Sanders campaign wracked by dissension

Tagged: 

This topic contains 19 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Vitalogy 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #42481

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    A staff shakeup and loss of an endorsement to Elizabeth Warren has allies warning of deeper problems.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/bernie-sanders-campaign-dissension-1500287

    Time to go to bed Bernie.

    #42482

    paulwalker
    Participant

    Agreed. That last debate looked like he was about to burst a vein and pass out. I predict he will stay in for as long as he can, but he has little chance at this point.

    Beyond that, I still have serious concerns about the democratic response to Trump next year. If nobody steps up, Trump will win again, despite what the polls say. And I am very uncertain about the poll leader, Biden. If it comes to that, I would certainly vote for him, but I am secretly hoping someone else will break through. Warren? Maybe.

    Overall not optimistic just about 1 year out. Dems need to get their act together. Time is running out.

    #42485

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Biden is glitching like no other. He’s likely to forget he’s running at this rate. He’s peaked, numbers down from here, and that was true a while ago. Doomed.

    Kamila took one in the gonads from Tulsi. She’s not all that well liked. Also doomed.

    Both are likely losers to Trump.

    Warren appears to be doing nicely right now. Maybe. She won’t get the unlikely voters all that motivated, but she can perform well with likely ones. Possible win against Trump, but her persona and tin ear for things like her Pocahontas gaffe do add a lot of risk.

    The others? Most will fall by the wayside shortly.

    As for that endorsement, the vote was weighted in favor of WP “Superdelegates” to favor a split between party leaders and the rank and file:

    https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/the-math-of-the-working-families-party-endorsement-7768729b7da6

    The WFP endorsement process works by tallying up party member votes and party leader votes. The member votes are given 50 percent of the vote weight while the leader votes are given the other 50 percent of the vote weight. To win the endorsement, you have to get the majority of the weighted vote.

    Ahem… That’s not a ringing endorsement by the voters, and it’s the voters who are needed en mass.

    #42488

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Did you get your “Progressives for Trump 2020” bumper sticker yet?

    #42489

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Oh I don’t know, your fuck the poors megaphone is distracting. And expecting votes? Laughable!

    You can take what I said about Biden and Harris to the bank though.

    #42490

    Andrew
    Participant

    I’m starting to think we should give up on defeating Trump and nominate Sanders or Warren and just let the liberals have their wet dream so we can get serious in 2024 and actually try to win the presidency again.

    Some Democrats have very short memories. They’ve forgotten for example how the liberal Walter Mondale lost 49 states to Ronald Reagan in 1984. Democrats hadn’t gotten tired of losing yet. We had to do that to get to the point where we could finally nominate someone like Bill Clinton who could actually win again. Painful but maybe necessary to have to re-learn this lesson every once in a while…

    #42491

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Doing that will improve chances very considerably over Biden and Harris.

    At the very least, meaningful efforts to advance popular, reasonable, necessary policy would deliver more votes.

    Surely you don’t expect votes from people who are being told to basically sit down and shut up.

    😀

    #42492

    Andrew
    Participant

    Missing: “Doing that will improve chances very considerably over Biden and Harris.”

    Could be Sanders will break Clinton’s record for most votes by a candidate who lost the electoral college. I actually want to win the electoral college, though.

    “At the very least, meaningful efforts to advance popular, reasonable, necessary policy would deliver more votes.”

    Sure, among liberals. Can’t win a general election with just liberals.

    “Surely you don’t expect votes from people who are being told to basically sit down and shut up.”

    And you aren’t doing the same? Why should I vote for Bernie Sanders in the general election? Maybe I’ll just vote for Gary Johnson instead – what do you think?

    #42493

    Andy Brown
    Participant

    It’s still way too early to draw conclusions which is what you are all doing.

    Biden still polls at the top. Both he and Bernie have lost points to (mostly) Warren, but it doesn’t mean much before a single primary has been conducted.

    Just like in the general, polls are about what a small hopefully representative group feels BEFORE they vote. So much can happen between now and then.

    Beating drumpf is paramount, and although almost all the major candidates poll higher than drumpf now, when the rubber meets the road there are a lot of closet republicans trying to make up their mind whether to vote at all. Bernie’s shortfall is that none of them will vote for him. Few will vote for Warren, either. Biden’s track record of working across the aisle and having a moderate agenda probably translates to some republicans actually voting for him although it will be only those states where republican senate seats are up for grabs.

    Whoever controls the Senate after election day is the real winner. drumpf gets impeached and convicted if he wins the general but loses the Senate. Republicans have to win both the White House AND the Senate to preserve and further their run of malfeasance. That is unlikely. If the Dems take the White House but don’t get the Senate, it won’t make a bit of difference going forward as Moscow Mitch will see to it that nothing gets done.

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

    #42494

    Andrew
    Participant

    Andy: “Whoever controls the Senate after election day is the real winner. drumpf gets impeached and convicted if he wins the general but loses the Senate”

    It is impossible for me to imagine Trump being impeached and removed if he is re-elected, unless something new (and really awful) comes out after the election that the American voters did not know about. Even if Democrats manage to win the Senate, getting to 67 votes to convict to remove Trump – just after the American people re-elected him??? – seems a real long-shot.

    #42495

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    >Can’t win a general election with just liberals.

    Sure we can. Boils down to general policy support and turnout.

    >And you aren’t doing the same?

    No.

    The push behind Bernie is rooted in large numbers of Americans struggling and who believe they will continue to struggle sans a change in the party.

    You telling me a vote for Bernie will put you into some form of struggle, and that being comparable?

    Telling them to vote for Biden, Harris at al. is definitely telling them they must continue to struggle so a minority isn’t bothered.

    Very different equations.

    Perhaps you no vote. You get to do that. Same as anyone.

    This is why is is important to recognize people need things to vote for.

    It may be your potential no vote would be matched by infrequent voters turning out as well as cross over votes from the right, both more about M4A than they are hating other people.

    I personally am stating Biden and Harris simply do not have the support needed to win. I stand by that firmly.

    Warren may, depending on how well equipped to handle Trump she ends up being. My hopes are not high. Also depending on how many believe her policy rhetoric, given her GOP roots.

    She is lower risk than any of the others.

    Finally, the only one who has a serious ground game built and running well is Sanders.

    #42496

    paulwalker
    Participant

    Some may be too young to remember, but to me this is shaping up very similarly to 1972, where Nixon was facing Watergate, but still managed to win easily over a weak democrat, George McGovern, who was way too liberal for mainstream. History repeats, unfortunately. Unpopular Presidents can go on and win a 2nd term quite easily. Another example is Bush 2, with a win over Kerry in ’04.

    #42498

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    The demographics have changed completely from the McGovern time.

    Millennials, bow the largest voting demographic both trend left and are impacted by the current party performance, meaning they are very highly motivated to reform.

    #42499

    paulwalker
    Participant

    “The demographics have changed completely from the McGovern time.”

    But have they really?

    Older voters still vote consistently. Yes, millennials are a big group, but still are dwarfed by the BBoomers. And not to be insulting to them, but my belief is many don’t give a damn. I would admit that this perhaps is slowly, (and I mean slowly) changing.

    #42500

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Yes! I read that somewhere, and it’s wrong. I must have read a future prediction, confusing it. Oh well. 😀

    However: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

    Gen Z follows Millennials and the overall trends are pretty darn clear.

    Remember, a majority of the nation has been impacted in a negative, hard to ignore way, by the last 4 decades of failed economic policy. By that, I mean the party, as representatives with the general charter to promote the general welfare, simply did not do that for anyone other than the upper class earners.

    This has decimated the middle class.

    There are few meaningful differences between the neoliberal and neoconservative economic platforms today. They both lean right, they do differ in extremes, and they both basically ignore the idea of government investing in people and most progressive policy ideas generally.

    I don’t think you are insulting. Paul, that’s a totally fair call.

    Neither did my generation, Gen X, until we did, and we did as we continued to age in and continued to experience the impact of post New Deal, actually toxic to New Deal, economic ideas playing out in the society.

    The more interesting discussion is, “what happens when someone causes them to give a damn?” That’s precisely what Sanders is doing, and doing so in massive numbers too.

    My general point, throughout this rather painful (unnecessarily so, I might add) discussion, is we have arrived at a pivot point where it’s simply unreasonable to expect votes from a majority where said votes are tied to more of the same struggle for that majority generally speaking, leaving a minority to improve and live well, even gain.

    That pivot was crossed during Obama, who ran on a decidedly progressive rhetoric, but governed center right, even going so far as to put basic, popular programs on the chopping block, “Grand Bargain” style!

    Dems lost over 1000 seats as the tepid ACA, failure to end wars, escalation of military action (which tends to create terrorists), and most importantly, pretty much zero progressive action. Now, the line goes, “but the Republicans…”, and I would hear that and give it more weight, if it were not for Dems helping things along over and over.

    A quick look at that majority would show much of it will continue to vote lesser evil, and basically respond to, “but Trump.” The voting bloc that will not is growing, active, and messaging hard about party reform, along with very highly popular policy.

    That group, lead by Bernie, has fundamentally changed the discussion too.

    Running a Dem, who is not economically left, and it does not have to be much, means running without expecting the votes from that large and growing bloc.

    Vitalogy, and others, call it various things, and that’s fine, if a bit humorous, and they are not wrong for identifying it. Fair enough. I have too.

    Where we differ considerably is just where that higher ground is.

    Reasonably secure centrists, for example, hating Bernie, dishing out fear, blame and shame politics simply lack position in the discussion to be effective.

    They are basically asking a majority struggling to vote for more of the same politics that brought them to struggle so that a minority, namely themselves, can continue on with few worries, even perhaps gain.

    Problems there should be obvious. While a significant fraction of that struggling majority will do that, the progressive bloc is increasingly hardened away from doing that, and will no, protest vote.

    Now, when one looks at it from that progressive bloc point of view, things look a bit different!

    They are basically asking that reasonably secure, centrist minority to be bothered a little. It’s not much. Not life changing, but it is a bit of a hit. And they are asking that so that a struggling majority may improve.

    Much different, and increasingly resonant proposition.

    This can be summed up as, “What’s in this for me?”

    And, I have put that as, “VOTE FOR” positive politics. It’s not going to be reasonable to expect votes from people who see little to nothing in the process for them, and that increases risk in the intended election outcome.

    Candidates like Biden and Harris have lackluster appeal at best. Pockets of good support here and there, but they are not going to bring voters out of the woodwork. They can, and are likely to bring out the “fuck Trump” crowd, and while that’s good, the potency of it, compared to the past, has been whittled down over the last few years. It’s risky on a good day now.

    Candidates like Warren and Sanders look much better. They have broad appeal, and where Bernie will bring a massive number of indie voters (largest bloc today), and excite non likely voters into voting, he is likely to not excite the centrist core, Clinton types.

    Warren does excite those people, as does Kamila, who sadly is not liked well enough for it to matter, but she does not excite the reformers, progressives who have been driving the discussion all this time.

    Both carry risks.

    Bernie, due to ongoing campaign work, issue advocacy, and grassroots organizing going on since 2016, has a massive million donors (not donations, that’s 2.x million), huge ground game, and a very well developed machine, all of which Warren lacks.

    Notably, and like in 2016, the core of that progressive machine won’t just transfer over to whoever is the nominee, and their objection will be who took big money and how doing that impacts the perception of trust and agency to act in office.

    Bernie has 4 decades of action, “receipts” as Twitter refers to them, where Warren has some nice work as of late, but only a little over a decade before her past in the GOP comes into the discussion. A far weaker candidate.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.