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

[Badger]

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.

Don't the circumstances matter somewhat? I mean, if Bernie comes into the convention with safe 48% of pledged delegates to Biden having less than 40, yeah, they're besom really good reasons to be pissed if he's denied the nomination. But if say the numbers are more like 45 to 42%, that really doesn't justify Sanders getting anything necessarily. He came up short in the 50% + 1 math, and the majority of delegates decided he was too much of an electoral Loose Cannon. Shirley eking out a narrow plurality wouldn't warrant flipping the table over?

But I think we better get back to the point. Even if Bernie comes in plurality, but the other Democrats lineup against him and deny the nomination, you know what the fight is then? To go back and change some of these idiotic Rules. Start with getting rid of caucuses for Christ's sake.

I have less than zero respect, and reserved contempt, for those who would rather see his country burn down with another 4 years of trump, and having god-knows-what effect on my business or my family, before they deign to vote for the septuagenarian who is merely almost Trump polar-opposite in policy instead of the septuagenarian who is entirely so.

[GoTfan]

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.

Don't the circumstances matter somewhat? I mean, if Bernie comes into the convention with safe 48% of pledged delegates to Biden having less than 40, yeah, they're besom really good reasons to be pissed if he's denied the nomination. But if say the numbers are more like 45 to 42%, that really doesn't justify Sanders getting anything necessarily. He came up short in the 50% + 1 math, and the majority of delegates decided he was too much of an electoral Loose Cannon. Shirley eking out a narrow plurality wouldn't warrant flipping the table over?

But I think we better get back to the point. Even if Bernie comes in plurality, but the other Democrats lineup against him and deny the nomination, you know what the fight is then? To go back and change some of these idiotic Rules. Start with getting rid of caucuses for Christ's sake.

I have less than zero respect, and reserved contempt, for those who would rather see his country burn down with another 4 years of trump, and having god-knows-what effect on my business or my family, before they deign to vote for the septuagenarian who is merely almost Trump polar-opposite in policy instead of the septuagenarian who is entirely so.

They won't vote for Trump. They'll just vote third party or not vote at all.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

This aged poorly

I mean they released new polls that had Biden up in NC and TX before voting started