A plausible hypothetical regarding Sanders and Bloomberg

[Tom Rinaldo]

For the sake of discussion, what if Sanders won Iowa, NH, and Nevada and came in a competitive second in SC. There are certainly reasons to think this won't happen but also reasons to think this will. If Biden emerges in relatively good shape from the first three contests the nomination most likely will be his, and that may well happen. This speculative scenario however is one in which Biden disappoints, and perhaps disappoints significantly in the first three contests and then under performs expectations in SC.

At that point should most Democratic activists close ranks behind Sanders? This is a corollary question to whether most Democratic activists should close ranks behind Biden if he wins, say, three of the first four contests. I would be inclined to start unifying behind Biden in the second scenario (though I would look closely at the specific results before fully commuting myself to that in advance). Admittedly other scenarios, with other candidates remaining competitive, remain plausible also. This question obviously doesn't address those scenarios.

If Biden is seen to be losing steam after the first four contests, with Super Tuesday looming, who would be supportive of a potentially Bloomberg led "Stop Bernie" movement if Sanders does exceptionally well in the first four contests? Or would you think it wiser to start closing ranks behind Sanders at that point (in that scenario). I am inclined to the "close ranks" option behind any candidate who wins 3 out of 4 of the early contests who was at least competitive in the fourth contest also. That does not mean that I think all other candidates need to drop out at that point, simply that their own campaigns should accent their candidate's positives and then avoid negative attacks that could damage our likely nominee

[still_one]

1. The plausible hypothtical senario is a brokered convention, and if that happens, I am very

pessimistic of the outcome

California allows those who do NOT wish to be identified as Democrats, to help determine who the Democratic nominee is

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/no-party-preference/

[George II]

2. That's a reason why trump and his people have been increasing their attacks on Biden and......

....almost openly supporting Sanders. They WANT to face Sanders.

[still_one]

8. I agree, and Bloomberg just adds to it

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. 18 states have open primaries (n/t)

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. So does Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

And in most of those states, you can vote in the Republican primary as a Democrat. And vice versa.

[still_one]

9. For those that don't remember, that was the main reason Lipinski won over Newman, because of the

republican cross over vote

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. Anecdotes.

Given a symmetric configuration of candidate positions, if uncertainty about the general election results at the time of the primary election is high, then the open primary system always leads to an outcome that is at least as moderate as the outcome under the closed primary system. Even when uncertainty is low, if the extreme candidate in each party is sufficiently extreme, then the outcome in the primary election is never more extreme under the open system than under the closed system. However, if there is low uncertainty and the extreme candidate in each party is sufficiently moderate, the party nominees under the open primary system can be more extreme in expectation than those under the closed primary system.

Cho, S., & Kang, I. (2015). Open primaries and crossover voting. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 27(3), 351–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629814531671

While tests performed have limitations, none yields strong evidence that strategic crossover voting in response to Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos was a widespread phenomenon. These findings therefore extend the somewhat dated literature on strategic crossover voting in response to instigation from a popular political figure. The absence of a Limbaugh effect suggests that states or parties holding open primaries have little to fear about their elections being mischievously influenced by activists from the opposing party.

Stephenson, E. Frank. “Strategic Voting in Open Primaries: Evidence from Rush Limbaugh's ‘Operation Chaos.’” Public Choice, vol. 148, no. 3/4, 2011, pp. 445–457. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41483706. Accessed 28 Jan. 2020.

[still_one]

21. Interesting. I need to ponder this

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Excellent.

There's some interesting literature out there. When I was studying poli sci in college twenty years ago, strategic crossover voting was generally considered an irrelevant concern. That could always change, though, so totally go out and explore.

[still_one]

23. Thanks

[KPN]

30. So what's your concern? Open primaries weigh in

favor of more moderate candidates.

[still_one]

40. My concern is that it allows for non-Democrats to determine the Democratic nominee

[Mister Ed]

4. Since you've defined "close ranks" as "make no negative attacks"...

...I'd say the time to do that is now, or really, long ago.

[BeyondGeography]

5. The OP either ignores or has a limited grasp of the depth of damage already done

It’s never too late to learn:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/elections/ct-nw-nyt-bernie-sanders-online-supporters-20200128-4dtjpjf4nza2rbby4ehqb4m44e-story.html

[George II]

11. "At the start of his 2020 bid, Bernie Sanders told his supporters that he condemned bullying.....

Full Headline: "At the start of his 2020 bid, Bernie Sanders told his supporters that he condemned bullying. Some don’t seem to be listening."

And then he hired Turner, Gray, and Sirota.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I am primarily writing to us, about us, and how we will respond to different scenarios

By us I mean candidate supporters (as differentiated from the candidates, or candidate surrogates.) People are fee to comment about anything they want, but that is what I was wondering in this OP about. Everyone has their own definition of what is a" negative attack", as opposed to what is "clarifying the record", as opposed to what is "vetting", as exposed to "exploring potential candidate weaknesses", as opposed to "differentiating candidates from each other" etc. etc. I've been around here for the 2004, 2008, 2016, and now 2020 primary races. I have learned the hard way, with different sets of candidates each time, that during hotly contested presidential primary seasons a lot of all of the above goes on. I think that is largely baked into the process during the highly competitive stages.

Al lot of love is expressed around here for both Obama and Clinton, but they had a long and bruising primary battle and a lot of us here fully participated in it. The "excuse" given at the time was that it was unrealistic to "close ranks" when who would become the nominee was still so much in doubt. So I suggest that the idea of "closing ranks" involves a shift in campaign emphasis that potentially occurs after a point is reached when it is possible to reasonably determine who the likely candidate will actually be. That is my operating premise.

[KPN]

31. Yep. Too late. Kettle and pot thing already.

[beastie boy]

7. I will close ranks behind Bernie if he and Tulsi are the only two running

[George II]

10. I might move up to Canada.

[KPN]

32. Do you have a spare $650,000? Maybe it's gone

up or down in the past 10 years. Haven’t looked recently.

[George II]

34. Sorry, I don't understand.

[KPN]

35. That was the cost of buying into the Canadian Health Plan

last I checked — about 10 years ago. Other international private market insurance seemed to risky to me as far as costs/benefits and reviews at the time. Medicare doesn’t cover out of country, nor does my health insurance.

[squirecam]

38. Sadly

I would have to support Tulsi.

[highplainsdem]

12. I won't back Bernie unless he gets the nomination, and then I'll do so with regret because I don't

think he'll have a chance of winning in November.

Bernie wouldn't be where he is in the polls now if the GOP had spent 1/10 the time and money going after him as they've spent going after Biden.

I believe a Bernie nomination will hurt the Democratic Party not just in this election but in the next few elections, as we'll be painted, wrongly, as socialists.

I'll vote for him because he's better than Trump.

Any Democrat is better than Trump.

My cat would be better than Trump.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. So, if Bernie does get the nomination, and you vote for him regretfully...

...does this mean Bernie supporters can blame the loss on you for not being adequately enthusiastic about the candidate? Asking for a friend.

[highplainsdem]

17. I'll vote for him, which is more than a lot of Sanders supporters will do if Biden's the nominee.

Editing to add that we're constantly hearing threats from Sanders supporters that younger voters won't vote if Sanders isn't the nominee. Hell, Sanders himself makes similar statements, often.

You don't see similar threats from Biden and his supporters.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. So that's a "no", then?

[highplainsdem]

20. It means No, Sanders supporters couldn't blame his loss on me, since I'll have voted for him.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. So we are in agreement, then.

Those who blame our 2016 loss on people who voted Clinton but by their estimation did not support her with sufficient enthusiasm are wrong to do so. I'll take it.

[highplainsdem]

27. I don't know who assigned blame for 2016 that way. I didn't.

And I don't know why you want to argue about it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. I'm not arguing about it.

And it's not really about you, either.

There have been enough people making the "you didn't support Clinton enough" argument that I have noticed it, and I largely avoided the 2016 primary fracas. I'm not in the Sanders camp, but I don't see these people reacting in quite the same way if the roles were reversed. I was just taking the temperature.

Thanks for being a good sport and entertaining my pointless probing. Here's to casting the right vote, regretful or otherwise.

[KPN]

33. BS. No threats have been made by anyone here as far

as I’ve seen. That’s a false statement. Show me a “threat”.

[LanternWaste]

25. I doubt Bernie's supporters need permission to blame anyone.

They're so very good at it without more instruction.

(answering for that very same imaginary friend)

[judeling]

15. The Problem is that if Biden underperforms

then someone else is doing better. Who comes in third in Iowa will be important.
If it is Warren, Sanders wont be able to coalesce the progressive wing while Biden begins to coalesce the moderate wing. Warren then will be seen as the link between the Wings. How that plays out is unpredictable.

If it is Buttigieg, Biden wont be able to coalesce the moderate wing, That is pretty much what you are proposing but while that will help in New Hampshire Pete will get crushed in Nevada and South Carolina. The Reid machine at least the more moderate parts of it will go all in for Biden along with most of the elected, With Buttigieg crushed Biden begins to coalesce headed into Super Tuesday where he hold off Bloomberg. Buttigieg has tried to become acceptable to the AA community and tried hard to little effect.

If it is Klobuchar, Biden wont be able to coalesce the moderate wing. But his path becomes more problematical. Klobuchar is the logical alternative to Biden in the Moderate lane, she just has a good response to all his main strengths in New Hampshire. Going into Nevada as the Daughter of a Union family and something of a Harry Reid acolyte in a State with two female Senators it will be hard for Biden to separate. Then South Carolina, by that time she will have been vetted for the AA community as a prosecutor she will of course have a mixed history, but it is mixed just as Biden's is, how that turns out will be the key. Biden has shown broad acceptance in the AA community, but if Klobuchar can get near that and going into as the acceptable female moderate Biden will not be able to dominate. So Super Tuesday will be very interesting.

If Biden finishes third it just makes all that more likely.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I don't disagree with anything you wrote n/t

[Amimnoch]

26. will support anyone who is against BS on the ballot.

ANY Democratic Party Candidate but Bernie 2020.

[RandySF]

28. There sure is a lot of concern about a guy who is not going to won te nomination.

[scheming daemons]

29. I will go for whatever option gets the nomination to someone other than Sanders

Up until Sanders clinches the Dem nomination mathematically, I will be for someone else.

Sanders as our nominee will guarantee a 1972-style wipeout in the general election. So until it is a certainty that he will be the nominee, I will oppose him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I will just note this

Sanders and those who supported him have been attacked for almost four years now over the fact that Sanders did not endorse Clinton until shortly before the Democratic convention. He was attacked repeatedly for not having ended his campaign long before he was mathematically eliminated.

[beastie boy]

37. With all due respect,

Scheming Daemon is no Bernie Sanders. Drawing parallels between one endorsement and the other is ridiculous.

Just noting....

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Of course he isn't. You seem to be drawing a false parallel

Numerous detractors of Bernie Sanders on this very board have long cast disdain both on Sanders and his supporters over their refusal at the time to concede the race to Hillary Clinton long before Bernie Sanders was mathematically eliminated. I do not recall if Scheming Daemon was one of those who took that position. I was just noting that anyone refusing to fold up camp and line up behind the candidate who had the clear inside track to the nomination has been widely condemned here in the past.