A Decision Looms for Those Who Don't Want Bernie

[RandySF]

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2020, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Although there haven’t been many polls released since the Iowa caucuses earlier this week, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Bernie Sanders is in the best position to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Sanders a 74% chance of winning New Hampshire, a 62% chance of winning in Nevada and a 50% chance to win in South Carolina. If Sanders wins New Hampshire, his odds of winning each successive state will rise.

With the exception of Michael Bloomberg, and possibly Pete Buttigieg, no other candidate has the financial resources to compete once the first four contests are over. Sanders raised a stunning $25 million in January, more than any other candidate raised in the entire fourth quarter of last year. Buttigieg will leave the campaign trail in New Hampshire to raise money off his surprise Iowa finish this week. And Bloomberg has virtually unlimited resources.

The other candidates, however, are on life support. Elizabeth Warren is pulling ads in Nevada and South Carolina to bet everything on New Hampshire, where she is currently polling in third place. Joe Biden is relying on Super PACs to fund his television ads. If not for the Iowa fiasco, Amy Klobuchar would already be out of the race after a fifth place finish.


https://politicalwire.com/2020/02/06/a-decision-looms-for-those-who-dont-want-bernie/

[JoeOtterbein]

1. K n R ! Thanks for posting!

[bluewater]

2. Of Course this article left out Warren as a possible alternative. Misogyny Strikes Again.

I wonder why...

She did beat Biden in Iowa and Bloomberg isn't even competing in the first 4 primaries.

Could it be because she is, gasp, a woman?

[UniteFightBack]

3. I think they are talking about the 'moderates'...which she is not and it's too bad because that

crazy I'm with Bernie shit ruined her for me.

[Piratedog]

15. Poster said she's running out of $$

Gotta have money. Period

[bluewater]

17. She has more money than Biden, even with his super pac support.

So, no $$$ isn't the reason she was left out and Biden left in.

[squirecam]

22. Amy is a moderate alternative too.

Nt

[blm]

21. She's been organized in 31 states for months.

[onecaliberal]

4. The candidate with the support of black women is the ONLY candidate who can beat trump.

Th leave them behind, you lose. Period.

[Perseus]

12. Where did you read that black women will not vote for Sanders?

I am just curious.

[Demsrule86]

39. The latest polls show he is in the single digits with AA voters...and look at his rallies.

[emmaverybo]

5. No. We have to not let two little states' contests determine 55. Neither state should determine who

is weak and who is strong, how we vote in the rest of the states. Those states should not be made irrelevant by this unbalanced focus on two that fail to represent the entire nation’s political and racial diversity.

It seems Dems have bought into the bellwether concept. We should not have to pick right now based on group hype and sugar high. Why should Iowa and NH change candidates’ prospects throughout the nation? Only happens if we let it.

[oasis]

32. +1,000,000

[Demsrule86]

40. +1000000

Sanders will not win a general and will struggle in states that vote later in the primary. He didn't even win Iowa... so why all the talk?

[emmaverybo]

41. It's trash talk. Unfortunately, when MSM does it, using their gravitas voices, "distinguished

guests,” and partisan panels, viewers think they are getting WORD.

[Demsrule86]

42. They have been after him since day 1.

[emmaverybo]

44. I agree. Thank you. Not just my own fantasy. But then they went after Obama tooth and nail

in 2008. Even liberal favorite hosts were holding veritable summits on the “Reverend Jeremiah Wright problem.” Different reasons for going after and not claiming Biden will have the power to
transcend their constant spin and dismissal, despite his considerable gifts, but I am back to familiar disgust with TV channels and online news sources and forums.

Bah!

PS you help us supporters live through it

[paulkienitz]

6. I really thought Warren would do much better against Bernie

as she has most of his strengths and few of his weaknesses. But I guess as times get tougher, the electorate really prefers the brute simplified approach to policy over anyone who is into nuance and detail.

Bernie has the right idea in terms of the scope of large-scale reforms that are needed, but in terms of actually managing day-to-day policy and crises, I'd rather have Biden. If both Warren and Klobuchar drop out, and it's down to Sanders or Biden or Buttigieg, I may actually be undecided for a while. (I'm sure as fuck not gonna vote for Bloomberg.) And as for campaign contributions, I'll concentrate on the senate.

[Perseus]

11. Lets hope that if he wins he picks Warren as VP or some other position where she can help

him succeed with his goals. If Bernie is successful that means the citizens of the USA will be successful too.

And I have a hunch that if Bernie wins, he will not "look forward" that he will have all these crooks investigated.

[BlueIdaho]

24. Almost zero chance of that happening.

VP’s are usually chosen for their ability to widen the appeal of the ticket. Since Warren and Sanders are so very similar philosophically and geographically - she adds nothing much new to the campaign.

[thesquanderer]

31. Clinton/Gore demonstrated success with a different strategy.

Arguably Bush/Cheney as well.

[Demsrule86]

43. But he won't win a general. I am convinced of that. He has my vote but we will be lucky to keep

the house.

[blm]

7. Biden and Buttigieg camps are responsible for Bernie's surge the last 2months.

He couldn’t have done it without them and their brilliant, cynical strategy throughout the fall of focusing all their attacks FOR 3 MONTHS on Warren to get her numbers down. They assumed Bernie’s health would stop him so they laid off him. Their attacks on Warren were nasty and dishonest.

[paulkienitz]

8. that does cheese me off

[Piratedog]

16. What do you think trump will do?

Be mildly discourteous?

[blm]

18. She's anticorruption and can fight corruption. Ask Jamie Dimon.

Warren never had to campaign against fellow Democrats. She never faced a primary race. She can run against Republicans and she is an assassin when it comes to corruption.

See:Wells Fargo.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16413820/elizabeth-warren-wells-fargo

ELIZABETH WARREN TAKES A 9-IRON TO WELLS FARGO C.E.O. ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR
“Getting fired shouldn’t be the end of the story for Tim Sloan . . . he should be put in jail.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/elizabeth-warren-takes-9-iron-to-wells-fargo-ceo-tim-sloan-on-his-way-out-the-door

[paulkienitz]

36. what I think Trump will do is have a much easier time attacking Bernie than Elizabeth.

[TwilightZone]

13. Not sure I agree that was the strategy.

I think they laid off Bernie because they didn't think he would be a threat after IA/NH and through Super Tuesday. The polls had Biden winning heavily during that stretch which likely would have meant he was going to run away with it. I don't think anyone would have believed a couple months ago that Sanders would be forecast to win SC, for example. That seems a little mind-boggling even now.

I think Warren was the target because she suddenly looked like the front-runner and looked like the only real (at the time) threat to Biden maintaining momentum and Buttigieg generating some.

[blm]

14. Warren was the front runner at that point and SHE was the one keeping

Sanders numbers down.

Oh, I am certain the nasty targeting of Warren was the strategy for both Joe and Pete camps who cynically counted Sanders out after his heart attack.

FOR THREE FVCKING MONTHS!

I loathe the cynicism and arrogance of those campaigns in their attacks on Warren. If they really cared most about getting a unifying nominee they wouldn’t have focused their fire on the candidate best positioned and most likely to bridge the gaps.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-elitist/index.html

(CNN)Joe Biden said Elizabeth Warren has an "elitist attitude" in a radio interview. He wrote on Medium that the Massachusetts senator is "condescending." He told donors her 2020 Democratic campaign is based on a "my-way-or-the-highway attitude."

And he told reporters on Wednesday that Warren was the one who started it.
The former vice president has sharply escalated his attacks on Warren in recent days, shifting from dismissing Warren's policy ideas as unrealistic to a more personal attack on the former Harvard professor. Three months from the Iowa caucuses, Biden's new approach reflects a new phase in the 2020 primary, with Democratic candidates sharpening their criticism of their foes and drawing more distinctions.

The campaign is reframing its critiques of Warren, a source close to Biden's campaign told CNN. It is no longer that "she is a liar," the source said.
"It's 'Warren is a smarty britches who thinks if you don't agree with her, you're an idiot,'" the source said in describing Biden's new approach.
.......

[demofan40]

23. Warren is still underrated

I agree that she has what it takes to lead this country back on track. And she's been in the trenches so she knows her stuff.

Her campaign hasn't been perfect, but I also believe she's been unfairly targeted. But it shows that for many in the Sanders campaign, it's not about the issues, it's simply about electing their "rock star" of a candidate.

[squirecam]

34. I think you are off base here

Warren wasn’t owed anything by the other campaigns to “stop” Bernie then.

Biden isn’t owed anything by the other campaigns to “stop” Bernie now.

If Warren or Biden wants to be president, they are going to have to do it themselves. They cannot expect the other campaigns to attack Sanders to benefit them.

[Perseus]

9. It is just my opinion, but I don't think Sanders would be a disaster, and whoever said he would be

is also someone's opinion, and that opinion is based on that someone wanting somebody else to win the nomination who is not Sanders, maybe a Biden supporter? The goal? to convince people that Sanders would be a disaster, funny enough a lot of people seem to think that Biden would be a disaster.

Read this article:
"Stop saying Biden is the 'most electable'. Trump will run rings round him."...See? another opinion.
[link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/04/joe-biden-electable-trump-2020-election|

If Sanders wins the nomination I really hope that we all contribute to make him POTUS and we help get rid of the creature and his minions.

I don't understand the bickering within the party, if Sanders wins because he gets the most votes then, have you thought about this? If he wins it is because that is what the majority of Democrats want, and he WILL defeat the creature, but its up to us to support him with everything we have.

[Qutzupalotl]

25. Not necessarily. One need not support any one candidate in particular to oppose Sanders.

There are many reasons not to support Sanders, but the primary reason would be electability.

I remember DUer Steven Leser, who used to go on Fox News sometimes to argue with Fox News hosts, told me he’d seen a binder on oppo research several inches thick that Republicans were itching to use against him.

If it were a fact that Bernie would win, we would not see headlines like this one:
https://thehill.com/homenews/481489-republicans-urging-gop-voters-to-vote-for-sanders-in-south-carolina-primary-report


Full disclosure, but I supported Bernie in 2016. I’m now anybody but Bernie. I love Bernie on policy, except for his stance, curiously, on Russia, particularly sanctions. That combined with Republican support, now out in the open, plus the binder story tells me we’re screwed if we pick him.

[thesquanderer]

33. re: "If it were a fact that Bernie would win..."

Of course it's not a fact that Bernie would win. But polls have consistently shown that he has a better chance than any of our nominees other than Biden... and Biden's position is not as strong now as it has been.

[Qutzupalotl]

35. All these polls are pre-binder.

They won’t start using their oppo research until we’re stuck with Sanders as the nominee.

Warren, Biden, Buttigieg or Klobuchar are much safer choices IMO. Much less to work with.

Based on their investigations, they seem most afraid of Biden, even now.

[StevieM]

10. A 50 percent chance in South Carolina is very charitable.

Biden is still heavily favored there.

[DarthDem]

27. Yes. That's Silly.

538 has its thumb on the scale, assuming that people in SC won't vote for Biden if he didn't win IA, NH or NV. I believe they're in for a surprise.

[Loki Liesmith]

28. 538's primary model is silly.

They have NEVER modeled a primary correctly.

[DarthDem]

37. Agreed

They didn't do too well in the 2016 general, either. Oof.

[Loki Liesmith]

38. Well to be fair to 538

Their 2016 model was probably the least bad out there.

(Even my model was not as bad as some *cough* Sam Wang *cough*)

[DarthDem]

45. Oof. Wang.

As to 538 I can't get past their graphic of probability or whatever it was vacillating wildly from Hillary to the current Oval Office occupant. For all their stats they're just guessing and while that is partly what statistics is, I just don't find their punditry very well-informed, and that bleeds into their analysis.

[Johnny2X2X]

19. I will support whoever wins the nomination 100%

100% and enthusiastically. I’ll go door to door. Bernie would be an awesome candidate. As would several other Dems.

[YOHABLO]

26. It's going to be about who the majority of Dem. voters want. Live with it, or don't vote.

Don't vote? Then you've voted for Trump.

[BeyondGeography]

29. Warren isn't betting everything on NH

That’s just stupid.

[Loki Liesmith]

30. Uh that a bit more than 4 paragraphs

Of content that Taegan Goddard specifies as only available to his subscribers. This isn’t close to fair use and it’s really quite unfair to Taegan, who makes a living off of his subscriber-only content.