Delaney
Also honestly Bloomberg made it really easy for her to some degree. Not to take away from Warren's performance but but Bloomberg just did not have a good answer to the question of the sexual harassment NDAs other than rolling his eyes and going "nah it's fine, let's stop talking about this".
Finally someone put it up on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH2IhCuBL5s
Quite a few people will be tuning in to see how Mike Bloomberg performs. This is after so many scandalous comments 'resurfaced' and other candidates are salivating at having a foil to burnish their own progressive credentials.
Based on this article and the presence of a reporter from Telemundo, they should probably be studying up on Mexico.
This is a pretty good summary of the debate.
I hope that if Warren under performs in Nevada that she'll just drop out and endorse Bernie. Maybe that's premature, but I just really don't want to see the progressive vote split between her and Bernie, allowing some stale toast moderate to win the nomination. I can honestly say that if the roles were reversed, I'd be hoping for the same of Bernie.
Let the progressives stand united and the moderates continue to cannibalize each other until it's too late.
(All numbers below are based on Morning Consult's tracking poll.)
Voters are a lot less ideological than politics enthusiasts usually think. They vote more on style and relatability and it's pretty clear Warren is doing a lot of work in keeping the more progressive moderates away from the corporatist candidates. Her weaknesses, so far, have been an inability to convert Pete and Amy fence-sitters to her side. Fewer than 40% of Warren supporters have Sanders as a second-choice option. The rest are predominantly split between Buttigieg and Klobuchar. The primaries where Warren hasn't done well have been ones where Pete or Klobuchar have had unexpectedly strong surges.
By the same token, only about 30% of Sanders' people have Warren as a second choice and Biden comes in almost even with her (and 15% for Bloomberg!) So if the situation was reversed, Sanders dropping out could have also end up boosting the non-progressives more than it helped Warren.
If you end up with a contested convention, the strongest position to be in when walking into it is to maximize the number of delegates behind progressive candidates overall. The best way for this to happen is by having both Warren and Sanders doing really well by maximizing their crossover appeal to different types of moderates and suppressing the moderate vote overall. That way, when it comes time for convention-day brokering you have two strong who might come out ahead in the horse-trading, giving you better odds of having someone you can live with being the winner. It also presents a much stronger argument that a progressive should lead the ticket since the progressives will have clout at the table.
In fact, a lot more happens at a convention than just picking the Presidential candidate. That's also where the party bylaws and platform get ironed out, it's where priorities and fundraising strategies for the DNC over the next 4 years are addressed, and it's where they decide what the rules for the next season's primaries are going to be determined. You want as many delegates as you can find on your side in those breakout sessions and negotiating tables, especially since you'll have all the moderate candidate delegates and party superdelegates managing things.
I'm skeptical of the idea that a contested convention will care if progressive candidates have lots of delegates between the two of them. I think they'll either pick the candidate with the most (if there is a clear winner) or go with the most "electable" candidate. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorest (I was a Clinton support - hopefully that fluffs my blasé cred) but I don't anticipate Sanders or Warren coming out of the convention as the nominee, unless they have ~45% of the vote.
Unless something dramatically shifts, Sanders is already at 1 in 5 odds of going in with a clear majority. Even if his odds tank and the moderates coalesce enough to cut his lead down to being under 40%, him + Warren would still be very likely to be at or near a clear majority.
And then there is always the risk of Sanders having another health scare between now and the convention which would upend everything. Also the most "electable" (as determined by delegates at a Democratic convention, who are far from reliable judges of electability) candidate would still need to make a case for themselves and that case would be based on their delegate counts and the popular vote totals, and strong showings there would greatly bolster the case of the progressives in the race if it came down to it.
He did release as much as is really pertinent (post heart attack, bp, etc.) Everything else is just unduly invasive of an expectation to set up IMO. The other health concerns are basically priced into the fact that he’s 78. There are lots of health concerns based on that, but you already know them. Medical records don’t add any new information, they just provide more grist for cable news to chew on.
I worry about the “release every detail of your personal life” norm. I don’t think it actually tells us much about how they’ll govern and I think it critically disadvantages people who are disabled or on psychiatric meds. As long as their track record shows their judgement and capabilities we should judge them on that.
Same with the expectation of releasing all tax returns ever. As long as you’ve got the money to where you’re not a blackmail concern and you haven’t been dodging your taxes, I don’t really care that much. Most other things you can basically glean from public records and behavior. The records don’t add any knowledge, just another topic for arguments.
I don't mean to come off as entitled to her votes, but Sanders is the most similar candidate in a front runner position. They compliment each other really well and I don't think it's too farfetched to expect an endorsement and migration of some supporters from her camp to his. But as others pointed out, I may be out of touch with where Warren supporters will turn if her campaign ends.
At the end of the day I really just want a return to normalcy with a Federal government that takes care of its citizens by way of healthcare, support programs, etc. Whether that's via Warren or Sanders doesn't really matter to me, although I do intend to vote Sanders. I'm not toxic about my support for him, I don't insult those who vote differently, and I detest the "Bernie Bro" stereotype because I've literally never encountered it with any of the Bernie supporters that I know personally.
I’m in a similar boat, although I would also say I’m inundated with more moderate and conservative friend groups telling me that Bernie is “unelectable” and that I should just give up. Telling me that he’s ruining the Democratic Party and should have run as an independent (something they don’t proactively bring up about Bloomberg).
As a progressive who sees Warren as the only alternate progressive option, I’m stuck supporting my values above all to keep the discourse alive. There’s a certain pragmatism with politics I will eventually have to take (I’m not Bernie or bust), but I don’t see the point to cave in to staunch opposition for candidates I have relatively little alignment with my own values.
I think this “radical” leftism is what drives Bernie bro’s to be so obnoxious and unyielding, but the alternative (sans Warren) is an option I will never be happy with and I will need to undergo mental gymnastics to convince myself of the acceptance of the lesser of two evils.
I think Trump is a clear example that having a rabid group of supporters is much better than not having an excited group of supporters. Being said I think that the more troll Bernie supporters are in my experience the minority. Some of them are very far left who have opposed the democrats before Bernie came on the stage, and some of them are libertarian converts who hate both the Republicans and Democrats. Strong positions can create strange bedfellows, legalization of marijuana and pardoning offenders alone can really shape the conversation. When you stand a bit more independent, you're going to draw in new people who don't have a vested interest in keeping things civil with their fellow democrats, but if they stay in the party long enough they'll have to eventually. The new voters part is mostly good, them being belligerent sucks but it's also the internet so take it with a grain of salt.
I don't know that Klobuchar has the momentum to unify the party. I also can't confidently say that leftists will rally behind her. Warren has a much better chance of at least getting the reluctant votes of Bernie supporters in the general election (yes the general election). Keep in mind, not all Bernie supporters are dyed in the wool democrats. While most Bernie supporters are indeed democrats, some of them are republican converts who don't like Trump (an old friend of mine for example) , some of them are hard line socialists, some of them are green party voters who have rallied under his green new deal. I don't think that the hostility towards Warren is good organizing strategy. He's unifying a fair number of independents and I think that is part of the animosity you've seen against Warren being the closest competitor. They don't have a vested interest in playing nice with other democrats because they don't see themselves as democrats, and they may have a long history of actually disliking moderate democrats. While most Bernie supporters do agree with liberal social policy (hence leaving the republicans post Trump, having to look their party in the mirror), they don't necessarily agree with liberal economic policies. I can not confidently say that the more independent contingent will all "vote blue no matter who" because some of them don't like most democrats, they like Bernie. I'm personally a Bernie supporter but I did still turn out for Hillary in the general election, and I would do the same for Warren but with a good bit more enthusiasm. I like Warren quite a bit better than Hillary, and I view Klobuchar as somewhere between the two. I really don't appreciate Klobuchar's positions on democratic socialism as a label. I think it's about time we modernized with the rest of the world and put our tax dollars to benefit working Americans, and not allow anti-competitive and anti-labor business practices. Between Warren and Bernie, I much prefer his organizing and funding strategy and his narrative. In my opinion Warren is a much better option than Klobuchar and Klobuchar still probably is preferable to everyone else, even if she does have a reputation of threatening her staff, she at least has job experience. I would have a tired yay for Warren, a ho-hum for Klobuchar, and a "do I have to" for the others.
Warren was on fire this debate. Came out guns blazing against Bloomberg and then finished strong, and had everyone else joining with the harassment NDA she brought up. Fantastic. Honestly, if she showed that much spirit for the rest of the campaign she'd be doing well.
I'd prefer Warren to be the nominee but I'm fine with Sanders too. Overall I think this debate was good for both of them and everyone else was pretty uninspiring, Biden (and Bloomberg) especially.
While I agree with both of you, I had never seen Buttigieg in action before and I was shocked at how smarmy he seemed...and the way he attacked Sanders was disturbing.
Yeah, I heard a Bloomberg radio spot for the first time today and the number of right-wing dogwhistles in it was kind of shocking for someone who's theoretically a Democrat.