Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Bernie has a 0% chance at this point.

The only question at this point is whether he will do so badly (less than 10% in the first four states) that he'll basically have to drop out or if he will be able to scrap up 15% everywhere and justify symbolically staying in until the convention as he has announced his intention to do.

We saw the Bernie playbook in 2016. We heard his one speech. There are no tricks left in his bag and even the old tricks don't work as well because all the other candidates are doing them too. Nothing is going to save him.

I don't see him dropping out though. He might even stay in until the convention again.

He didn't drop out in 2016 because he knew Clinton would pivot to the center the moment he was gone. That won't be the case this time.

What do you think will signal that it's his time to drop out?

Should Harris & Warren drop out for being unelectable in the GE?

Shop Biden, Warren & Harris drop out for having much lower individual donors & hence grassroots support than Bernie.

Sanders is No.2 in the average of all polls, had a stellar fundraising, highest individual donors, did no major errors in the 1st debate & he is being asked to drop out.

The media & most elites will hate him anyways but Sanders will be taking this to the convention, either as the nominee or as one of the few with a fractured mandate.

Why do you have an issue with Warren when she's identical to Sanders on the issues?

[GP270watch]

Warren is not a great debater & has never been. And it doesn't matter. You have more than 6 months. This is the same crop of people who started the Biden finished rhetoric before be jumped in, the Warren finished rhetoric after the Native American thing.

No1 cares. Polls this early are meaningless unless Sanders tanks into 5-7% odd. Many of the polls are under sampling young voters or are over sampling people who watched the debates. Sanders has the money & field support to drive a much higher turnout than what polls predict. You get to December/January' & if Sanders is still jot within 5-6% from No.1 guy, then there must be something to worry.

LOL

Warren actually won a debate scholarship to George Washington University.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Warren is not a great debater & has never been. And it doesn't matter. You have more than 6 months. This is the same crop of people who started the Biden finished rhetoric before be jumped in, the Warren finished rhetoric after the Native American thing.

No1 cares. Polls this early are meaningless unless Sanders tanks into 5-7% odd. Many of the polls are under sampling young voters or are over sampling people who watched the debates. Sanders has the money & field support to drive a much higher turnout than what polls predict. You get to December/January' & if Sanders is still jot within 5-6% from No.1 guy, then there must be something to worry.

Nothing in this post is even remotely representative of reality 

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Bernie has a 0% chance at this point.

The only question at this point is whether he will do so badly (less than 10% in the first four states) that he'll basically have to drop out or if he will be able to scrap up 15% everywhere and justify symbolically staying in until the convention as he has announced his intention to do.

We saw the Bernie playbook in 2016. We heard his one speech. There are no tricks left in his bag and even the old tricks don't work as well because all the other candidates are doing them too. Nothing is going to save him.

I don't see him dropping out though. He might even stay in until the convention again.

He didn't drop out in 2016 because he knew Clinton would pivot to the center the moment he was gone. That won't be the case this time.

He "knew" something would happen that ended up not actually happening?

Clinton adopted much of Sanders's platform. Say what you want about whether or not you think that was sincere. If you think it's not sincere, then stop acting like there is anything she could have actually done to appease Sanders voters on "the left" because there's no way she could falsify the belief that she was actually going to govern like a progressive.

[Famous Mortimer]

Bernie has a 0% chance at this point.

The only question at this point is whether he will do so badly (less than 10% in the first four states) that he'll basically have to drop out or if he will be able to scrap up 15% everywhere and justify symbolically staying in until the convention as he has announced his intention to do.

We saw the Bernie playbook in 2016. We heard his one speech. There are no tricks left in his bag and even the old tricks don't work as well because all the other candidates are doing them too. Nothing is going to save him.

I don't see him dropping out though. He might even stay in until the convention again.

He didn't drop out in 2016 because he knew Clinton would pivot to the center the moment he was gone. That won't be the case this time.

He "knew" something would happen that ended up not actually happening?

Clinton adopted much of Sanders's platform. Say what you want about whether or not you think that was sincere. If you think it's not sincere, then stop acting like there is anything she could have actually done to appease Sanders voters on "the left" because there's no way she could falsify the belief that she was actually going to govern like a progressive.

The two main difference between Sanders and Clinton were that Sanders backed single payer (Hillary never adopted this position) and that Sanders opposed the Iraq War (it was impossible for Hillary to change her position on this without a time machine).

Aside from Biden, most of the candidates running against Sanders now 1) have backed single payer and 2) weren't in office when the Iraq War was voted on.

This is why Sanders did relatively well against Clinton but is struggle to remain in the double digits when faced with Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, etc.

[dunceDude]

Warren is not a great debater & has never been.

This is laughable. Warren was built for the debate format and it's almost impossible to imagine her making the kind of campaign-ending mistakes that Sanders would need to regain the lead.

And it doesn't matter. You have more than 6 months. This is the same crop of people who started the Biden finished rhetoric before be jumped in, the Warren finished rhetoric after the Native American thing.

It's true that the campaign is very fluid at this point. That doesn't change the fact that the major inflection points between now and Iowa will be the debates, which Warren will not slip up in. So the question remains where Sanders is going to regain his momentum.

No1 cares. Polls this early are meaningless unless Sanders tanks into 5-7% odd. Many of the polls are under sampling young voters or are over sampling people who watched the debates. Sanders has the money & field support to drive a much higher turnout than what polls predict. You get to December/January' & if Sanders is still jot within 5-6% from No.1 guy, then there must be something to worry.

Even if polls were underestimating support for Sanders, his 5% drop from May to July would still be significant and real.

IMO, the Sanders camp's unwillingness to look numbers in the face and pivot accordingly (but ... muh Michigan primary) is going to be his downfall and the only question left is whether he spits in the face of his own movement by staying in the race and denying Warren the support she'll need to cinch the nomination. Which would be hilarious in its own way for sure.

The "over sampling people who watched the debates" is especially funny. Do you really think that the debate watchers are taking cues from those who didn't watch? It works the other way around.

I actually agree that if Sanders is within 5-6% of first place in Iowa, people should be worried. It's a testament to his weak position now that even that scenario seems more and more unlikely.

[dunceDude]

The two main difference between Sanders and Clinton were that Sanders backed single payer (Hillary never adopted this position) and that Sanders opposed the Iraq War (it was impossible for Hillary to change her position on this without a time machine).

Aside from Biden, most of the candidates running against Sanders now 1) have backed single payer and 2) weren't in office when the Iraq War was voted on.

This is why Sanders did relatively well against Clinton but is struggle to remain in the double digits when faced with Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, etc.

This. Sanders supporters were oh so eager to emphasize how weak Clinton was as a candidate in 2016 but still refuse to acknowledge or react to the relative strength of the 2020 field. His refusal to play by the rules was an asset in the 2016 primary, it was the reason he even entered what looked like a futile primary. But that same instinct is not going to serve him well in this crowded primary and he seems only more committed to his guts because of his success last time around. The only uncertainty here is what a Bernie Sanders in 5th or 6th place resorts to.

[Saint Milei]

Bernie has a 0% chance at this point.

The only question at this point is whether he will do so badly (less than 10% in the first four states) that he'll basically have to drop out or if he will be able to scrap up 15% everywhere and justify symbolically staying in until the convention as he has announced his intention to do.

We saw the Bernie playbook in 2016. We heard his one speech. There are no tricks left in his bag and even the old tricks don't work as well because all the other candidates are doing them too. Nothing is going to save him.

I don't see him dropping out though. He might even stay in until the convention again.

He didn't drop out in 2016 because he knew Clinton would pivot to the center the moment he was gone. That won't be the case this time.

He "knew" something would happen that ended up not actually happening?

Clinton adopted much of Sanders's platform. Say what you want about whether or not you think that was sincere. If you think it's not sincere, then stop acting like there is anything she could have actually done to appease Sanders voters on "the left" because there's no way she could falsify the belief that she was actually going to govern like a progressive.

The two main difference between Sanders and Clinton were that Sanders backed single payer (Hillary never adopted this position) and that Sanders opposed the Iraq War (it was impossible for Hillary to change her position on this without a time machine).

Aside from Biden, most of the candidates running against Sanders now 1) have backed single payer and 2) weren't in office when the Iraq War was voted on.

This is why Sanders did relatively well against Clinton but is struggle to remain in the double digits when faced with Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, etc.

There's also the other people are better at connecting ideas and issues with voters thing. Sanders sucks at conveying his message

[win win]

Just drop dude. Let warren have it.

[Shadows]

Warren is not a great debater & has never been.

This is laughable. Warren was built for the debate format and it's almost impossible to imagine her making the kind of campaign-ending mistakes that Sanders would need to regain the lead.

And it doesn't matter. You have more than 6 months. This is the same crop of people who started the Biden finished rhetoric before be jumped in, the Warren finished rhetoric after the Native American thing.

It's true that the campaign is very fluid at this point. That doesn't change the fact that the major inflection points between now and Iowa will be the debates, which Warren will not slip up in. So the question remains where Sanders is going to regain his momentum.

No1 cares. Polls this early are meaningless unless Sanders tanks into 5-7% odd. Many of the polls are under sampling young voters or are over sampling people who watched the debates. Sanders has the money & field support to drive a much higher turnout than what polls predict. You get to December/January' & if Sanders is still jot within 5-6% from No.1 guy, then there must be something to worry.

Even if polls were underestimating support for Sanders, his 5% drop from May to July would still be significant and real.

IMO, the Sanders camp's unwillingness to look numbers in the face and pivot accordingly (but ... muh Michigan primary) is going to be his downfall and the only question left is whether he spits in the face of his own movement by staying in the race and denying Warren the support she'll need to cinch the nomination. Which would be hilarious in its own way for sure.

The "over sampling people who watched the debates" is especially funny. Do you really think that the debate watchers are taking cues from those who didn't watch? It works the other way around.

I actually agree that if Sanders is within 5-6% of first place in Iowa, people should be worried. It's a testament to his weak position now that even that scenario seems more and more unlikely.

Warren as a debater - What amazing debate did Warren participate in? She runs from the media, was mediocre in the 1st debate & was mediocre in her Senate debates. There is no proof whatsoever that she is a good debater.  Sanders on the other hand went toe to toe with Clinton & Ted Cruz & did as good as them.

Polls - When I mean oversampling, I don't mean intentional but incidental oversampling. That can't be denied with anyone with any shred of intelligence. Sanders is polling substantially ahead of Warren & Harris in the WaPo & Reuters polls (both of whim are reputed polls) while Warren & Harris are ahead in other polls. The polls are fluid depending on who are being polled & the sample size is inadequate to have any definite opinion.

In terms of the polls, you had O'Rourke @ 10-15% first, then Harris, then Buttigieg & then Biden @ 35-40% in some polls. Warren is the new flavour of the quarter which is what is happening. You have 1 candidate rising & polling around 12-15% or higher & they can sustain themselves for 3-4 months @ best. There are only 2 candidates who have consistently polled above 12-15% in most polls - Sanders & Biden. Warren has hit even 5% & there are major elect-ability concerns for her regarding the General Election.

It is pretty idiotic to make these kind of early judgements. Until & unless Warren beats Sanders' in polls by 5-6% atleast consistently for a period of 6 months, it is too early to get on the Warren bandwagon. I still think Warren will poll under 15% in Iowa & will drop out after NH. She has no path to the nomination. If Sanders falls, the rest of his support will go to a mixture of Biden, Harris & Warren with no candidate gaining significantly. If anything Kamala Harris will will be the undisputed front-runner in the Ultimate 2 person race between Harris & Warren. Warren has no chance.

Sanders on the other hand has the most committed supporters & the highest floor & is unlikely to go below a certain threshold. Sanders also has the highest number of grassroots donors, the highest number of volunteers & due to his key constituency of young people with typical low turnout in the polls & independents, he is significantly expected to out-perform polls.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Warren is not a great debater & has never been.

This is laughable. Warren was built for the debate format and it's almost impossible to imagine her making the kind of campaign-ending mistakes that Sanders would need to regain the lead.

And it doesn't matter. You have more than 6 months. This is the same crop of people who started the Biden finished rhetoric before be jumped in, the Warren finished rhetoric after the Native American thing.

It's true that the campaign is very fluid at this point. That doesn't change the fact that the major inflection points between now and Iowa will be the debates, which Warren will not slip up in. So the question remains where Sanders is going to regain his momentum.

No1 cares. Polls this early are meaningless unless Sanders tanks into 5-7% odd. Many of the polls are under sampling young voters or are over sampling people who watched the debates. Sanders has the money & field support to drive a much higher turnout than what polls predict. You get to December/January' & if Sanders is still jot within 5-6% from No.1 guy, then there must be something to worry.

Even if polls were underestimating support for Sanders, his 5% drop from May to July would still be significant and real.

IMO, the Sanders camp's unwillingness to look numbers in the face and pivot accordingly (but ... muh Michigan primary) is going to be his downfall and the only question left is whether he spits in the face of his own movement by staying in the race and denying Warren the support she'll need to cinch the nomination. Which would be hilarious in its own way for sure.

The "over sampling people who watched the debates" is especially funny. Do you really think that the debate watchers are taking cues from those who didn't watch? It works the other way around.

I actually agree that if Sanders is within 5-6% of first place in Iowa, people should be worried. It's a testament to his weak position now that even that scenario seems more and more unlikely.

Warren as a debater - What amazing debate did Warren participate in? She runs from the media, was mediocre in the 1st debate & was mediocre in her Senate debates. There is no proof whatsoever that she is a good debater.  Sanders on the other hand went toe to toe with Clinton & Ted Cruz & did as good as them.

Polls - When I mean oversampling, I don't mean intentional but incidental oversampling. That can't be denied with anyone with any shred of intelligence. Sanders is polling substantially ahead of Warren & Harris in the WaPo & Reuters polls (both of whim are reputed polls) while Warren & Harris are ahead in other polls. The polls are fluid depending on who are being polled & the sample size is inadequate to have any definite opinion.

In terms of the polls, you had O'Rourke @ 10-15% first, then Harris, then Buttigieg & then Biden @ 35-40% in some polls. Warren is the new flavour of the quarter which is what is happening. You have 1 candidate rising & polling around 12-15% or higher & they can sustain themselves for 3-4 months @ best. There are only 2 candidates who have consistently polled above 12-15% in most polls - Sanders & Biden. Warren has hit even 5% & there are major elect-ability concerns for her regarding the General Election.

It is pretty idiotic to make these kind of early judgements. Until & unless Warren beats Sanders' in polls by 5-6% atleast consistently for a period of 6 months, it is too early to get on the Warren bandwagon. I still think Warren will poll under 15% in Iowa & will drop out after NH. She has no path to the nomination. If Sanders falls, the rest of his support will go to a mixture of Biden, Harris & Warren with no candidate gaining significantly. If anything Kamala Harris will will be the undisputed front-runner in the Ultimate 2 person race between Harris & Warren. Warren has no chance.

Sanders on the other hand has the most committed supporters & the highest floor & is unlikely to go below a certain threshold. Sanders also has the highest number of grassroots donors, the highest number of volunteers & due to his key constituency of young people with typical low turnout in the polls & independents, he is significantly expected to out-perform polls.

If Sanders couldn’t beat Clinton, what makes you think he can beat Harris?

[Ilhan Apologist]

Bernie has a 0% chance at this point.

The only question at this point is whether he will do so badly (less than 10% in the first four states) that he'll basically have to drop out or if he will be able to scrap up 15% everywhere and justify symbolically staying in until the convention as he has announced his intention to do.

We saw the Bernie playbook in 2016. We heard his one speech. There are no tricks left in his bag and even the old tricks don't work as well because all the other candidates are doing them too. Nothing is going to save him.

I don't see him dropping out though. He might even stay in until the convention again.

He didn't drop out in 2016 because he knew Clinton would pivot to the center the moment he was gone. That won't be the case this time.

He "knew" something would happen that ended up not actually happening?

Clinton adopted much of Sanders's platform. Say what you want about whether or not you think that was sincere. If you think it's not sincere, then stop acting like there is anything she could have actually done to appease Sanders voters on "the left" because there's no way she could falsify the belief that she was actually going to govern like a progressive.

She could have chosen a running mate who who wasn't constantly fighting on behalf of big banks.

Edit: Oh, and also she could have opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline. If not for that, I would have been way more enthusiastic to volunteer for her.

[dunceDude]

Warren as a debater - What amazing debate did Warren participate in? She runs from the media, was mediocre in the 1st debate & was mediocre in her Senate debates. There is no proof whatsoever that she is a good debater.  Sanders on the other hand went toe to toe with Clinton & Ted Cruz & did as good as them.

I understand you may not have liked her in the first debate, but 538 teamed up with Morning Consult and found a much different result.

I wanted to put an image here from the 538 article "How The Top Candidates’ Supporters Rated The Debaters, In One Chart", put I don't have the required 20 posts. Can anyone post it below?

As you can see if you look up the article, the only group that preferred Sanders to Warren in the debate were people who were already Sanders fans. She has higher, and in some cases much higher, ratings among other demos. People who were Biden supporters before the debate rated Warren's performance a 4.2 versus a 3.6 for Sanders'. That's a huge chunk of voters, IMO the most important detail on this scatterboard.

There were other reasons to think Warren would be strong going in, like her clear comfort talking about policy details and the number of questions she's taken in town halls. You might like Ezra Klein's recent interview with her about this, where she talks about how she keeps the lights on in her venues so she can see what people react to and tweak accordingly.

Polls - When I mean oversampling, I don't mean intentional but incidental oversampling. That can't be denied with anyone with any shred of intelligence. Sanders is polling substantially ahead of Warren & Harris in the WaPo & Reuters polls (both of whim are reputed polls) while Warren & Harris are ahead in other polls. The polls are fluid depending on who are being polled & the sample size is inadequate to have any definite opinion.

So in the most recent WaPo-ABC News poll, we've got Sanders at 23 vs Warren at 11. Reuters has Sanders at 16 vs Warren at 9.

Three things to consider here: 1, cherry picking the polls that make your candidate look best is not good practice. Especially when we have poll aggregators like 538 that weight pollsters by their past accuracy, resorting to your 'trusted pollsters' seems unnecessary. 2, there is no national primary. Iowa will vote first and create powerful narratives. Warren leads Sanders in the three most recent Iowa polls.

3, we don't really disagree that much here. If Sanders can maintain or improve his position by September, everything I've said needs to be re-evaluated. But if he worsens or she gains in the fall, he is at serious risk of entering a spiral where leftist voters see Warren as more viable and settle on her. It's a flip from the mood in the spring when supporting Warren seemed kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. My argument is that not many of the established set-pieces of the campaign between now and then seem to favor Sanders.

In terms of the polls, you had O'Rourke @ 10-15% first, then Harris, then Buttigieg & then Biden @ 35-40% in some polls. Warren is the new flavour of the quarter which is what is happening. You have 1 candidate rising & polling around 12-15% or higher & they can sustain themselves for 3-4 months @ best. There are only 2 candidates who have consistently polled above 12-15% in most polls - Sanders & Biden. Warren has hit even 5% & there are major elect-ability concerns for her regarding the General Election.

It's true that in the 2012 and 2016 GOP primaries, there were a lot of candidates who had a moment and couldn't turn it into something more. There are also counterexamples, like Sanders himself in 2016. We just won't know which Warren is until more time passes. So again, we go back to fundamentals between now and then. Which favor Sanders?

I see the nod to Warren's Native American controversy. By the fall, it will have been a year since she published her DNA tests. Unless someone is willing to bring it up on stage, voters are not going to keep it in mind. If Trump tries, he may just draw attention to her. My question to you is, who brings up that issue on a democratic stage?

It is pretty idiotic to make these kind of early judgements. Until & unless Warren beats Sanders' in polls by 5-6% atleast consistently for a period of 6 months, it is too early to get on the Warren bandwagon. I still think Warren will poll under 15% in Iowa & will drop out after NH. She has no path to the nomination. If Sanders falls, the rest of his support will go to a mixture of Biden, Harris & Warren with no candidate gaining significantly. If anything Kamala Harris will will be the undisputed front-runner in the Ultimate 2 person race between Harris & Warren. Warren has no chance.

We're 7 months from Iowa. Warren will not need to lead Sanders for 6 of those months before voters start thinking about getting behind a winning candidate, plain and simple. Diehard Sanders fans? Maybe. But they seem to represent a smaller and smaller share of voters.

It's not idiotic to make judgements like this, as you said yourself electability is a top concern of voters and any analysis we can make is valuable.

I agree it's very plausible that by Super Tuesday this a three way race (Biden/Kamala/either Sanders or Warren) and it gets pretty ugly/complicated. Now, predicting how that pans out does seem idiotic. We shouldn't delude ourselves that either Sanders or Warren has an easy way out of this.

Sanders on the other hand has the most committed supporters & the highest floor & is unlikely to go below a certain threshold. Sanders also has the highest number of grassroots donors, the highest number of volunteers & due to his key constituency of young people with typical low turnout in the polls & independents, he is significantly expected to out-perform polls.

Sanders could have 15% of the primary electorate worshipping him as a god and it still would not win him the nomination. I think the more important statistic here is each candidate's ceiling, not their floor. I can't find the graphic but a poll was done recently where voters were asked which candidates they were considering or had eliminated. Harris and Warren lead with like 82% considering, and nearly half of voters had already eliminated Sanders.

This primary is going to be about cobbling together 35%-40% of voters and outlasting the stragglers with 10-20%, of which I'm sure there'll be between one and three. So every candidate faces an uphill battle and will need to do significant persuasion. This gets me back to my original premise--we have 7 months and I think 6 or 7 debates between now and then. Those are the known inflection points--not that there won't be others, but they're unpredictable by nature.

To make our best guess moving forward, we should look at what we know will be important moments and ask who will succeed there. The data from debate 1 suggests Warren will gain. There's uncertainty in this prediction but it doesn't mean it's useless or based on nothing. And I would like to know how Sanders supporters plan on outshining a polished Warren in debate.

[win win]

The betting market gives Warren 18% chance at nomination, Sanders only 8% chance. These are crowdsourced opinions.

[James Monroe]

Warren is not a great debater & has never been.

This is laughable. Warren was built for the debate format and it's almost impossible to imagine her making the kind of campaign-ending mistakes that Sanders would need to regain the lead.

And it doesn't matter. You have more than 6 months. This is the same crop of people who started the Biden finished rhetoric before be jumped in, the Warren finished rhetoric after the Native American thing.

It's true that the campaign is very fluid at this point. That doesn't change the fact that the major inflection points between now and Iowa will be the debates, which Warren will not slip up in. So the question remains where Sanders is going to regain his momentum.

No1 cares. Polls this early are meaningless unless Sanders tanks into 5-7% odd. Many of the polls are under sampling young voters or are over sampling people who watched the debates. Sanders has the money & field support to drive a much higher turnout than what polls predict. You get to December/January' & if Sanders is still jot within 5-6% from No.1 guy, then there must be something to worry.

Even if polls were underestimating support for Sanders, his 5% drop from May to July would still be significant and real.

IMO, the Sanders camp's unwillingness to look numbers in the face and pivot accordingly (but ... muh Michigan primary) is going to be his downfall and the only question left is whether he spits in the face of his own movement by staying in the race and denying Warren the support she'll need to cinch the nomination. Which would be hilarious in its own way for sure.

The "over sampling people who watched the debates" is especially funny. Do you really think that the debate watchers are taking cues from those who didn't watch? It works the other way around.

I actually agree that if Sanders is within 5-6% of first place in Iowa, people should be worried. It's a testament to his weak position now that even that scenario seems more and more unlikely.

Warren as a debater - What amazing debate did Warren participate in? She runs from the media, was mediocre in the 1st debate & was mediocre in her Senate debates. There is no proof whatsoever that she is a good debater.  Sanders on the other hand went toe to toe with Clinton & Ted Cruz & did as good as them.

Polls - When I mean oversampling, I don't mean intentional but incidental oversampling. That can't be denied with anyone with any shred of intelligence. Sanders is polling substantially ahead of Warren & Harris in the WaPo & Reuters polls (both of whim are reputed polls) while Warren & Harris are ahead in other polls. The polls are fluid depending on who are being polled & the sample size is inadequate to have any definite opinion.

In terms of the polls, you had O'Rourke @ 10-15% first, then Harris, then Buttigieg & then Biden @ 35-40% in some polls. Warren is the new flavour of the quarter which is what is happening. You have 1 candidate rising & polling around 12-15% or higher & they can sustain themselves for 3-4 months @ best. There are only 2 candidates who have consistently polled above 12-15% in most polls - Sanders & Biden. Warren has hit even 5% & there are major elect-ability concerns for her regarding the General Election.

It is pretty idiotic to make these kind of early judgements. Until & unless Warren beats Sanders' in polls by 5-6% atleast consistently for a period of 6 months, it is too early to get on the Warren bandwagon. I still think Warren will poll under 15% in Iowa & will drop out after NH. She has no path to the nomination. If Sanders falls, the rest of his support will go to a mixture of Biden, Harris & Warren with no candidate gaining significantly. If anything Kamala Harris will will be the undisputed front-runner in the Ultimate 2 person race between Harris & Warren. Warren has no chance.

Sanders on the other hand has the most committed supporters & the highest floor & is unlikely to go below a certain threshold. Sanders also has the highest number of grassroots donors, the highest number of volunteers & due to his key constituency of young people with typical low turnout in the polls & independents, he is significantly expected to out-perform polls.

If Sanders couldn’t beat Clinton, what makes you think he can beat Harris?

White men outvoting black women and granting the nomination to Bernie Sanders.

[dunceDude]

If this primary comes down to a binary choice between Harris and Sanders, that's the end of Sanders. Should be a reality litmus test.

[Shadows]

Warren as a debater - What amazing debate did Warren participate in? She runs from the media, was mediocre in the 1st debate & was mediocre in her Senate debates. There is no proof whatsoever that she is a good debater.  Sanders on the other hand went toe to toe with Clinton & Ted Cruz & did as good as them.

I understand you may not have liked her in the first debate, but 538 teamed up with Morning Consult and found a much different result.

I wanted to put an image here from the 538 article "How The Top Candidates’ Supporters Rated The Debaters, In One Chart", put I don't have the required 20 posts. Can anyone post it below?

As you can see if you look up the article, the only group that preferred Sanders to Warren in the debate were people who were already Sanders fans. She has higher, and in some cases much higher, ratings among other demos. People who were Biden supporters before the debate rated Warren's performance a 4.2 versus a 3.6 for Sanders'. That's a huge chunk of voters, IMO the most important detail on this scatterboard.

There were other reasons to think Warren would be strong going in, like her clear comfort talking about policy details and the number of questions she's taken in town halls. You might like Ezra Klein's recent interview with her about this, where she talks about how she keeps the lights on in her venues so she can see what people react to and tweak accordingly.

Polls - When I mean oversampling, I don't mean intentional but incidental oversampling. That can't be denied with anyone with any shred of intelligence. Sanders is polling substantially ahead of Warren & Harris in the WaPo & Reuters polls (both of whim are reputed polls) while Warren & Harris are ahead in other polls. The polls are fluid depending on who are being polled & the sample size is inadequate to have any definite opinion.

So in the most recent WaPo-ABC News poll, we've got Sanders at 23 vs Warren at 11. Reuters has Sanders at 16 vs Warren at 9.

Three things to consider here: 1, cherry picking the polls that make your candidate look best is not good practice. Especially when we have poll aggregators like 538 that weight pollsters by their past accuracy, resorting to your 'trusted pollsters' seems unnecessary. 2, there is no national primary. Iowa will vote first and create powerful narratives. Warren leads Sanders in the three most recent Iowa polls.

3, we don't really disagree that much here. If Sanders can maintain or improve his position by September, everything I've said needs to be re-evaluated. But if he worsens or she gains in the fall, he is at serious risk of entering a spiral where leftist voters see Warren as more viable and settle on her. It's a flip from the mood in the spring when supporting Warren seemed kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. My argument is that not many of the established set-pieces of the campaign between now and then seem to favor Sanders.

In terms of the polls, you had O'Rourke @ 10-15% first, then Harris, then Buttigieg & then Biden @ 35-40% in some polls. Warren is the new flavour of the quarter which is what is happening. You have 1 candidate rising & polling around 12-15% or higher & they can sustain themselves for 3-4 months @ best. There are only 2 candidates who have consistently polled above 12-15% in most polls - Sanders & Biden. Warren has hit even 5% & there are major elect-ability concerns for her regarding the General Election.

It's true that in the 2012 and 2016 GOP primaries, there were a lot of candidates who had a moment and couldn't turn it into something more. There are also counterexamples, like Sanders himself in 2016. We just won't know which Warren is until more time passes. So again, we go back to fundamentals between now and then. Which favor Sanders?

I see the nod to Warren's Native American controversy. By the fall, it will have been a year since she published her DNA tests. Unless someone is willing to bring it up on stage, voters are not going to keep it in mind. If Trump tries, he may just draw attention to her. My question to you is, who brings up that issue on a democratic stage?

It is pretty idiotic to make these kind of early judgements. Until & unless Warren beats Sanders' in polls by 5-6% atleast consistently for a period of 6 months, it is too early to get on the Warren bandwagon. I still think Warren will poll under 15% in Iowa & will drop out after NH. She has no path to the nomination. If Sanders falls, the rest of his support will go to a mixture of Biden, Harris & Warren with no candidate gaining significantly. If anything Kamala Harris will will be the undisputed front-runner in the Ultimate 2 person race between Harris & Warren. Warren has no chance.

We're 7 months from Iowa. Warren will not need to lead Sanders for 6 of those months before voters start thinking about getting behind a winning candidate, plain and simple. Diehard Sanders fans? Maybe. But they seem to represent a smaller and smaller share of voters.

It's not idiotic to make judgements like this, as you said yourself electability is a top concern of voters and any analysis we can make is valuable.

I agree it's very plausible that by Super Tuesday this a three way race (Biden/Kamala/either Sanders or Warren) and it gets pretty ugly/complicated. Now, predicting how that pans out does seem idiotic. We shouldn't delude ourselves that either Sanders or Warren has an easy way out of this.

Sanders on the other hand has the most committed supporters & the highest floor & is unlikely to go below a certain threshold. Sanders also has the highest number of grassroots donors, the highest number of volunteers & due to his key constituency of young people with typical low turnout in the polls & independents, he is significantly expected to out-perform polls.

Sanders could have 15% of the primary electorate worshipping him as a god and it still would not win him the nomination. I think the more important statistic here is each candidate's ceiling, not their floor. I can't find the graphic but a poll was done recently where voters were asked which candidates they were considering or had eliminated. Harris and Warren lead with like 82% considering, and nearly half of voters had already eliminated Sanders.

This primary is going to be about cobbling together 35%-40% of voters and outlasting the stragglers with 10-20%, of which I'm sure there'll be between one and three. So every candidate faces an uphill battle and will need to do significant persuasion. This gets me back to my original premise--we have 7 months and I think 6 or 7 debates between now and then. Those are the known inflection points--not that there won't be others, but they're unpredictable by nature.

To make our best guess moving forward, we should look at what we know will be important moments and ask who will succeed there. The data from debate 1 suggests Warren will gain. There's uncertainty in this prediction but it doesn't mean it's useless or based on nothing. And I would like to know how Sanders supporters plan on outshining a polished Warren in debate.

I think the problem is you are reading too much into gossip & the garbage agencies like 538 which predicted Trump would prove to be an electoral disaster in the GE & that Clinton should encourage him & so on. Also the whole thing about 4.2 vs 3.7 or whatever nonsense about Biden voters is irrelevant & ridiculous because these polls are statistically irrelevant due to the super small sample size, the spin after the debates in the media as well as the fact that as a % a small portion of the Dem electorate watches the debate. Liking & voting are also different aspects.

The problem with Warren not being a good debater is that 1) She is bad with media & runs away. 2) She is bad with catchphrases & 30 second bites. 3) Her political instincts are terrible as shown in the Native American thing. 4) Her past debate experience including her Senate run were very mediocre. As for favorability, Warren has the highest non-favorable rating in her home state for any serious candidate. Most people in Massachusetts don't want her & her unfavorables are one of the worst for a 1st time Presidential contender.

In terms of about building a winning coalition, Warren doesn't have the $ to compete in Texas or California based on current trends. Those will be expensive races & the millions spend on $ along with field staff will move not just hundreds of delegates but also National polling % where states like Texas & California have influence.

Sanders ran a bitter primary vs Clinton & there will be 20-30% of the people who would not vote for him in a primary or even more who would prefer others. That is his disadvantage but he has a base of 15% while Warren's base is 5%. If Warren has 2 bad debates she will get 0 Delegates in Iowa & drop out. There is a huge difference between having 1.5M Small Donors & having 0.5M or so, between having 1M Volunteers & having 0.1M volunteers, between having a 15% floor & a 5% floor, between having a digital army & not having one.

Sanders' needs 1 moment to turn this around. Warren can have 1 bad moment & she will sink. Sanders can play the long haul & he will. We will see in December. Polls this early are rather meaningless.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I think the problem is you are reading too much into gossip & the garbage agencies like 538 which predicted Trump would prove to be an electoral disaster in the GE & that Clinton should encourage him & so on. Also the whole thing about 4.2 vs 3.7 or whatever nonsense about Biden voters is irrelevant & ridiculous because these polls are statistically irrelevant due to the super small sample size, the spin after the debates in the media as well as the fact that as a % a small portion of the Dem electorate watches the debate. Liking & voting are also different aspects.

The problem with Warren not being a good debater is that 1) She is bad with media & runs away. 2) She is bad with catchphrases & 30 second bites. 3) Her political instincts are terrible as shown in the Native American thing. 4) Her past debate experience including her Senate run were very mediocre. As for favorability, Warren has the highest non-favorable rating in her home state for any serious candidate. Most people in Massachusetts don't want her & her unfavorables are one of the worst for a 1st time Presidential contender.

In terms of about building a winning coalition, Warren doesn't have the $ to compete in Texas or California based on current trends. Those will be expensive races & the millions spend on $ along with field staff will move not just hundreds of delegates but also National polling % where states like Texas & California have influence.

Sanders ran a bitter primary vs Clinton & there will be 20-30% of the people who would not vote for him in a primary or even more who would prefer others. That is his disadvantage but he has a base of 15% while Warren's base is 5%. If Warren has 2 bad debates she will get 0 Delegates in Iowa & drop out. There is a huge difference between having 1.5M Small Donors & having 0.5M or so, between having 1M Volunteers & having 0.1M volunteers, between having a 15% floor & a 5% floor, between having a digital army & not having one.

Sanders' needs 1 moment to turn this around. Warren can have 1 bad moment & she will sink. Sanders can play the long haul & he will. We will see in December. Polls this early are rather meaningless.

Elizabeth Warren has you shook.

[James Monroe]

Bernie batting out for working class rapists! Good job pandering to female voters.

[tweeet]https://twitter.com/TheStagmania/status/1148703777081450496[/tweet]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie batting out for working class rapists! Good job pandering to female voters.

[tweeet]https://twitter.com/TheStagmania/status/1148703777081450496[/tweet]

People like you will attack Bernie no matter what he says.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Bernie batting out for working class rapists! Good job pandering to female voters.

https://twitter.com/TheStagmania/status/1148703777081450496

Stop. I don't like him and even I know damn well he didn't mean it like that. Attack him on the issues. Stop making stuff up and intentionally misconstruing words.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Bernie batting out for working class rapists! Good job pandering to female voters.

https://twitter.com/TheStagmania/status/1148703777081450496

What Sanders said here should not be controversial with anyone, he's saying the criminal justice system is rigged against minorities and the poor/working class in favor of the rich. that is objectively true. and as for the assertion that he was defending working class rapists... you literally pulled that idea out of your ass.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Dude, stop! I'm not the biggest Sanders fan either but he didn't say anything wrong here. You're either outright misinterpreting his words, or just looking for something to be bothered by.

[Saint Milei]

Bernie needs to articulate his positions better because americans are stupid.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bernie batting out for working class rapists! Good job pandering to female voters.

[tweeet]https://twitter.com/TheStagmania/status/1148703777081450496[/tweet]

In other words, you see the victims of sex crimes as little more than props with which to attempt to smear Sanders and don't give a flip about victims of systematic racism within the criminal justice system?  Good to know.