Tom Rinaldo
Tom Rinaldo's JournalJoe has to debate Bernie for his, and our, own good. AFTER that we likely can turn the page.
This will happen on March 15th, less than two weeks away. The Arizona Primary is just two days after that. It isn't a long time to wait to see if it's time to start the unity dance. But more important that the timing is the debate itself. Folks, we already no the next smear against Biden coming out of Trump world, I'm not revealing anything here that isn't already politically self evident and running wild on "the Internets". We already know their latest game plan. Trump and his minions have already started to say that Biden is "well past his prime", except that they use language more derogatory than that.
I've watched Joe Biden on a debate stage one on one against Paul Ryan 8 years ago and Joe destroyed Byan. Biden is an experienced debater. I also remember the times Biden, on the campaign trail, challenged people to "a push up contest" to vividly make the point that he's robust for his age. Let America watch Joe Biden stand toe to toe for over 90 minutes in a debate with a worthy adversary like Bernie Sanders and he will demolish the latest whisper campaign against him once and for all. There is no hiding any lack of mental agility during a long one on one debate and most of the nation will be watching. Biden doesn't have to "win", he just has to show up and perform credibly and that will be that, end of story, end of smear. Assuming that happens, and that is what I assume will happen, Biden should then win Arizona easily and become our unity candidate.
Will "non Southern" Black voters give greater support to Sanders than have Southern Blacks?
Bernie's chances to rebound from Biden's strong showing on Super Tuesday depend to some extent on a "yes" answer to that question. Bernie doesn't necessarily have to outright win the total Black vote, but he certainly can't afford to keep losing it by 40% and have any chance of winning. It has already been widely reported that Sanders had more Latino support on Super Tuesday than did Biden. Not as widely reported was the fact that Sanders also led among Asian American voters:
"According to an NBC News analysis of exit poll data across Super Tuesday States, Sanders is actually leading with Asian American voters across the landscape. According to their tally, Sanders gets 39% of their votes, and 21% of Asian American voters back Biden."
It has been easy to find exit poll data about how poorly Sanders performed with African American voters in the South, with plenty of news stories highlighting that fact. Outside of the South however it is difficult to find any reporting on how Sanders did with Black voters. For example I can find no reporting on how well Bernie Sanders did with African American voters in California (if anyone knows where to find that data I would love a link to it). I did find this little tidbit of information, somewhat buried in a New York Times story that emphasizes the failure of an "increased youth vote" for Sanders on Tuesday, intriguing however:
" Mr. Sanders did do unusually well among black voters, who were a point of struggle for him in other states: He won 43 percent of them. But he only won 27 percent of white voters, who account for most of the Minnesota electorate." As an aside, since when has the New York Times starting referring to the sitting Senator from Vermont as "Mr. Sanders"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-young-voter-turnout.html
2020 may be the year when Billionaires learn to settle for just being King makers
without trying to become King themselves. There is still way too much big money in politics but I take some solace from that.
This race needs to go on. At least for awhile longer
And I'm not saying that just because nowhere near a majority of delegates has been won by anyone yet, or because the clear majority of states have not yet had a chance to weigh in. I acknowledge that Joe Biden is now the clear front runner for the nomination, and while he is nowhere near to having it wrapped up yet he now is on a path to get there. He is on a path to win not just because he performed so well in elections last night, he is on a path to win because so many undecided voters broke for Biden in the 48 hours prior to Super Tuesday.
It's palpable. Democrats want to nominate a winner who can kick Trump out of the White House. Democrats want to rally around someone who it appears to be the leader who can do so. We want to get on with it, we want to unite and turn our attention to beating Trump. And now it seems that Democrats are mostly willing to unite behind Joe Biden to do just that. That is the main reason why there was such a strong sudden surge to Biden on Super Tuesday. There is nothing wrong with that type of reasoning. Joe Biden is a seasoned and popular figure within the Democratic Party and right now it looks like he is poised to lead our fight against Donald Trump.
But all of the above involves an element of circular thinking. It isn't that Joe Biden's positions on issues are necessarily more popular than are Bernie Sander's. Time and time again exit polls show that Democratic Party primary and caucus voters favor Medicare for All, they want an aggressive approach to fighting climate change, they view income inequality as a serious threat to our mutual prosperity etc. Biden's positions on all of these matters are clearly acceptable to Democratic voters, but not necessarily preferred. Biden is surging because of his perceived electability, and now that he is actually winning contests the odds favor him continuing to do, so as success begets success. Voters want clarity on who can best defeat Trump and the last minute indicators heading into last night were pointing toward Biden, so he reaped the benefit.
But there is a reason why Joe Biden did not do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, and why he under performed in Nevada, and not all of that was due to demographics. For a considerable period of time after he announced Joe Biden was sailing along at the top of national polling for the Democratic nomination, including doing well in the early contests. All of the top finishers in the overwhelmingly white states were white, and Biden finished behind several of them, and that's not because Biden didn't sufficiently introduce himself to voters. No one has a higher national profile with Democratic voters than the former two time Democratic Vice President. Biden faltered because confidence in his ability to win faltered, and that was because his campaign prior to the last few weeks fell short of being impressive. It is true he lacked money, but why did he lack money? The question is why were at least three other candidates raising more money than was Barack Obama's Vice President? The answer is that Joe Biden was under performing on the stump. Even many insiders sympathetic to Biden thought his early debate performances were shaky, and that his campaign events were frequently underwhelming. His campaign wasn't underfunded because there weren't potential donors available to write him checks. It was underfunded because those donors weren't confident Biden still had what it takes to win.
After his strong launch the Biden campaign really has only had a few good weeks, fortunately for him they were the
most recent ones. Biden picked a great time to hit his stride, now he needs to maintain it without stumbling. My guess is that he will, but until he can demonstrate that, this race isn't over, nor should it be. Up to now we have only had Democratic debates with a host of candidates crowding the stage. In the fall it will be one Democrat against Donald Trump, for ninety minutes of more. Unfortunately we already know that Trump will be attempting to portray Joe Biden as "past his prime", and that is putting it politely. It's crap and we all know it. Our "Uncle Joe" has made some of his semi quasi trademark "gaffes" for decades, it's nothing new and it in no way reflects on his high octane ability. But Biden's campaign did lack "spark" for much of the contest until recently. Personally, I think Biden now has kicked it into high gear, and if he can stay there he will most likely be our nominee. An essentially one on one competition with Bernie Sanders for at least a few weeks more, can demonstrate if that is true.
How might I describe a liberal media or political player who tilts toward "the establishment"?
Someone who, back when Obama was trying to get Congress to repeal the Bush tax cuts, would argue that they should not be repealed on those with a household income up to $250,000 a year, because that would "punish the middle class." That at a time when the Federal minimum wage remained well below ten bucks an hour. Democrats used to own the loyalty of most of the working class, when we unquestionably stood for the common "man", but that was a former time.
I support Bernie but I'm fine with Biden's SC win last night
First off, congratulations to all of the Biden supporters on this board. Joe is a good man and he earned that victory. We have already lost a number of really good candidates from this race and we are bound to lose more soon. This happens every time there is a contested Democratic presidential primary fight. I know, I've been on the losing end often enough.
First and foremost I am relieved that Biden rallied strongly last night because I am hopeful that just drove a silver stake through a vampire that has been stalking American electoral politics increasingly in recent years. And NO, I am not talking about any of the mortal flesh and blood candidates in our field this year, not them as persons anyway. I have increasingly become alarmed at the role vast wealth has started to play in presidential politics. This year that manifests acutely with the candidacies of Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. I admit that I actually kind of like Tom Steyer, and I recognize that Michael Bloomberg has excellent administrative skills. But each used their mind boggling personal wealth to leap ahead to the front of the line of people voters choose among for our next potential leader. Kamala Harris and Corey Booker and Julio Castro couldn't afford to blanket the air waves wit their message or field armies of professional staffers across numerous states simultaneously.
If Biden faltered last night, Steyer and Bloomberg would have been strongly encouraged. Big Money would have stormed the top of our field . It the gambit of billionaires entering presidential races by self financing their campaigns from bottomless personal reserves this year had succeeded. the lid would be off Pandora's box. People owning massive wealth tend to have large egos. Why not insert themselves directly into the final ring of politics when they are enamored with what they think they have to offer? It only costs a half billion to do, which means essentially nothing if you still have multi-billions left over to play with when the race is over. The only real deterrent to that is failure, because people like that aren't used to failing. They have money to burn but it pains them to flush cash down the toilet with little to show for it. Let this year be the end of all that. Let billionaires at least retreat back to their former role of behind the scenes donors.
I am hopeful that 2020 will be seen as the year that proved limitless funds alone can not buy the presidency. Beyond that maybe now we can focus on the two different paths forward that Bernie and Joe are offering to America, They are both good people but the contrast between them is sharp. I'm ready for this debate in general, and for the literal presidential debates ahead that will afford both men the time they need to thoroughly present their cases.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 20, 2003, 06:39 PMNumber of posts: 22,912
