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

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Right, so you get paid to work alongside the party rather than grind directly under its banner. Gotcha.

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. Given what happened in 2018, I'm not even convinced her campaign had any role in flipping those voters in 2016. 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.

[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.

[GoTfan]

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.

[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.

[GoTfan]

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.

I also seem to recall 2016 being a presidential election, not a midterm.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You guys are missing the point, Bernie will win Texas and he will win it by a decent margin.

[GoTfan]

You guys are missing the point, Bernie will win Texas and he will win it by a decent margin.

After what's just happened? Doubtful.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You guys are missing the point, Bernie will win Texas and he will win it by a decent margin.

After what's just happened? Doubtful.

He will win Texas, I have no doubts at all. Consider in any given case that 1 million ballots have already been cast on the democratic side. Look, I don't care what happened in South Carolina. Joe Biden has not made any investment in the super tuesday states, no ads, no ground game, I think he has maybe 3 field offices in Texas? ( 1 in California and none in most of the rest of the south). This is illuminated here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/us/politics/joe-biden-california-super-tuesday.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20200227&section=topNews&campaign_id=9&instance_id=16316&segment_id=21668&user_id=b36da9f1ad9241cc8be31bec1caae034&regi_id=91839678tion=topNews

The Warning signs are here, South Carolina be damned I find it hard to believe this massive biden wave is about to arrive.

[GoTfan]

You guys are missing the point, Bernie will win Texas and he will win it by a decent margin.

After what's just happened? Doubtful.

He will win Texas, I have no doubts at all. Consider in any given case that 1 million ballots have already been cast on the democratic side. Look, I don't care what happened in South Carolina. Joe Biden has not made any investment in the super tuesday states, no ads, no ground game, I think he has maybe 3 field offices in Texas? ( 1 in California and none in most of the rest of the south). This is illuminated here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/us/politics/joe-biden-california-super-tuesday.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20200227&section=topNews&campaign_id=9&instance_id=16316&segment_id=21668&user_id=b36da9f1ad9241cc8be31bec1caae034&regi_id=91839678tion=topNews

The Warning signs are here, South Carolina be damned I find it hard to believe this massive biden wave is about to arrive.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You guys are missing the point, Bernie will win Texas and he will win it by a decent margin.

After what's just happened? Doubtful.

He will win Texas, I have no doubts at all. Consider in any given case that 1 million ballots have already been cast on the democratic side. Look, I don't care what happened in South Carolina. Joe Biden has not made any investment in the super tuesday states, no ads, no ground game, I think he has maybe 3 field offices in Texas? ( 1 in California and none in most of the rest of the south). This is illuminated here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/us/politics/joe-biden-california-super-tuesday.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20200227&section=topNews&campaign_id=9&instance_id=16316&segment_id=21668&user_id=b36da9f1ad9241cc8be31bec1caae034&regi_id=91839678tion=topNews

The Warning signs are here, South Carolina be damned I find it hard to believe this massive biden wave is about to arrive.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

It's not hope, it's logic. South Carolina was special circumstances, it will end up being not the norm but rather an outlier.

[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.

[Roblox]

Data for Progress polling was suppose to destroy the malarkey, not post it!

[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.

[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.

[CookieDamage]

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.

[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.

[MT Treasurer]

The "gold standard" Data For Progress also had Biden winning by 9 in SC, with an electorate close to 50% white and less than 40% black.

[tmthforu94]

This goes back to last page, but honestly I'm tired of folks on this forum, most seem to be Sanders supporters, referring to southern states as "Confederate states" when referencing Biden's strength as if to try and belittle the region and put an asterisk behind his strength there. He is strong there because of his strength with African-American voters, who certainly have an opinion about pro-Confederates as well as the racism they have fought for centuries there. It is a microagression and should stop. I'm not seeing anyone else in national media using it when describing this primary.

[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.

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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

I guarantee you Biden will lose if he gets the nomination without getting the most pledged delegates. And I am not talking about myself. I will support Biden even if he gets the nomination in this underhanded way, but a lot of low information voters will not bother voting if they see this sort of chicanery. And if Biden is able to get more delegates than Bernie but it's not a majority, he should still get the nomination.

[NOVA Green]

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.

Although I appreciate your service as a "Senior Dude to a DEM with a Ntl Profile in DC:.... with all due respect doesn't make you an authority...

Was at HUGE Jesse Jackson rally's in Oregon with 15k+ people back in '88 and am not a DEM "Establishment Insider" as you represent yourself to be....

Assuming your story is true, you are either a hack, an individual who is ignorant assigned to a certain political campaign, or someone who really doesn't have a clue (despite your passionate speeches about neighborhoods in LA)....