Bernie's campaign is in serious trouble.

[Yavin4]

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2020, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)

--Apologies. I posted this earlier in the wrong forum.--

Bernie's entire campaign and governing strategy is to build huge sweeping movements that puts pressure on elected officials to support his agenda. In order to do this, he needs massive turnouts at the polls, and in the streets, to apply that pressure.

Regardless of the hijinks in Iowa, overall turnout was down. Bernie's Iowa support in 2020 was below his support in 2016. Now, a previously, little known politician from a small city in Indiana is in a vitrual tie with Bernie in New Hampshire which should be Bernie's home state.

If Bernie loses Tuesday, his campaign is effectively over. It will be proof that his movement strategy is a failure.

If he cannot defeat Pete Buttigieg in New Hampshire, how can be beat Trump?'

--On EDIT--

Let me add this. I get that Bernie has a solid base of support. I get that he may be doing marginally better than his rivals. With that said, his entire campaign strategy is not built on marginal support. It's built on creating a movement. He's said as much himself. So far, there's no movement.

[Gothmog]

1. Bernie's polling with Black voters is still terrible.

Link to tweet

[Cha]

40. I would think so.

[Quackers]

2. I don't support Bernie,

But I have to say his campaign is probably stronger now that it has ever been this election cycle.

[Garrett78]

7. Unlike in 2016, he actually has a path to the nomination.

Not long ago, I said he doesn't stand a chance. I was wrong.

[SamKnause]

3. What kind of turn out did the rest of the candidates have ???

Bernie got 6000 more votes then anyone.

[Agschmid]

13. Some I know got 3,000,000 more and it didn't matter.

The whole election process (primary and general) is fucked.

[krissey]

4. Sanders needed his revolution to show, so we could believe his statements. They didn't show.

2 things.

Iowa was the place for Sanders to convince us he had a revolution. That was a fail.

Sanders supporters has a history of not showing up to vote.

Pretty significant.

[ChubbyStar]

19. Who is us?

Fail to whom? It would be Sanders supporters "have" not "has" a history. Nice to see such new posters feeling so strongly about things, how did DU exist without you? LOL!

[octoberlib]

23. Says the poster with a little over 2,000 posts. You could at least be polite about the grammar.

[ChubbyStar]

27. Been here for over two years and I don't shit on any candidate

Thanks for your opinion!

[ehrnst]

39. I'm not seeing anyone "shit" on the candidate.

If one can't tolerate things said about a candidate that don't fawn over them, or express doubt about their qualifications, or their chances, then a political discussion board may not be the best place to spend one's time.

Just a thought.

[cwydro]

34. Really?

You’re some kind of “longtime” DUer shitting on a newbie?

We were all new once. Come on now.

[krissey]

37. I have "felt strongly about things" for a lifetime, well before the internet.

[cwydro]

35. This.

And welcome to DU.

[denem]

5. So many folks here with infallible crystal balls.

Biden could come 5th. Ditto Warren. One fall does not a nomination forsake.

PS. Not that Krystal Ball - she can go to ...

[Garrett78]

8. 4th in IA and 4th or 5th in NH would be devastating.

Klobuchar needed to win Iowa.

Warren needs to win or come damn close to winning New Hampshire.

Biden needs to not get his butt kicked in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Some have suggested IA and NH don't really matter. History says otherwise. It's one thing to say we shouldn't have caucuses and that we shouldn't start with 2 states that lack diversity. I agree on both points.

It's another thing to refute the outsized influence those 2 states have. People on DU who keep doing that are either brand new to politics or deep in denial. Some like to point to '92, because that was the (only) year when the eventual nominee lost both IA and NH. What they fail to point out is that IA was essentially nullified that year by there being an Iowan in the race, and that Bill Clinton was propelled forward precisely because of how well he did in NH and the resulting "comeback kid" narrative.

Outside the DU bubble, evidence points to the Biden campaign being very concerned right now, as well they should be. So should the Warren campaign.

[emmaverybo]

12. I have to agree. No Bernie fan, but prematurely giving campaigns a cut off, win THIS ONE or die,

excludes the population of over 50 more states from participation in our democracy. It is bad enough that two small white states and MSM have undue influence on our elections.

Curb your impatience.

[denem]

16. 'Curb your impatience'

Bernie's campaign will be in serious trouble soon enough . Probably.

[octoberlib]

24. It also excludes Black people.

[emmaverybo]

29. AA voters are among the population of these 50 states; their political voice is a major reason

we should not want to set up artificial cut-offs, particularly not before we tally up votes in more diverse states. We should have one primary day just as we do with the GE.

As well, the prolonged influence MSM exerts, spinning two little states, calling it on the basis of each debate, setting benchmarks, catering to favorites and bashing or ignoring those they deem less exciting—whole process is badly flawed.

Less debates, more town halls, only public campaign money allowed—these changes and others are needed to ensure a more fair process.

[octoberlib]

30. Totally agree on all points.

[octoberlib]

28. Good post.

Link to tweet

After Obama won IA everyone was like "he rollin'!" then Clinton won NH. Then she was supposed to knock him out on Super Tuesday. But then it was a stalemate.

IOW, let the process work

[Garrett78]

31. Obama's win in Iowa was critical. It made him appear viable to those in South Carolina and beyond.

Iowa and New Hampshire always have an outsized influence. For some in this year's crowded field, they're critical contests. Klobuchar, for instance, needed to win Iowa. Warren needs to win New Hampshire or come damn close. And not even Biden can afford to lose badly in both IA and NH.

[denem]

33. Exactly right.

I Pilates an OP about it.

[DanTex]

6. LOL.

[Garrett78]

17. Harry Enten was just on CNN and, with the help of a graph, made the following points:

2020 Iowa turnout was about 5,000 more than it was in 2016. It was far below 2008 turnout, but we should expect to see greater turnout in years when there's no incumbent president (2016, 2008, 2000, etc.). New Hampshire is expecting record turnout for a year in which there is an incumbent president.

[eleny]

9. An answer to your question from your blocked posting in Gen Discussion....

The reason for the dip in the number of Iowa caucus participants could be as simple as an aging population who can't attend. And perhaps family members who are care givers. Also, since so many people have to work more than one job in our economy, more people may not be able to spare the time to attend.

So, I don't believe that your explanation is the only logical one. I've cited three more above that make sense to me.

Btw, I've eliminated Sanders from my short list for the Primary. Now I'm deciding between the last two.

[Kurt V.]

10. i see no correlation between his campaign and his governing style as POTUS. one needs votes from the

Electorate. the other needs votes from the elected. 2 different beast for sure. lol.

[floppyboo]

11. Looks like the usual suspects for dem support didn't come out in big #'s

I really can't say I blame them with all the 'vote blue no matter who' stuff going on.
But the new voters: They did come out in bigger numbers for Bernie.
His youth vote was higher than Obama's in 2008
His people of color vote was much higher than any other year (He got 40+ % I think?)

So your argument is just wrong.

He has set himself up to grow the party more than any other candidate.

[Laelth]

14. It's highly unlikely that Bernie will lose in NH.

Bernie is also likely to win in NV.

I am not terribly concerned, here. Bernie is doing fine.

-Laelth

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

20. You nailed it!! The race for the Democratic nomination is a marathon, not a sprint.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[Laelth]

36. Cheers. n/t

-Laelth

[myohmy2]

38. +1

...

[Iliyah]

15. I read where Millennials are . . .

suffering from the economy, therefore, you would think they vote in huge numbers.

Millennials and POC and White Women especially in the EC states would oust shithole. Let's hope that will happen.

Inasmuch as Senator Sanders is the least of my choice, what is more important to me is my family and friends. I have 4 daughters, and I want them to have a peaceful, happy and financial future.

With all of my heart and soul I will vote for the Democratic Nominee.

[k2qb3]

18. I don't think turnout in a 6+ way race is comparable to 2016 at all.

It's easy to have a strong preference in a two way race, especially that one.

Most people just want to beat Trump this cycle, and most people aren't sure who the best candidate is to do that yet.

[tberry65]

21. Try checking the polls sometime, Bernie is on TOP!

Bernie is raising more money from individual voters than any other candidate, that's because Bernie gets more VOTES!

[TexasTowelie]

45. Buttigieg raised more money in New Hampshire during 2019 than any other candidate. nt

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287495461

[Downtown Hound]

22. He just won the popular vote in Iowa, leads the polls for N.H.,

most of the Super Tuesday states, and now even some in Nevada, and you're going to claim that his campaign is in serious trouble?

Um, sure. Okay Boomer.

[Scurrilous]

25. He planned to win Iowa.

He put a lot of time, effort, and money into Iowa.. Losing to Pete was unexpected and crushing. He wanted to go to Nevada with 2 wins and media acclaim as a winner and new front runner status to blow Biden away. Because with Biden in the race after Nevada it's going to be a disaster. He's utterly fucked in the South. 5th and 3rd in 2 places and Bloomberg on his ass in two others. Enjoy NH Bernie. Out of tiny white for awhile.

Had this ready to go. Slapped it up despite losing. Him at the beginning quite epic, Production values xenu level.

[Cha]

41. omagod

[NurseJackie]

42. "He's utterly fucked in the South"

He's utterly fucked in the South

I appreciate your frankness with regard to this topic. You are correct.

[Scurrilous]

46. ...

[localroger]

26. So far the primary is not a 2-way race

It's not Bernie vs. Pete, it's Bernie vs. Pete vs. Liz vs. Joe vs. a few other folks who take some votes. "State wins" do not matter in the primary. Bernie and Pete came out on top for delegates, and which one was a sliver ahead in any other metric is irrelevant. If the other candidates weren't there, Pete and Bernie would have split their support and one or the other might have come out ahead. A certainty is that one of them would have then had over 50% of the vote in that case, because math. And that's of people voting Dem. What does this have to do with an ability to beating Trump, an entirely different game played by different rules on a different board with Republicans in the mix who aren't even there in the primary?

[thesquanderer]

32. re: "If he cannot defeat Pete Buttigieg in New Hampshire, how can be beat Trump?'"

Irrelevant. Whether or not Sanders can beat Buttigieg in New Hampshire in no way indicates the ability of either one of them to beat Trump in November.

[Recursion]

43. Premature triumphalism aside, the caucus turnout scares the hell out of me (nt)

[TexasTowelie]

44. Bernie: I had a movement. nt