Data For Progress: Sanders +2 in NC, Sanders +9 in TX

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

MALARKEY

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Sanders can theoretically afford to do as bad (or at least close to it) as he did in the Confederacy: as long as he keeps the Southern periphery in check, it's fine (not to mention CA's effects). Clinton won TX 2:1 in 2016: even if Sanders loses slightly, it's really not a big deal, as he'll be taking 50+ delegates net away from a candidate like Biden. The only major contest where he's likely to get rat-f[inks]ked is FL.

Little known fact: Sanders won more delegates outside the Confederacy in 2016 than Clinton:

Non-Confederates:
Sanders   1448
Clinton   1432

Confederates:
Clinton   700
Sanders   332

This is why the other candidates need to stay in the race to deny Sanders the majority of the Non-Confederate delegates.
The Confederate delegates are already strongly Anti-Sanders.

Based on the South Carolina results, we can conclude with certainty that the undecided voters or late deciders are Anti-Sanders and that they will break for Biden. That means that Biden may even win Texas.

Kinda. Bloomberg should definately drop, Klob should drop after winning MN on Super Tuesday, Warren could go either way, but Pete should probably stay in and suck up the anti-Biden anti-Sanders vote for a while. Of course, Biden could absolutely win a delegate majority, but things will become clearer on Wednesday.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Sanders can theoretically afford to do as bad (or at least close to it) as he did in the Confederacy: as long as he keeps the Southern periphery in check, it's fine (not to mention CA's effects). Clinton won TX 2:1 in 2016: even if Sanders loses slightly, it's really not a big deal, as he'll be taking 50+ delegates net away from a candidate like Biden. The only major contest where he's likely to get rat-f[inks]ked is FL.

Little known fact: Sanders won more delegates outside the Confederacy in 2016 than Clinton:

Non-Confederates:
Sanders   1448
Clinton   1432

Confederates:
Clinton   700
Sanders   332

This is why the other candidates need to stay in the race to deny Sanders the majority of the Non-Confederate delegates.
The Confederate delegates are already strongly Anti-Sanders.

Based on the South Carolina results, we can conclude with certainty that the undecided voters or late deciders are Anti-Sanders and that they will break for Biden. That means that Biden may even win Texas.

It still wouldn't stop him from winning the largest share. I know you'd love this, but if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates and gets denied the nomination, 5,000,000 Democratic votes in the margin disappear overnight and the election is over. Trumps gets 330+ EVs and possibly a majority of the PV to boot.

Could you be more of a hack?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Sanders can theoretically afford to do as bad (or at least close to it) as he did in the Confederacy: as long as he keeps the Southern periphery in check, it's fine (not to mention CA's effects). Clinton won TX 2:1 in 2016: even if Sanders loses slightly, it's really not a big deal, as he'll be taking 50+ delegates net away from a candidate like Biden. The only major contest where he's likely to get rat-f[inks]ked is FL.

Little known fact: Sanders won more delegates outside the Confederacy in 2016 than Clinton:

Non-Confederates:
Sanders   1448
Clinton   1432

Confederates:
Clinton   700
Sanders   332

This is why the other candidates need to stay in the race to deny Sanders the majority of the Non-Confederate delegates.
The Confederate delegates are already strongly Anti-Sanders.

Based on the South Carolina results, we can conclude with certainty that the undecided voters or late deciders are Anti-Sanders and that they will break for Biden. That means that Biden may even win Texas.

It still wouldn't stop him from winning the largest share. I know you'd love this, but if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates and gets denied the nomination, 5,000,000 Democratic votes in the margin disappear overnight and the election is over. Trumps gets 330+ EVs and possibly a majority of the PV to boot.

Could you be more of a hack?

Literally a Democratic Party officer, so I probably have more of a reason to cuddle up to THE BRAND than you - yet you somehow beat me at it! That's the definition of a hack.

If you don't see how a million or more people will flip their ballots out of spite + another 2-3 million will either stay home (punishing all candidates), vote third party or otherwise leave the contest blank, then you're a delusional hack at that.

I guarantee I have more Dem party credibility than you, but let's set that aside. A million people ARE NOT flipping their ballots if, for example, Sanders comes to the convention with 45% of the delegates, Biden comes with 40%, and Biden gets the nomination. There is no data backing this up. It's uncharted territory--but so is a contested convention. That said, it is clear that regular Democrats do not listen to TYT, do not have a devotion to Bernie Sanders, and are not willing to risk another 4 years of Trump over petty progressive petulance. Also, nice shift from 5 million to 1 million, but you should probably slash the margin 5x over again (and then pad the margin the other way with all the people who vote Biden but not Sanders.) In that vein, there is no empirical evidence that Bernie will inspire millions to turn out who would otherwise stay home. Conversely, it's pretty clear Biden gets higher AA turnout than Sanders and would get better margins among future former Republicans than Sanders in the places Dems absolutely have to win like the Research Triangle, North Atlanta Suburbs, Maricopa County, South Florida, Oakland County, and SEPA. You have drunk so much Bernie cool aid that you're completely unaware of how he is percieved off rose twitter.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Sanders can theoretically afford to do as bad (or at least close to it) as he did in the Confederacy: as long as he keeps the Southern periphery in check, it's fine (not to mention CA's effects). Clinton won TX 2:1 in 2016: even if Sanders loses slightly, it's really not a big deal, as he'll be taking 50+ delegates net away from a candidate like Biden. The only major contest where he's likely to get rat-f[inks]ked is FL.

Little known fact: Sanders won more delegates outside the Confederacy in 2016 than Clinton:

Non-Confederates:
Sanders   1448
Clinton   1432

Confederates:
Clinton   700
Sanders   332

This is why the other candidates need to stay in the race to deny Sanders the majority of the Non-Confederate delegates.
The Confederate delegates are already strongly Anti-Sanders.

Based on the South Carolina results, we can conclude with certainty that the undecided voters or late deciders are Anti-Sanders and that they will break for Biden. That means that Biden may even win Texas.

It still wouldn't stop him from winning the largest share. I know you'd love this, but if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates and gets denied the nomination, 5,000,000 Democratic votes in the margin disappear overnight and the election is over. Trumps gets 330+ EVs and possibly a majority of the PV to boot.

Could you be more of a hack?

Bit rich coming from you.

That so?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I guarantee I have more Dem party credibility than you, but let's set that aside. A million people ARE NOT flipping their ballots if, for example, Sanders comes to the convention with 45% of the delegates, Biden comes with 40%, and Biden gets the nomination. There is no data backing this up. It's uncharted territory--but so is a contested convention. That said, it is clear that regular Democrats do not listen to TYT, do not have a devotion to Bernie Sanders, and are not willing to risk another 4 years of Trump over petty progressive petulance. Also, nice shift from 5 million to 1 million, but you should probably slash the margin 5x over again (and then pad the margin the other way with all the people who vote Biden but not Sanders.) In that vein, there is no empirical evidence that Bernie will inspire millions to turn out who would otherwise stay home. Conversely, it's pretty clear Biden gets higher AA turnout than Sanders and would get better margins among future former Republicans than Sanders in the places Dems absolutely have to win like the Research Triangle, North Atlanta Suburbs, Maricopa County, South Florida, Oakland County, and SEPA. You have drunk so much Bernie cool aid that you're completely unaware of how he is percieved off rose twitter.

Once you've held county party office, congressional party office and served as a DNC delegate, get back with me. If you can best me at a decade of organizing within the party in official capacity, field ops, leadership roles and the like, I'd love to hear about it, Mister Lurker! Otherwise, you can't outshow me without showing your cards.

I spend plenty of time around actual voters who look like the median American electorate. We can't all live around a bunch of privileged Bay Area t[inks]ts. I don't use Twitter because for both Roses and Donuts alike, it rots the brain.

All the evidence you need is to look at what happened in 2016: millions stayed home after Sanders lost fair and square, and the party nominated somebody uninspiring (most was due to the latter). What kind of backlash do you think is going to happen if Sanders comes into that convention with the most delegates and gets denied? It's going to be a magnitude above 2016 in terms of Sanders supporters tactically and spitefully punishing the party through one of several methods, not to mention the normies who just don't show up because Joe Biden or whomever is an uninspiring dullard of a candidate.

The rest isn't worth responding to because I've been addressing it (in particular, the notion that black turnout and support can somehow be changed) all night long in other threads, and I'm done repeating myself to the dullards about how intensely strong trends stretching back 20+ years work.

I'm a senior advisor for a Dem with a national profile, have worked in the liberal DC think tank circuit, and travel to Washington on a regular basis to work with congressional leadership. I've worked presidential campaigns, worked on Capitol Hill, and led local nonprofits. Also, I'm a renter in a predominantly latino neighborhood in Los Angeles, and hardly have a privleged background. Not doxing myself beyond that.

And you still haven't addressed my point. Millions didn't stay home in 2016 because Sanders wasn't the nominee, and it's pretty clear there would have been fewer Romney-Sanders voters than Romney-Clinton voters. There is no real data indicating any significant number of Sanders supporters wouldn't back Biden in the general--at least, nothing outside the normal. What happens if neither candidate shows up with a majority but Biden wins on the second ballot is entirely dependent of Sanders and his associates, but I'd expect them to get in line behind the nominee as we'd do in the opposite position. Other than the 1968 debacle, there isn't much of a precedent for what happens in the event of a contested convention, but there is also no precedent establishing that whoever enters the convention with a weak plurality of delegates should get a blank cheque to be nominee. You don't get to hold the party hostage like that, and most Dems won't fall for it. Also, if you think "normies" are all waiting to turn out for the most radical nominee since Jenning Bryan then you just don't have your finger on the pulse of the nation.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Here's a good analogy . Say you are organizing a party and you are trying to get ice cream for the party but you find out the place your renting out will only let you choose one flavor of ice cream to give out to your guests at the party so you decide to do a survey and find out what people want.


You find out that 40% favorite flavor is Vanilla

35% favorite flavor is Chocolate

7% favorite flavor is Chocolate Chip

another favorite  7% flavor is Chocolate Fudge

5% favorite  flavor  Vanilla Bean

4% favorite  flavor Chocolate Brownie

2% is Strawberry



By Sanders folks logic you should order Vanilla since thats what most of the people's favorite flavor is but that doesnt make any sense because 53% of the people at the party is some variant of chocolate flavor. So the logical thing to do is order chocolate

What happens when Chocolate chip people want vanilla as their 2nd choice?

Well there is no sure way to find that out(Since the survey only asks for your first choice) so the best way is to look at what flavor out of the top 2 the lesser flavors are most similar too.

The problem is fairness which is a subjective concept is irrelevant here. Whether you think it’s fair or not for Sanders to be denied the nomination when he has a plurality of delegates dissent matter. If that situation should arise I’m certain a majority of Sanders supporters will be angered and absolutely think it’s unfair leading to a non insignificant amount of them to either stay home altogether or vote third party for President. 

Biden supporters and Centrists will be angered too if their bloc as the most votes and they are denied.

You do realize that supporters of the other establishment candidates aren’t a monolithic bloc that will all want Biden or at the least will be opposed to Sanders. Also if Sanders has a strong plurality nom Sanders supporters are more likely to accept him as the nominee than the situation detailed above with Sanders supporters.

People usually have whoever the frontrunner is at any given point as their 2nd choice. That doesn't mean the party has to or should rubber stamp the nomination of whoever comes into the convention with a plurality of delegates. Obviously, the most democratic thing would be a single day ranked-choice primary without delegates at all, but that isn't the system we have. There is no real way to feel out who the party wants in a 1v1 race, so working in the system we have, it's best to trust the discretion of the delegates and other candidates to pick a nominee, given that's ostensibly what we elect them to do.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I guarantee I have more Dem party credibility than you, but let's set that aside. A million people ARE NOT flipping their ballots if, for example, Sanders comes to the convention with 45% of the delegates, Biden comes with 40%, and Biden gets the nomination. There is no data backing this up. It's uncharted territory--but so is a contested convention. That said, it is clear that regular Democrats do not listen to TYT, do not have a devotion to Bernie Sanders, and are not willing to risk another 4 years of Trump over petty progressive petulance. Also, nice shift from 5 million to 1 million, but you should probably slash the margin 5x over again (and then pad the margin the other way with all the people who vote Biden but not Sanders.) In that vein, there is no empirical evidence that Bernie will inspire millions to turn out who would otherwise stay home. Conversely, it's pretty clear Biden gets higher AA turnout than Sanders and would get better margins among future former Republicans than Sanders in the places Dems absolutely have to win like the Research Triangle, North Atlanta Suburbs, Maricopa County, South Florida, Oakland County, and SEPA. You have drunk so much Bernie cool aid that you're completely unaware of how he is percieved off rose twitter.

Once you've held county party office, congressional party office and served as a DNC delegate, get back with me. If you can best me at a decade of organizing within the party in official capacity, field ops, leadership roles and the like, I'd love to hear about it, Mister Lurker! Otherwise, you can't outshow me without showing your cards.

I spend plenty of time around actual voters who look like the median American electorate. We can't all live around a bunch of privileged Bay Area t[inks]ts. I don't use Twitter because for both Roses and Donuts alike, it rots the brain.

All the evidence you need is to look at what happened in 2016: millions stayed home after Sanders lost fair and square, and the party nominated somebody uninspiring (most was due to the latter). What kind of backlash do you think is going to happen if Sanders comes into that convention with the most delegates and gets denied? It's going to be a magnitude above 2016 in terms of Sanders supporters tactically and spitefully punishing the party through one of several methods, not to mention the normies who just don't show up because Joe Biden or whomever is an uninspiring dullard of a candidate.

The rest isn't worth responding to because I've been addressing it (in particular, the notion that black turnout and support can somehow be changed) all night long in other threads, and I'm done repeating myself to the dullards about how intensely strong trends stretching back 20+ years work.

I'm a senior advisor for a Dem with a national profile, have worked in the liberal DC think tank circuit, and travel to Washington on a regular basis to work with congressional leadership. I've worked presidential campaigns, worked on Capitol Hill, and led local nonprofits. Also, I'm a renter in a predominantly latino neighborhood in Los Angeles, and hardly have a privleged background. Not doxing myself beyond that.

And you still haven't addressed my point. Millions didn't stay home in 2016 because Sanders wasn't the nominee, and it's pretty clear there would have been fewer Romney-Sanders voters than Romney-Clinton voters. There is no real data indicating any significant number of Sanders supporters wouldn't back Biden in the general--at least, nothing outside the normal. What happens if neither candidate shows up with a majority but Biden wins on the second ballot is entirely dependent of Sanders and his associates, but I'd expect them to get in line behind the nominee as we'd do in the opposite position. Other than the 1968 debacle, there isn't much of a precedent for what happens in the event of a contested convention, but there is also no precedent establishing that whoever enters the convention with a weak plurality of delegates should get a blank cheque to be nominee. You don't get to hold the party hostage like that, and most Dems won't fall for it. Also, if you think "normies" are all waiting to turn out for the most radical nominee since Jenning Bryan then you just don't have your finger on the pulse of the nation.

Yeah,those Romney-Clinton voters delivered Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, didn't they? What was that phrase again? "We'll pick up to moderate Republicans in Philadelphia suburbs"?

Yeah. It didn't work. That doesn't mean we wouldn't have lost by more if Sanders was the nominee. At least a Clinton noination accelerated trends which helped Dems in 2018 and will help us in the 2020s.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I guarantee I have more Dem party credibility than you, but let's set that aside. A million people ARE NOT flipping their ballots if, for example, Sanders comes to the convention with 45% of the delegates, Biden comes with 40%, and Biden gets the nomination. There is no data backing this up. It's uncharted territory--but so is a contested convention. That said, it is clear that regular Democrats do not listen to TYT, do not have a devotion to Bernie Sanders, and are not willing to risk another 4 years of Trump over petty progressive petulance. Also, nice shift from 5 million to 1 million, but you should probably slash the margin 5x over again (and then pad the margin the other way with all the people who vote Biden but not Sanders.) In that vein, there is no empirical evidence that Bernie will inspire millions to turn out who would otherwise stay home. Conversely, it's pretty clear Biden gets higher AA turnout than Sanders and would get better margins among future former Republicans than Sanders in the places Dems absolutely have to win like the Research Triangle, North Atlanta Suburbs, Maricopa County, South Florida, Oakland County, and SEPA. You have drunk so much Bernie cool aid that you're completely unaware of how he is percieved off rose twitter.

Once you've held county party office, congressional party office and served as a DNC delegate, get back with me. If you can best me at a decade of organizing within the party in official capacity, field ops, leadership roles and the like, I'd love to hear about it, Mister Lurker! Otherwise, you can't outshow me without showing your cards.

I spend plenty of time around actual voters who look like the median American electorate. We can't all live around a bunch of privileged Bay Area t[inks]ts. I don't use Twitter because for both Roses and Donuts alike, it rots the brain.

All the evidence you need is to look at what happened in 2016: millions stayed home after Sanders lost fair and square, and the party nominated somebody uninspiring (most was due to the latter). What kind of backlash do you think is going to happen if Sanders comes into that convention with the most delegates and gets denied? It's going to be a magnitude above 2016 in terms of Sanders supporters tactically and spitefully punishing the party through one of several methods, not to mention the normies who just don't show up because Joe Biden or whomever is an uninspiring dullard of a candidate.

The rest isn't worth responding to because I've been addressing it (in particular, the notion that black turnout and support can somehow be changed) all night long in other threads, and I'm done repeating myself to the dullards about how intensely strong trends stretching back 20+ years work.

I'm a senior advisor for a Dem with a national profile, have worked in the liberal DC think tank circuit, and travel to Washington on a regular basis to work with congressional leadership. I've worked presidential campaigns, worked on Capitol Hill, and led local nonprofits. Also, I'm a renter in a predominantly latino neighborhood in Los Angeles, and hardly have a privleged background. Not doxing myself beyond that.

And you still haven't addressed my point. Millions didn't stay home in 2016 because Sanders wasn't the nominee, and it's pretty clear there would have been fewer Romney-Sanders voters than Romney-Clinton voters. There is no real data indicating any significant number of Sanders supporters wouldn't back Biden in the general--at least, nothing outside the normal. What happens if neither candidate shows up with a majority but Biden wins on the second ballot is entirely dependent of Sanders and his associates, but I'd expect them to get in line behind the nominee as we'd do in the opposite position. Other than the 1968 debacle, there isn't much of a precedent for what happens in the event of a contested convention, but there is also no precedent establishing that whoever enters the convention with a weak plurality of delegates should get a blank cheque to be nominee. You don't get to hold the party hostage like that, and most Dems won't fall for it. Also, if you think "normies" are all waiting to turn out for the most radical nominee since Jenning Bryan then you just don't have your finger on the pulse of the nation.

All of those prominent positions and you still can't format digestible paragraphs - yikes! Though all of that perhaps explains why you have no grasp on what's transpired over the past 4 years. I really doubt any of it's true, though: this place tends not to attract active "talent", shall we say (the truly accomplished like to lurk). If it's true, though, then more reason to grasp why you think the way you do, as opposed to understanding how most people across political lines currently feel.

I never said Sanders not being the nominee caused millions to stay home. I said millions stayed home due to a combination of Sanders losing and (mostly) Clinton being the nominee. Sanders not winning certainly directly led to a number staying home (if I had to guess, a few hundred thousand otherwise likely voters nationally), but most of it was simply because Clinton was the worst possible candidate for the time. I'd also argue that he'd have had an easier time mobilizing additional voters beyond Clinton's ability, but that's a relative absence rather than an absolute one.

All of these Romney-Clinton voters wouldn't have even been needed in 2016 had somebody with a lick of electoral understanding been the standard-bearer (was this the campaign you worked on?!). Literally all Clinton had to do was re-run Obama's 2012 populist campaign, attacking an out-of-touch millionaire who likes to fire people, but opted instead for the "THIS ISN'T NORMAL AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT" shtick - likely because they were convinced they were already destined to win by a sizable amount and thought they could expand the margins even further. In the process, millions upon millions who'd been suffering for nearly a decade heard nothing of value from her pitch.

A Sanders campaign would have kept enough blue-collar types in the fold in the places where it mattered. Clinton's campaign was literally the least efficient in terms of Democratic vote distribution relative to EVs in the modern era. The voters she flipped gave us nothing: no new states, practically no new congressional districts, and in the process, only gave us Trump. Donnie's shtick would've never flown against Sanders, because say what you will about him, painting him as an out-of-touch elitist flip-flopping bore wouldn't have been so damn easy.

Forgive me for not editing my midnight writing on an obscure political forum I like visiting in my spare time. Sanders not winning may or may not have led to people staying home, and were the positions flipped, the numbers likely would have been similar. I sincerely doubt more Americans would have turned out for Sanders, given polling indicates most considered Clinton to be less of a centrist than Trump and Sanders moreso. A Sanders campaign might have kept some blue collar votes in the rustbelt (although this isn't clear--in the primary, Clinton won the parts of MI and PA which swung hardest to Trump), but I doubt he'd keep more votes in places like Macomb and Lackawanna than Clinton gained in places like Chester and Oakland. Clinton obviously ran a flawed campaign (unlike Obama '08, which was the one I worked on), but I doubt Sanders would have run a better one. The vote distribution was bad, but I don't think Sanders would have pulled off anything better.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I guarantee I have more Dem party credibility than you, but let's set that aside. A million people ARE NOT flipping their ballots if, for example, Sanders comes to the convention with 45% of the delegates, Biden comes with 40%, and Biden gets the nomination. There is no data backing this up. It's uncharted territory--but so is a contested convention. That said, it is clear that regular Democrats do not listen to TYT, do not have a devotion to Bernie Sanders, and are not willing to risk another 4 years of Trump over petty progressive petulance. Also, nice shift from 5 million to 1 million, but you should probably slash the margin 5x over again (and then pad the margin the other way with all the people who vote Biden but not Sanders.) In that vein, there is no empirical evidence that Bernie will inspire millions to turn out who would otherwise stay home. Conversely, it's pretty clear Biden gets higher AA turnout than Sanders and would get better margins among future former Republicans than Sanders in the places Dems absolutely have to win like the Research Triangle, North Atlanta Suburbs, Maricopa County, South Florida, Oakland County, and SEPA. You have drunk so much Bernie cool aid that you're completely unaware of how he is percieved off rose twitter.

Once you've held county party office, congressional party office and served as a DNC delegate, get back with me. If you can best me at a decade of organizing within the party in official capacity, field ops, leadership roles and the like, I'd love to hear about it, Mister Lurker! Otherwise, you can't outshow me without showing your cards.

I spend plenty of time around actual voters who look like the median American electorate. We can't all live around a bunch of privileged Bay Area t[inks]ts. I don't use Twitter because for both Roses and Donuts alike, it rots the brain.

All the evidence you need is to look at what happened in 2016: millions stayed home after Sanders lost fair and square, and the party nominated somebody uninspiring (most was due to the latter). What kind of backlash do you think is going to happen if Sanders comes into that convention with the most delegates and gets denied? It's going to be a magnitude above 2016 in terms of Sanders supporters tactically and spitefully punishing the party through one of several methods, not to mention the normies who just don't show up because Joe Biden or whomever is an uninspiring dullard of a candidate.

The rest isn't worth responding to because I've been addressing it (in particular, the notion that black turnout and support can somehow be changed) all night long in other threads, and I'm done repeating myself to the dullards about how intensely strong trends stretching back 20+ years work.

I'm a senior advisor for a Dem with a national profile, have worked in the liberal DC think tank circuit, and travel to Washington on a regular basis to work with congressional leadership. I've worked presidential campaigns, worked on Capitol Hill, and led local nonprofits. Also, I'm a renter in a predominantly latino neighborhood in Los Angeles, and hardly have a privleged background. Not doxing myself beyond that.

And you still haven't addressed my point. Millions didn't stay home in 2016 because Sanders wasn't the nominee, and it's pretty clear there would have been fewer Romney-Sanders voters than Romney-Clinton voters. There is no real data indicating any significant number of Sanders supporters wouldn't back Biden in the general--at least, nothing outside the normal. What happens if neither candidate shows up with a majority but Biden wins on the second ballot is entirely dependent of Sanders and his associates, but I'd expect them to get in line behind the nominee as we'd do in the opposite position. Other than the 1968 debacle, there isn't much of a precedent for what happens in the event of a contested convention, but there is also no precedent establishing that whoever enters the convention with a weak plurality of delegates should get a blank cheque to be nominee. You don't get to hold the party hostage like that, and most Dems won't fall for it. Also, if you think "normies" are all waiting to turn out for the most radical nominee since Jenning Bryan then you just don't have your finger on the pulse of the nation.

All of those prominent positions and you still can't format digestible paragraphs - yikes! Though all of that perhaps explains why you have no grasp on what's transpired over the past 4 years. I really doubt any of it's true, though: this place tends not to attract active "talent", shall we say (the truly accomplished like to lurk). If it's true, though, then more reason to grasp why you think the way you do, as opposed to understanding how most people across political lines currently feel.

I never said Sanders not being the nominee caused millions to stay home. I said millions stayed home due to a combination of Sanders losing and (mostly) Clinton being the nominee. Sanders not winning certainly directly led to a number staying home (if I had to guess, a few hundred thousand otherwise likely voters nationally), but most of it was simply because Clinton was the worst possible candidate for the time. I'd also argue that he'd have had an easier time mobilizing additional voters beyond Clinton's ability, but that's a relative absence rather than an absolute one.

All of these Romney-Clinton voters wouldn't have even been needed in 2016 had somebody with a lick of electoral understanding been the standard-bearer (was this the campaign you worked on?!). Literally all Clinton had to do was re-run Obama's 2012 populist campaign, attacking an out-of-touch millionaire who likes to fire people, but opted instead for the "THIS ISN'T NORMAL AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT" shtick - likely because they were convinced they were already destined to win by a sizable amount and thought they could expand the margins even further. In the process, millions upon millions who'd been suffering for nearly a decade heard nothing of value from her pitch.

A Sanders campaign would have kept enough blue-collar types in the fold in the places where it mattered. Clinton's campaign was literally the least efficient in terms of Democratic vote distribution relative to EVs in the modern era. The voters she flipped gave us nothing: no new states, practically no new congressional districts, and in the process, only gave us Trump. Donnie's shtick would've never flown against Sanders, because say what you will about him, painting him as an out-of-touch elitist flip-flopping bore wouldn't have been so damn easy.

Forgive me for not editing my midnight writing on an obscure political forum I like visiting in my spare time. Sanders not winning may or may not have led to people staying home, and were the positions flipped, the numbers likely would have been similar. I sincerely doubt more Americans would have turned out for Sanders, given polling indicates most considered Clinton to be less of a centrist than Trump and Sanders moreso. A Sanders campaign might have kept some blue collar votes in the rustbelt (although this isn't clear--in the primary, Clinton won the parts of MI and PA which swung hardest to Trump), but I doubt he'd keep more votes in places like Macomb and Lackawanna than Clinton gained in places like Chester and Oakland. Clinton obviously ran a flawed campaign (unlike Obama '08, which was the one I worked on), but I doubt Sanders would have run a better one. The vote distribution was bad, but I don't think Sanders would have pulled off anything better.

This still misses the key point that she lost Wisconsin,  Michigan and Pennsylvania. This strategy of winning moderate Republicans does not work, because they would rather vote Republican than diet Republican.

2018 would like a word with you. Romney-Clinton voters are now a much stronger component of the Dem coalition than Obama-Trump voters. Yeah, she lost WI, MI, and PA. I think Sanders or any other Dem would have done the same.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Forgive me for not editing my midnight writing on an obscure political forum I like visiting in my spare time. Sanders not winning may or may not have led to people staying home, and were the positions flipped, the numbers likely would have been similar. I sincerely doubt more Americans would have turned out for Sanders, given polling indicates most considered Clinton to be less of a centrist than Trump and Sanders moreso. A Sanders campaign might have kept some blue collar votes in the rustbelt (although this isn't clear--in the primary, Clinton won the parts of MI and PA which swung hardest to Trump), but I doubt he'd keep more votes in places like Macomb and Lackawanna than Clinton gained in places like Chester and Oakland. Clinton obviously ran a flawed campaign (unlike Obama '08, which was the one I worked on), but I doubt Sanders would have run a better one. The vote distribution was bad, but I don't think Sanders would have pulled off anything better.

Personally and if it makes you feel any better, I'm of the belief that the Sanders "magic" that I believe would've existed in '16 is now somewhat gone. I don't think he's going to win back hordes of rural, white and/or blue collar types (though regardless of performance, I do believe he'll outperform Generic '20 D). His primary coalition over 4 years went from 75% white and 60% male to 50% female and 50% non-white essentially: you don't undergo such a change without counter-effects. It actually reminds me a lot of Hillary's "reinvention" between '08 and '16 (though not as radical of a shift). To a certain degree, he's a more known quality now and he had to delve deeper into social and cultural appeals (both of which were necessary for a primary win this time, but undercut him with some of the types who would've voted his way 4 years ago).

I think the fact that people saw Clinton as being less centrist than Trump (and of course the fact that Trump got elected) really tells you all you need to know about the net impact of ideology on a contest. Perception of ideology is malleable and/or meaningless; rather than drawing conclusions that Americans always choose to elect the most "centrist" candidate, maybe people are just susceptible to anything? I would bet that perception for Trump - if there's any actual logic to it - was rooted in him claiming not to want to gut the ACA, Social Security and Medicare, which won't be a viable perception this year anyway. He will be judged on a steeper curve.

On most of these points you and I agree. Trump will be juged harshly, individual voters are volatile, and the path to victory does not lie in small cities and rural areas. However, I do think Biden is on average, a safer nominee who will comfortably defeat Trump. I think Sanders is much riskier and many voters could find him off-putting and disagree with his ideas. His poor performance with black voters, older dems, and the oft-hated wine moms of America cannot be overlooked. I also strongly disagree that a Biden nomination at a contested convention will cause significant internal party strife.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Forgive me for not editing my midnight writing on an obscure political forum I like visiting in my spare time. Sanders not winning may or may not have led to people staying home, and were the positions flipped, the numbers likely would have been similar. I sincerely doubt more Americans would have turned out for Sanders, given polling indicates most considered Clinton to be less of a centrist than Trump and Sanders moreso. A Sanders campaign might have kept some blue collar votes in the rustbelt (although this isn't clear--in the primary, Clinton won the parts of MI and PA which swung hardest to Trump), but I doubt he'd keep more votes in places like Macomb and Lackawanna than Clinton gained in places like Chester and Oakland. Clinton obviously ran a flawed campaign (unlike Obama '08, which was the one I worked on), but I doubt Sanders would have run a better one. The vote distribution was bad, but I don't think Sanders would have pulled off anything better.

Personally and if it makes you feel any better, I'm of the belief that the Sanders "magic" that I believe would've existed in '16 is now somewhat gone. I don't think he's going to win back hordes of rural, white and/or blue collar types (though regardless of performance, I do believe he'll outperform Generic '20 D). His primary coalition over 4 years went from 75% white and 60% male to 50% female and 50% non-white essentially: you don't undergo such a change without counter-effects. It actually reminds me a lot of Hillary's "reinvention" between '08 and '16 (though not as radical of a shift). To a certain degree, he's a more known quality now and he had to delve deeper into social and cultural appeals (both of which were necessary for a primary win this time, but undercut him with some of the types who would've voted his way 4 years ago).

I think the fact that people saw Clinton as being less centrist than Trump (and of course the fact that Trump got elected) really tells you all you need to know about the net impact of ideology on a contest. Perception of ideology is malleable and/or meaningless; rather than drawing conclusions that Americans always choose to elect the most "centrist" candidate, maybe people are just susceptible to anything? I would bet that perception for Trump - if there's any actual logic to it - was rooted in him claiming not to want to gut the ACA, Social Security and Medicare, which won't be a viable perception this year anyway. He will be judged on a steeper curve.

On most of these points you and I agree. Trump will be juged harshly, individual voters are volatile, and the path to victory does not lie in small cities and rural areas. However, I do think Biden is on average, a safer nominee who will comfortably defeat Trump. I think Sanders is much riskier and many voters could find him off-putting and disagree with his ideas. His poor performance with black voters, older dems, and the oft-hated wine moms of America cannot be overlooked. I also strongly disagree that a Biden nomination at a contested convention will cause significant internal party strife.

If Sanders goes in with a plurality and Biden is nominated, Sanders supporters will not support him, and his supporters are needed by Democrats.

That just isn't true. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Forgive me for not editing my midnight writing on an obscure political forum I like visiting in my spare time. Sanders not winning may or may not have led to people staying home, and were the positions flipped, the numbers likely would have been similar. I sincerely doubt more Americans would have turned out for Sanders, given polling indicates most considered Clinton to be less of a centrist than Trump and Sanders moreso. A Sanders campaign might have kept some blue collar votes in the rustbelt (although this isn't clear--in the primary, Clinton won the parts of MI and PA which swung hardest to Trump), but I doubt he'd keep more votes in places like Macomb and Lackawanna than Clinton gained in places like Chester and Oakland. Clinton obviously ran a flawed campaign (unlike Obama '08, which was the one I worked on), but I doubt Sanders would have run a better one. The vote distribution was bad, but I don't think Sanders would have pulled off anything better.

Personally and if it makes you feel any better, I'm of the belief that the Sanders "magic" that I believe would've existed in '16 is now somewhat gone. I don't think he's going to win back hordes of rural, white and/or blue collar types (though regardless of performance, I do believe he'll outperform Generic '20 D). His primary coalition over 4 years went from 75% white and 60% male to 50% female and 50% non-white essentially: you don't undergo such a change without counter-effects. It actually reminds me a lot of Hillary's "reinvention" between '08 and '16 (though not as radical of a shift). To a certain degree, he's a more known quality now and he had to delve deeper into social and cultural appeals (both of which were necessary for a primary win this time, but undercut him with some of the types who would've voted his way 4 years ago).

I think the fact that people saw Clinton as being less centrist than Trump (and of course the fact that Trump got elected) really tells you all you need to know about the net impact of ideology on a contest. Perception of ideology is malleable and/or meaningless; rather than drawing conclusions that Americans always choose to elect the most "centrist" candidate, maybe people are just susceptible to anything? I would bet that perception for Trump - if there's any actual logic to it - was rooted in him claiming not to want to gut the ACA, Social Security and Medicare, which won't be a viable perception this year anyway. He will be judged on a steeper curve.

On most of these points you and I agree. Trump will be juged harshly, individual voters are volatile, and the path to victory does not lie in small cities and rural areas. However, I do think Biden is on average, a safer nominee who will comfortably defeat Trump. I think Sanders is much riskier and many voters could find him off-putting and disagree with his ideas. His poor performance with black voters, older dems, and the oft-hated wine moms of America cannot be overlooked. I also strongly disagree that a Biden nomination at a contested convention will cause significant internal party strife.

If Sanders goes in with a plurality and Biden is nominated, Sanders supporters will not support him, and his supporters are needed by Democrats.

That just isn't true. You don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Sounds like your prominent positions have left you thinking inside the Beltway for too lomg.

Sander foesin with most delegates and mostvotes. Some ratf**kery denies him the nomination. His supporters are not going to simply go "fair's fair."

They will stay home. They will vote third party.

Bullsh*t. The supporters of every Democratic candidate overwhelmingly want to defeat Trump at any cost. There may be a few extremely vocal Bernie bros who were never going to vote for anyone else who sit the race out, but Dems are unified against Trump. His supporters are going to get in line just like everyone elses.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Forgive me for not editing my midnight writing on an obscure political forum I like visiting in my spare time. Sanders not winning may or may not have led to people staying home, and were the positions flipped, the numbers likely would have been similar. I sincerely doubt more Americans would have turned out for Sanders, given polling indicates most considered Clinton to be less of a centrist than Trump and Sanders moreso. A Sanders campaign might have kept some blue collar votes in the rustbelt (although this isn't clear--in the primary, Clinton won the parts of MI and PA which swung hardest to Trump), but I doubt he'd keep more votes in places like Macomb and Lackawanna than Clinton gained in places like Chester and Oakland. Clinton obviously ran a flawed campaign (unlike Obama '08, which was the one I worked on), but I doubt Sanders would have run a better one. The vote distribution was bad, but I don't think Sanders would have pulled off anything better.

Personally and if it makes you feel any better, I'm of the belief that the Sanders "magic" that I believe would've existed in '16 is now somewhat gone. I don't think he's going to win back hordes of rural, white and/or blue collar types (though regardless of performance, I do believe he'll outperform Generic '20 D). His primary coalition over 4 years went from 75% white and 60% male to 50% female and 50% non-white essentially: you don't undergo such a change without counter-effects. It actually reminds me a lot of Hillary's "reinvention" between '08 and '16 (though not as radical of a shift). To a certain degree, he's a more known quality now and he had to delve deeper into social and cultural appeals (both of which were necessary for a primary win this time, but undercut him with some of the types who would've voted his way 4 years ago).

I think the fact that people saw Clinton as being less centrist than Trump (and of course the fact that Trump got elected) really tells you all you need to know about the net impact of ideology on a contest. Perception of ideology is malleable and/or meaningless; rather than drawing conclusions that Americans always choose to elect the most "centrist" candidate, maybe people are just susceptible to anything? I would bet that perception for Trump - if there's any actual logic to it - was rooted in him claiming not to want to gut the ACA, Social Security and Medicare, which won't be a viable perception this year anyway. He will be judged on a steeper curve.

On most of these points you and I agree. Trump will be juged harshly, individual voters are volatile, and the path to victory does not lie in small cities and rural areas. However, I do think Biden is on average, a safer nominee who will comfortably defeat Trump. I think Sanders is much riskier and many voters could find him off-putting and disagree with his ideas. His poor performance with black voters, older dems, and the oft-hated wine moms of America cannot be overlooked. I also strongly disagree that a Biden nomination at a contested convention will cause significant internal party strife.

If Sanders goes in with a plurality and Biden is nominated, Sanders supporters will not support him, and his supporters are needed by Democrats.

That just isn't true. You don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Sounds like your prominent positions have left you thinking inside the Beltway for too lomg.

Sander foesin with most delegates and mostvotes. Some ratf**kery denies him the nomination. His supporters are not going to simply go "fair's fair."

They will stay home. They will vote third party.

Bullsh*t. The supporters of every Democratic candidate overwhelmingly want to defeat Trump at any cost. There may be a few extremely vocal Bernie bros who were never going to vote for anyone else who sit the race out, but Dems are unified against Trump. His supporters are going to get in line just like everyone elses.

What??? Not if the candidate with the most delegates gets cheated out of the nomination.

If Bernie wins a plurality of delegates AND the popular vote but Biden still gets the nomination, Biden will lose to Trump. It would be such bad press and so demoralizing to enough people that Trump will eke out a win.

FFS. Getting a plurality but not winning the nomination is not being cheated out of anything. It's on Sanders to win a majority of delegates, and if he can't do that, then too bad. (Also, I really doubt he wins the popular vote.) Essentially veryone who is seriosuly invested in the primary race desperately wants to defeat Trump, and will turn out for the nominee.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Forgive me for not editing my midnight writing on an obscure political forum I like visiting in my spare time. Sanders not winning may or may not have led to people staying home, and were the positions flipped, the numbers likely would have been similar. I sincerely doubt more Americans would have turned out for Sanders, given polling indicates most considered Clinton to be less of a centrist than Trump and Sanders moreso. A Sanders campaign might have kept some blue collar votes in the rustbelt (although this isn't clear--in the primary, Clinton won the parts of MI and PA which swung hardest to Trump), but I doubt he'd keep more votes in places like Macomb and Lackawanna than Clinton gained in places like Chester and Oakland. Clinton obviously ran a flawed campaign (unlike Obama '08, which was the one I worked on), but I doubt Sanders would have run a better one. The vote distribution was bad, but I don't think Sanders would have pulled off anything better.

Personally and if it makes you feel any better, I'm of the belief that the Sanders "magic" that I believe would've existed in '16 is now somewhat gone. I don't think he's going to win back hordes of rural, white and/or blue collar types (though regardless of performance, I do believe he'll outperform Generic '20 D). His primary coalition over 4 years went from 75% white and 60% male to 50% female and 50% non-white essentially: you don't undergo such a change without counter-effects. It actually reminds me a lot of Hillary's "reinvention" between '08 and '16 (though not as radical of a shift). To a certain degree, he's a more known quality now and he had to delve deeper into social and cultural appeals (both of which were necessary for a primary win this time, but undercut him with some of the types who would've voted his way 4 years ago).

I think the fact that people saw Clinton as being less centrist than Trump (and of course the fact that Trump got elected) really tells you all you need to know about the net impact of ideology on a contest. Perception of ideology is malleable and/or meaningless; rather than drawing conclusions that Americans always choose to elect the most "centrist" candidate, maybe people are just susceptible to anything? I would bet that perception for Trump - if there's any actual logic to it - was rooted in him claiming not to want to gut the ACA, Social Security and Medicare, which won't be a viable perception this year anyway. He will be judged on a steeper curve.

On most of these points you and I agree. Trump will be juged harshly, individual voters are volatile, and the path to victory does not lie in small cities and rural areas. However, I do think Biden is on average, a safer nominee who will comfortably defeat Trump. I think Sanders is much riskier and many voters could find him off-putting and disagree with his ideas. His poor performance with black voters, older dems, and the oft-hated wine moms of America cannot be overlooked. I also strongly disagree that a Biden nomination at a contested convention will cause significant internal party strife.

If Sanders goes in with a plurality and Biden is nominated, Sanders supporters will not support him, and his supporters are needed by Democrats.

That just isn't true. You don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Sounds like your prominent positions have left you thinking inside the Beltway for too lomg.

Sander foesin with most delegates and mostvotes. Some ratf**kery denies him the nomination. His supporters are not going to simply go "fair's fair."

They will stay home. They will vote third party.

Bullsh*t. The supporters of every Democratic candidate overwhelmingly want to defeat Trump at any cost. There may be a few extremely vocal Bernie bros who were never going to vote for anyone else who sit the race out, but Dems are unified against Trump. His supporters are going to get in line just like everyone elses.

Do you think that for one second there isn't going to be wall-to-wal coverage of how corrupt the Democratic Party is if that's the case?

You've been working inside the beltway bubble for a bit too long.

If anything, wall to wall media coverage would be something beltway insiders are most sensitive to, but whatever. I think it might get play for a week, most of America won't care at all, the people who will care want to beat Trump anyway, and then the news cycle moves on. I certainly take issue with your use of the words "corrupt", "cheating", and so on. There is nothing nefarious in the delegates doing exactly what they're supposed to do, but I suppose there is no reasoning with someone who will say whatever it takes to advance Sanders. I've made my position clear. I know I'm right. I'm not arguing this any more.