Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Bernie should be biting his nails. He lost Iowa to a gay mayor who no one had even heard about a year ago. He came shockingly close to losing NH to said Mayor had it not been for Amy Klobuchar who managed to hold Buttiegeg off enough. Let's be real Bernie didn't win NH as much as he should have. Now he has to face off in NV and SC where the enviorment is more friendly to Biden. And if he does make it past, a man named Mike Bloomberg will be waiting for him on Super Tuesday.

Winning is the new losing!

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/PeterHamby/status/1228027781939777537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...


Carville is awesome and being a Centrist Hack > Socialist Hack anyday

[SN2903]

Carville is a hack. Bernie is correct on this one.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Carville is a hack. Bernie is correct on this one.

He admits it but then he slams Bernie as Bernie is a Socialist Hack

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Carville is great and he's actually won Presidential elections.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Socialism is not communism. Good god Bernie is barely a socialist as is considering he doesn’t believe in the government seizing the means of production in any way

[TML]

Carville is great and he's actually won Presidential elections.

He’s a relic of a bygone political era - which means that while his political advice may have worked well 25-30 years ago, they aren’t as effective in today’s political climate.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Carville is the platonic ideal of a political hack.  The problem is there's way too many godawful wannabe political hacks in the world and they give being a hack a bad name.

[BP🌹]

Socialism is not communism. Good god Bernie is barely a socialist as is considering he doesn’t believe in the government seizing the means of production in any way

State control of means of production is state capitalism, not socialism.

[Pyro]

"Well, you know, James Carville is well-known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he's talking about. I intend to stay focused on fighting for the American people because what they don't need is 20 more years of performance art on television." - Barack Obama

[Holmes]

Carville is great and he's actually won Presidential elections.

I mean he was supporting Bennett just the other week.

[kriksB]

Bernie should be biting his nails. He lost Iowa to a gay mayor who no one had even heard about a year ago. He came shockingly close to losing NH to said Mayor had it not been for Amy Klobuchar who managed to hold Buttiegeg off enough. Let's be real Bernie didn't win NH as much as he should have. Now he has to face off in NV and SC where the enviorment is more friendly to Biden. And if he does make it past, a man named Mike Bloomberg will be waiting for him on Super Tuesday.

I don't know if you've noticed but Biden is now doing garbage in national polls, and nobody can pretend like they know what is happening in SC or NV right now because its been unreasonably long since theres been a good poll in either. Yes Bloomberg is doing well, but his ceiling is low, and there's still likely going to be other centrists in the race splitting the vote. His approvals are the worst in the party, and has 0 chance of winning very liberal voters, and will have a rough time making inroads with fairly liberal voters. Bernie's ceiling isn't great, but it's definitely higher than Bloomberg's, and Biden and Warren are now doing awful. I don't see which candidate in the field is able to effectively come out as the challenger to Sanders

[atheist4thecause]

(The West Australian)

Bernie needs to cut down Mayor Pete as soon as possible. Otherwise, 2016 will repeat itself.

Pete and Klobie aren't the current enemies. It's Bloomberg. Basically all of Biden's name-rec voters are shifting to him and that poses a bigger problem than either of those 2 bland Midwestern whiteys who have no black, Latino or Asian support; rich old whites are notorious at rendering themselves irrelevant through vote splitting. If Bernie can keep the "moderate" vote divided enough through Super Tuesday, he is likely in the clear - but to do so, Bloomberg has to be neutralized as much as possible in the ST contests. Unlike in 2016, frontloading the South in this primary actually works in Bernie's favor this time given his radical shift in supporter base - but Bloomberg can't be allowed to buy the election.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but I wanted to address the bold part the most. People don't just become irrelevant because a subcategory that has been created splits. It either means that you need to find a way to win the other half of them, or the subcategory is meaningless, not the voters. The voters will still be meaningful and they will be a part of other demographics. If your subcategories don't tell you anything then it's time to create new ones.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Bernie should be biting his nails. He lost Iowa to a gay mayor who no one had even heard about a year ago. He came shockingly close to losing NH to said Mayor had it not been for Amy Klobuchar who managed to hold Buttiegeg off enough. Let's be real Bernie didn't win NH as much as he should have. Now he has to face off in NV and SC where the enviorment is more friendly to Biden. And if he does make it past, a man named Mike Bloomberg will be waiting for him on Super Tuesday.

Winning is the new losing!

Pete won Iowa and Bernie called himself the winner...

[Adam Griffin]

(The West Australian)

Bernie needs to cut down Mayor Pete as soon as possible. Otherwise, 2016 will repeat itself.

Pete and Klobie aren't the current enemies. It's Bloomberg. Basically all of Biden's name-rec voters are shifting to him and that poses a bigger problem than either of those 2 bland Midwestern whiteys who have no black, Latino or Asian support; rich old whites are notorious at rendering themselves irrelevant through vote splitting. If Bernie can keep the "moderate" vote divided enough through Super Tuesday, he is likely in the clear - but to do so, Bloomberg has to be neutralized as much as possible in the ST contests. Unlike in 2016, frontloading the South in this primary actually works in Bernie's favor this time given his radical shift in supporter base - but Bloomberg can't be allowed to buy the election.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but I wanted to address the bold part the most. People don't just become irrelevant because a subcategory that has been created splits. It either means that you need to find a way to win the other half of them, or the subcategory is meaningless, not the voters. The voters will still be meaningful and they will be a part of other demographics. If your subcategories don't tell you anything then it's time to create new ones.

That's all nice and good, but it's not reality. In Democratic primaries, white people increasingly don't have a cohesive social or cultural identity that stacks in terms of vote surpluses/margins; the equivalent of GE Catholics, more or less. The last time this happened was 2008 with Hillary Clinton, where she won 56% of white Democratic voters. The only way that white Democrats cohesively vote is based on income: poor whites tend to stick together, whereas rich whites tend to fracture in situations resembling the current dynamic. If this boils down to a 2-person race between Sanders and either Biden or Bloomberg, however, don't worry: rich whites will all coalesce behind the latter.

[atheist4thecause]

(The West Australian)

Bernie needs to cut down Mayor Pete as soon as possible. Otherwise, 2016 will repeat itself.

Pete and Klobie aren't the current enemies. It's Bloomberg. Basically all of Biden's name-rec voters are shifting to him and that poses a bigger problem than either of those 2 bland Midwestern whiteys who have no black, Latino or Asian support; rich old whites are notorious at rendering themselves irrelevant through vote splitting. If Bernie can keep the "moderate" vote divided enough through Super Tuesday, he is likely in the clear - but to do so, Bloomberg has to be neutralized as much as possible in the ST contests. Unlike in 2016, frontloading the South in this primary actually works in Bernie's favor this time given his radical shift in supporter base - but Bloomberg can't be allowed to buy the election.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but I wanted to address the bold part the most. People don't just become irrelevant because a subcategory that has been created splits. It either means that you need to find a way to win the other half of them, or the subcategory is meaningless, not the voters. The voters will still be meaningful and they will be a part of other demographics. If your subcategories don't tell you anything then it's time to create new ones.

That's all nice and good, but it's not reality. In Democratic primaries, white people increasingly don't have a cohesive social or cultural identity that stacks in terms of vote surpluses/margins; the equivalent of GE Catholics, more or less. The last time this happened was 2008 with Hillary Clinton, where she won 56% of white Democratic voters. The only way that white Democrats cohesively vote is based on income: poor whites tend to stick together, whereas rich whites tend to fracture in situations resembling the current dynamic. If this boils down to a 2-person race between Sanders and either Biden or Bloomberg, however, don't worry: rich whites will all coalesce behind the latter.

You've been brainwashed into thinking about groups. Think about voters. They all matter. What isn't relevant are the groups you are putting people into (at least some of them). So create different ways to group people. I totally agree that White people generally don't have racial identity, and in the USA, they really never did. So why put White people into a White group? Find other ways to group them. Their votes are the majority, but your method of analyzing them is telling you that their votes don't matter. This is obviously flawed.

[Adam Griffin]

(The West Australian)

Bernie needs to cut down Mayor Pete as soon as possible. Otherwise, 2016 will repeat itself.

Pete and Klobie aren't the current enemies. It's Bloomberg. Basically all of Biden's name-rec voters are shifting to him and that poses a bigger problem than either of those 2 bland Midwestern whiteys who have no black, Latino or Asian support; rich old whites are notorious at rendering themselves irrelevant through vote splitting. If Bernie can keep the "moderate" vote divided enough through Super Tuesday, he is likely in the clear - but to do so, Bloomberg has to be neutralized as much as possible in the ST contests. Unlike in 2016, frontloading the South in this primary actually works in Bernie's favor this time given his radical shift in supporter base - but Bloomberg can't be allowed to buy the election.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but I wanted to address the bold part the most. People don't just become irrelevant because a subcategory that has been created splits. It either means that you need to find a way to win the other half of them, or the subcategory is meaningless, not the voters. The voters will still be meaningful and they will be a part of other demographics. If your subcategories don't tell you anything then it's time to create new ones.

That's all nice and good, but it's not reality. In Democratic primaries, white people increasingly don't have a cohesive social or cultural identity that stacks in terms of vote surpluses/margins; the equivalent of GE Catholics, more or less. The last time this happened was 2008 with Hillary Clinton, where she won 56% of white Democratic voters. The only way that white Democrats cohesively vote is based on income: poor whites tend to stick together, whereas rich whites tend to fracture in situations resembling the current dynamic. If this boils down to a 2-person race between Sanders and either Biden or Bloomberg, however, don't worry: rich whites will all coalesce behind the latter.

You've been brainwashed into thinking about groups. Think about voters. They all matter. What isn't relevant are the groups you are putting people into (at least some of them). So create different ways to group people. I totally agree that White people generally don't have racial identity, and in the USA, they really never did. So why put White people into a White group? Find other ways to group them. Their votes are the majority, but your method of analyzing them is telling you that their votes don't matter. This is obviously flawed.

Uh, you can group any type of voter in any number of ways (including whites): I'm not saying whites don't have plenty of sub-groups into which they fall. Of course they do! And more so than most! That's the reason why whites have such little net effect or bloc voting tendency in primaries in the first place.

But even those sub-groups have very concrete voting tendencies and it's rare for any demographic or sub-group to shift immensely (and those groups that do almost always comprise tiny percentages of population, and there are often other groups that shift opposite to them and cancel out such effects in net terms).

At the end of the day, all of the sub-groups within the "white" category pull and tug on one another in an election relative to the last one, but - especially in general elections - it doesn't produce huge differences (i.e. more than a few points). You can save your "white grievance" politics for somebody with less intellect.

[Adam Griffin]

Impact on primaries isn't measured by the % of electorate in reality: it's measured by net effect. If a primary is 97% white and those voters literally break 50/50, while the remaining 3% vote for 60/40 for another candidate, then the result is 51.8-48.2, with the non-white voters literally making all of the difference/impact/deciding the outcome. This is an exaggerated example, of course, but the effect that white voters in Democratic primaries have - relative to their size in particular - is minimal post-2008.

Non-white voters have cohesive racial identities that manifest in voting, even in primaries. Whites do not (in primaries), and only marginally so in general elections (but sheer size amplifies this, of course).

[atheist4thecause]

(The West Australian)

Bernie needs to cut down Mayor Pete as soon as possible. Otherwise, 2016 will repeat itself.

Pete and Klobie aren't the current enemies. It's Bloomberg. Basically all of Biden's name-rec voters are shifting to him and that poses a bigger problem than either of those 2 bland Midwestern whiteys who have no black, Latino or Asian support; rich old whites are notorious at rendering themselves irrelevant through vote splitting. If Bernie can keep the "moderate" vote divided enough through Super Tuesday, he is likely in the clear - but to do so, Bloomberg has to be neutralized as much as possible in the ST contests. Unlike in 2016, frontloading the South in this primary actually works in Bernie's favor this time given his radical shift in supporter base - but Bloomberg can't be allowed to buy the election.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but I wanted to address the bold part the most. People don't just become irrelevant because a subcategory that has been created splits. It either means that you need to find a way to win the other half of them, or the subcategory is meaningless, not the voters. The voters will still be meaningful and they will be a part of other demographics. If your subcategories don't tell you anything then it's time to create new ones.

That's all nice and good, but it's not reality. In Democratic primaries, white people increasingly don't have a cohesive social or cultural identity that stacks in terms of vote surpluses/margins; the equivalent of GE Catholics, more or less. The last time this happened was 2008 with Hillary Clinton, where she won 56% of white Democratic voters. The only way that white Democrats cohesively vote is based on income: poor whites tend to stick together, whereas rich whites tend to fracture in situations resembling the current dynamic. If this boils down to a 2-person race between Sanders and either Biden or Bloomberg, however, don't worry: rich whites will all coalesce behind the latter.

You've been brainwashed into thinking about groups. Think about voters. They all matter. What isn't relevant are the groups you are putting people into (at least some of them). So create different ways to group people. I totally agree that White people generally don't have racial identity, and in the USA, they really never did. So why put White people into a White group? Find other ways to group them. Their votes are the majority, but your method of analyzing them is telling you that their votes don't matter. This is obviously flawed.

Uh, you can group any type of voter in any number of ways (including whites): I'm not saying whites don't have plenty of sub-groups into which they fall. Of course they do! And more so than most! That's the reason why whites have such little net effect or bloc voting tendency in primaries in the first place.

But even those sub-groups have very concrete voting tendencies and it's rare for any demographic or sub-group to shift immensely (and those groups that do almost always comprise tiny percentages of population, and there are often other groups that shift opposite to them and cancel out such effects in net terms).

At the end of the day, all of the sub-groups within the "white" category pull and tug on one another in an election relative to the last one, but - especially in general elections - it doesn't produce huge differences (i.e. more than a few points). You can save your "white grievance" politics for somebody with less intellect.

1) I didn't mention anything about White grievance politics.
2) You still aren't getting it. You are still saying that White voters have little effect on elections when they are the majority. This is untrue. The White CATEGORY is not very useful for identifying how White voters will vote, but when you extend that to saying that White voters don't have an impact on the elections that's when you are wrong.
3) Your pretentiousness in declaring yourself an intellect is nauseating. It seems as you became self-conscious in your weak response as to try and reinforce your point by declaring yourself smart. Nobody here is fooled.

[YE]

^ I think Adam is saying rich whites are rendering themselves irrelevant in this primary because their votes are being split between non-Bernie candidates. Not that that white voters in general don’t matter.

[atheist4thecause]

^ I think Adam is saying rich whites are rendering themselves irrelevant in this primary because their votes are being split between non-Bernie candidates. Not that that white voters in general don’t matter.

And my point is that's a faulty way to look at it. They are still just as relevant, it's just that the categorization of counting them as "rich Whites" or "Whites in general" isn't useful.

[Adam Griffin]

^ I think Adam is saying rich whites are rendering themselves irrelevant in this primary because their votes are being split between non-Bernie candidates. Not that that white voters in general don’t matter.

And my point is that's a faulty way to look at it. They are still just as relevant, it's just that the categorization of counting them as "rich Whites" or "Whites in general" isn't useful.

I mentioned "white grievance" because you're getting bent out of shape over a set of descriptors that are plenty accurate, but that you simply don't appreciate. Nobody wants to spend copious amounts of time analyzing how white union households who make between $57-73k per year are voting versus Midwestern single white moms with 4 children who have more than 7 freckles are voting and the impacts each group has on one another. It's simply not necessary when a broader and simpler category can adequately sum up the net contribution to one or more candidates.

If 100 people all vote, but they split 5 ways evenly, then their net contribution toward margins is 0; from a mathematical standpoint, it's the same as if they didn't vote. The only effect (and it's not negligible, of course - especially in the case of white voters nationally) such a situation can have in a Democratic primary is elevating one or more candidates above the 15% threshold when they otherwise might not reach it, but that's usually a moot point in a genuine 2-person or 3-person race. They can also make it more difficult for other, smaller (in this case, non-white) groups to have influence that leads to a "landslide" narrative or what have you, but a win is still a win.

Again, I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this. The last time whites as a whole actually drove a meaningful impact on Democratic presidential primaries was 2008, and even then, black voters had a slightly larger impact, resulting in the nomination of Barack Obama. What percentage of rich whites specifically do you think are actually voting for Sanders presently, and what share of the electorate overall do you think they comprise? It wouldn't surprise me if 80-90% are behind other candidates, yet if they were all supporting one, Sanders wouldn't likely have a path given other constituencies' support levels. They're not, and so their influence is completely marginalized at this point.

[Adam Griffin]

The Sandman barnstorming the South!

[GeneralMacArthur]

Tom Steyer here with the first legitimate anti-Sanders ad of the cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Poe11xuJ4&feature=emb_logo

[atheist4thecause]

^ I think Adam is saying rich whites are rendering themselves irrelevant in this primary because their votes are being split between non-Bernie candidates. Not that that white voters in general don’t matter.

And my point is that's a faulty way to look at it. They are still just as relevant, it's just that the categorization of counting them as "rich Whites" or "Whites in general" isn't useful.

I mentioned "white grievance" because you're getting bent out of shape over a set of descriptors that are plenty accurate, but that you simply don't appreciate. Nobody wants to spend copious amounts of time analyzing how white union households who make between $57-73k per year are voting versus Midwestern single white moms with 4 children who have more than 7 freckles are voting and the impacts each group has on one another. It's simply not necessary when a broader and simpler category can adequately sum up the net contribution to one or more candidates.

If 100 people all vote, but they split 5 ways evenly, then their net contribution toward margins is 0; from a mathematical standpoint, it's the same as if they didn't vote. The only effect (and it's not negligible, of course - especially in the case of white voters nationally) such a situation can have in a Democratic primary is elevating one or more candidates above the 15% threshold when they otherwise might not reach it, but that's usually a moot point in a genuine 2-person or 3-person race. They can also make it more difficult for other, smaller (in this case, non-white) groups to have influence that leads to a "landslide" narrative or what have you, but a win is still a win.

Again, I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this. The last time whites as a whole actually drove a meaningful impact on Democratic presidential primaries was 2008, and even then, black voters had a slightly larger impact, resulting in the nomination of Barack Obama. What percentage of rich whites specifically do you think are actually voting for Sanders presently, and what share of the electorate overall do you think they comprise? It wouldn't surprise me if 80-90% are behind other candidates, yet if they were all supporting one, Sanders wouldn't likely have a path given other constituencies' support levels. They're not, and so their influence is completely marginalized at this point.

Allow me to come at this from a different angle. Lets say you were trying to analyze how voters would vote so you categorized the voters by race and looked at specifically Asian voters. If it came up advantage nobody, then it's not a meaningful statistic, right? So then it makes more sense to look at that group of voters a different way. It wouldn't make sense to say those voters don't matter, it makes sense to figure how how to categorize them in ways that do matter, because the voters don't change, only our categories do. It doesn't matter if we're talking about White, Asian, Black, Brown, Native American, etc.