We all have some hard choices to make

[Tom Rinaldo]

I am currently identified here as a Sanders supporter, and I am. But this year I am far less adamant in my support of any one candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination than I have been in about 30years.

If Democratic voters in America showed a resolve to rally with enthusiasm behind Vice President Biden I too would have fallen in line. If People of Color were showing steadily increasing enthusiasm for Pete Buttigieg as they have gotten time to familiarize themselves with his candidacy, I could put aside my qualms about running someone as young as he with so little experience under his belt, and instead embrace his youth. If Elizabeth Warren had continued her upward trajectory in the polls that had been the case until last fall, I would have remained firmly behind her. If Amy Klobuchar had really surged rather than just ticking up in the polls, and come in a strong second in Iowa as the leading "moderate" candidate (which it doesn't look like she has from the scraps of evidence now available to us) I could see a path forward for her that might have me joining Amy on it if she started to catch fire. If Yang or Steyer did more than just exceed expectations, but showed signs that they could actually win an early contest, I could weigh supporting one of them more seriously.

In my view at least, none of the above have happened. Many here worry that Bernie Sanders is divisive within our broader Democratic coalition. Mike Bloomberg would be that on steroids. He might eventually win support from People of Color, but never significant enthusiasm, and the generational divides that play out in relative support for Biden and Sanders according to age, would further widen and even harden further.

Right now three candidates have demonstrated that they have the resources needed to continue a 50 state slog for the nomination; Bernie, Pete, and Mayor Bloomberg. If Biden really came in 4th or 5th in Iowa (and the outcome will be known well before NH votes), and if he trails at least three candidates by a significant margin, his fund raising ability will take a real hit, and it is already showing weakness. He is in a negative spiral and for someone with 100% voter recognition his lack of strength relative to other moderate candidates, let alone progressives, is ominous. Iowa is a state custom made for Pete Buttigieg, he is their neighbor, but if he gets blown out in South Carolina and other southern primaries does he really have a path to the nomination?

Elizabeth Warren may have done well enough in Iowa to remain faintly viable. But she has much less money than Bernie, and he almost certainly did better in Iowa than she did. She is clearly trailing behind in NH also, a state that knows her well from close proximity, and Sanders now shows greater support among African Americans than does Warren. Realistically, what is her chance of turning things around now? Women voters in Iowa did not rally to the women candidates, so she seems not even have that going for her. Warren could still emerge as a compromise candidate between the Sanders and moderate camps, but only if so called moderates start rallying to her now, both at the grassroots and established Democratic Party levels. That would mean, among other things, moderates backing away from Biden (and Klobuchar) now, and rallying to Warren while Elizabeth is still in play. There really isn't much time. Fundraising will otherwise start to dry up for Warren soon.

[genxlib]

1. Here is the flaw I see in this analysis

You have written off Buttigieg because you expect him to do poorly in South Carolina

You have given Biden a downward trajectory despite the fact that he will do well in South Carolina.

I don't see how both should be true.

Iowa and NH are early bellweathers but they are tiny in the big picture. They will give Bernie momentum and money raising cred but they still only count for a small percentage of the delegates.

The picture is still muddy. Partly because it is so early but also because there are still so many candidates.

For the record, I don't really have a first choice unless you count "not-Bernie" as a choice. Sorry, but I don't see him as viable in the GE.

[Amishman]

4. Yup, I'm seeing a muddled mess leading to a contested convention

Iowa imploding killed any chance of thinning the field before super tuesday

if super tuesday is all 3 or more way splits, is becomes near impossible to get over 50% of the delegates pre convention

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Biden might still win SC, but not solidly I suspect

And that would be a case of serious under performing after the massive leads he once held there. It would hurt Biden on Super Tuesday if SC is close, because that swings the door wide open for Bloomberg to pick up momentum and delegates on Super Tuesday, many at Biden's expense.

SC is not a stand alone, it is a proxy in many ways to all of the primaries in southern states that tend to go Red in elections. Look at the pattern from 2016. Clinton won SC easily, and all of the southern contests that followed, but she still needed to defeat Bernie in subsequent contests such as NY's. Without the huge delegate count that Clinton built up in the South that would have been much more difficult. Much like Bernie in 2016, it is very unlikely Buttigieg will pile up many delegates in the South with the lack of support he is showing there.

I doubt that the South will give anyone the type of advantage Clinton got there in 2016, but that won't help Buttigieg because I think he could easily fall short in most of those states of hitting the qualifying thresholds. IMO more likely it will be a mix of Biden and Sanders and increasingly Bloomberg picking up those delegates. Warren and Klubochar might attempt to make stands in select Southern states that they can mount have decent operations in, and thus minimally hit the viability threshold in one or two each, robbing potential delegates from Buttigieg (and also Biden).

Left to the current course, I think it most likely that Bloomberg will emerge and that Sanders will continue to remain highly competitive while Buttigieg and Warren and Biden have isolated bright spots. IMO right now the most likely scenarios are a Sanders or Bloomberg outright win, or a "brokered convention".

[floppyboo]

14. 100% K&R

[phleshdef]

3. We need another Barack Obama. We don't have one.

[CanonRay]

5. I'm in Oregon, it will go blue no matter what

so my wife and I are traveling to Nevada to work for whomever gets the nomination. We need to work in a place that could go red, and prevent that.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. We won't really know the deal with Biden until South Carolina

IA & NH aren't too diverse. SC and NV will be more fair indicators of Biden's status.

[Mike 03]

7. If Joe's support begins to erode it could bolster Pete or possibly Elizabeth.

As an aside, I don't understand why Mayor Pete isn't doing better with people of color. Could that change?

[floppyboo]

15. no. He's got an authenticity problem that no amount of good lighting can fix.

[Claritie Pixie]

8. Here's where I am, still a Warren supporter on DU.

REGARDLESS pf who wins the nomination, I will vote for them in the general election.

I am tired of people here trashing Bernie and others, but Bernie mostly.

I hope everyone else will vote for whomever get the nominations even if it ends up being Bernie.

[floppyboo]

16. I'm rooting for Elizabeth too! Time to call it what it is: A Progressive Renaissance!

[scheming daemons]

10. You have to ask yourself why Trump's campaign is trying so hard to help Bernie get the nomination

If Bernie wins the nomination, we are giving Trump what he wants.... the ability to make the election a referendum on socialism.


And we will lose a referendum on socialism.


I don't like Bloomberg very much... but he has the right idea: Make this election a referendum on Trump. That's the only way the Democrats win.


I appreciate that you, and many others, feel that Bernie most-closely resembles your values and policy preferences. But that means nothing if he is going to lose the general election. It is better to have a candidate who represents 60-70% of your views (as Biden and Bloomberg do) that *WINS* in November... than a candidate who represents 90-100% of your views (as Bernie and Warren do) but who *LOSES* in November.

[NYMinute]

11. You're being too logical

for the idol worshiping people wearing blinders.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I sincerely appreciate that concern

It reflects a type of logical, but conventional, thinking. There's nothing wrong with conventional thinking, in conventional times. And it may hold true for these times also, though they don't come close to being conventional. I wrote a long piece in my journal that goes deeper into my take on politics today. You can read it here if you want:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287445251

I am willing to believe that Trump thinks he wants to run against Sanders. Clinton wanted to run against Trump, who was seen by Democrats as unelectable. Carter wanted to run against Reagan, who was seen by Democrats as unelectable. Sometimes one should be careful what you wish for. There are mountains of documented evidence of what a despicable human being Trump is, and of all the ways that he routinely screws people. And yet he can boast that he can shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it. A lot of people react with "That's just Trump being Trump" when Democrats try to make an issue of all the crazy mean and ugly things Trump has done. I suspect the same will be true of Sanders when Trump tries to make an issue out of where Bernie had his honeymoon, or what he stood for in the 80's, or the scary word "Socialism". It's all Bernie being Bernie and people know that about Bernie and I don't think it will matter to them one tenth as much as Trump thinks it will. Because Bernie is not seen as just another establishment politician. He's seen as an outsider and a lot of people believe that he actually says what he believes, and that he believes in fighting for them, always has, and always will. He isn't status quo at a time when increasingly people are fed up with the status quo.

I go into why I say that more in the OP I left the link to above.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

13. But Tom, was it a good thing that the country got Reagan or Trump?

To quote you: "Sometimes one should be careful what you wish for."

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Methinks I was misunderstood

Of course it was horrible to have Reagan and Trump elected. I simply was pointing out that sometimes the person who conventional wisdom says would be the easiest opponent to defeat in an election turns out to be far from that While Trump may today sincerely assume that Sanders would be the easiest Democrat to defeat, that does not necessarily make it true. A day may well come that Trump will regret ever wishing for Sanders to win the nomination.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

19. No, I understood your point.

Understand that many don't want the country or political parties pulled to the extremes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. OK, although we really do not have an extreme left in America represented by our candidates

Just makin' sure no one thinks I applaud for whatever reason Trump or Reagan's victories.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

21. Let's say we have a difference of opinion on that front.

A former supporter of the Socialist Worker's Party and currently self-described democratic socialist is way outside the mainstream as I read it.

In no way shape or form did I mean to imply you supported the elections Reagan or Trump. I trust we on precisely the same page on those two.

Where we part company is on Bernard Sanders.

[floppyboo]

18. I don't think it's too complicated. Trump can't afford to loose any friends

Aside from 'socialist' he can't go after any of Bernie's policies, because those are the kind of things that Trump promised. He turned out to be a big liar, and Sanders is going to call him out every single time, and one thing will win - authentic concern for the people that make up Trump's 'forgotten man' base.
Trump is treading lightly. I'm sure he'll come up with something, but the Adderol will betray him in the end.