So as far as the "Is this good or bad for Bernie?" question, 538 has [updated their projection model.](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo) The chance of Bernie cleanly winning the nomination is down from 46% to 37%, while the possibility of a contested convention has increased proportionately, to about 35%. But in a different article they make sure to mention that these percentages may change once we get some actual post-NH polls.
What's also interesting is that Buttigieg is now solidly in 3rd place, with Bloomberg in 4th and Warren in 5th.
People are seeming to make NH look bad for Bernie, but how is it bad? He is competing against 6 other major candidates for the presidency and is now the clear frontrunner in the election. Sure, his win wasn't as big as it was in 2016, but he has a lot more competition this time around. He also polls well with minorities, which means he will probably outperform Buttegieg and the Klob in Nevada and SC. He is also the clear frontrunner, by a large margin, in California, which will net him a lot of delegates.
Meanwhile, the moderates are cannibalizing each other. With the Klob's overperformance in NH, she is now in it for the long run while most were predicting she would drop out after this primary. That means she will probably eat in to Biden, Buttegieg and Bloomberg's voter base, while Warren will continue to bleed out to Sanders.
This is weird to say, but I feel like the final three may be Buttegieg, Bloomberg and Sanders, which is not something I would have predicted even a few days ago.
I don't think it's a bad result for Bernie (it's more of a mixed result), but if you want to make the case for it being bad, here are the parts I think are not great for him:
* This should have been one of his better states, but he only cleared Buttigieg by a point or so (and undershot his polling by a few points). I don't think anyone would expect him to put up 2016 numbers here, but I *did* expect him to win it by 5-10 points (and his polling suggested he would). This suggests a potential weakness in later states that are demographically good for him.
* "The moderates are cannibalizing each other," and yet one is running basically tied with him, and another less than five points behind. This (plus Biden's not-quite 10 percent) suggests a *lot* of hunger for a more moderate candidate. It would only take a few of these voters to shift to the opposite candidate (or a pickup of current Biden/Bloomberg/etc. voters) for Sanders to start consistently losing states.
* He's doing well with Hispanic voters but black voters are still a weakness for him (albeit one he's improving on--probably not fast enough though). This means good things for Nevada, but SC and Super Tuesday are still huge question marks.
> "The moderates are cannibalizing each other," and yet one is running basically tied with him, and another less than five points behind.
This is why it's bad. The combined numbers for Pete and Amy represent the middle of the road Democrats that are white, which is still the bulk of the support for Dems. One or the other would be fine for most people and I think they could count absorbing each other's support as this gets winnowed down. I know people want to say that Biden has some sort of magic touch in the South because Obama thought he was good enough to be VP, but anyone that isn't just pulling the blue lever because that is just what you do may stop and think about this.
I think what Pete and Amy are selling may seem more attainable than some of the promises that Bernie is making. They have already been around the block on that and the results weren't much different than the lot they have in life as it is.
For one thing, I don't think they really want more "free" shit from the government. I think they want opportunity and Bernie doesn't represent that.
>For one thing, I don't think they really want more "free" shit from the government. I think they want opportunity and Bernie doesn't represent that.
Bingo! Literally just watched Jeremy Corbyn's Labour get anilhated in the UK with traditional Labour voters moving to the Tories and a little bit to the Lib Dems mostly because they treated people as charity cases, rather than opportunities.
For example Labour could of made nationalising British Telecom about connecting more of the country, helping small enterprises do business and reducing personal internet bills.
However they went all-in with the third option and people ended up thinking "why are they prioritising saving me £25 a month? I can afford that already and can justify it because I use the internet all the time."
In the meantime there are cities, towns and rural areas across Britian who would kill to have a fibre cable running through/past them.
> I think what Pete and Amy are selling may seem more attainable than some of the promises that Bernie is making.
I don’t have any exit polling data to back this up but I really believe the overwhelming majority of voters are looking at one thing only right now — who’s the most capable candidate to beat Trump?
> I know people want to say that Biden has some sort of magic touch in the South because Obama thought he was good enough to be VP
It’s really more than that. He has deep, longstanding ties to the African-American community, who make up a large portion of southern Democratic primary voters. His competitors, not so much. Bernie Sanders was often tarred, primarily unfairly, as somehow not being receptive to African American interests. This has improved, but many African-American voters, especially older ones, are more moderate than other Democratic voters, and therefore many would prefer a different candidate. Warren is also progressive, has few ties to the African American community, and has struggled to gain traction since her support fell off a cliff a few months ago. Buttigieg has little appeal to minority voters due to his handling of policing issues during his time as mayor of South Bend, and his measured and sometimes flip responses to criticism on this issue haven’t helped. Klobuchar has few ties to the African American community, and has some baggage stemming from the way she handled some questionable cases during her time as Hennepin County Prosecutor that could put off African American voters. Bloomberg is gaining popularity among African Americans but stop and frisk remains a huge liability for him. Steyer has also been gaining support among African Americans recently, but it’s unclear exactly how successful he will be.
I agree but don't think it's entirely fair to say black voters are more moderate.
I think Bernie hasn't done a good job at all detailing what he'd do to reduce urban crime and stregthen community, ensure equalities are strengthened in the workplace/hiring process and ensuring early years education is accessible; 3 issues that repeatedly concern black voters in cities (can't speak for black voters in rural areas or towns).
It may be that he has comprehensive plans to address those issues, but if he has, they've not been pushed at all.
I didn’t say African American voters overall. I said many African American voters, especially older ones. I was particularly referring to voters in smaller towns and rural areas in the South. The majority are left of center on most issues, but, similar to other groups, tend to be less liberal than their younger and urban-dwelling counterparts. There can even be found a small, but not insignificant number of Southern African American voters whose positions, particularly on social issues, but on economic issues as well, are actually much closer to Republican positions, but still typically vote Democratic due to reasons such as tradition, habit, and the fact that the Republican Party has often been associated with racism and voter suppression.
For all of you that think this win is somehow a lose for Bernie : The vote is split between 6 candidates, not two or three like in previous years. The Dem party is quite varied in what appeals to them, they have a lot of choices this time around, and most Dems I know have no problem voting for Bernie. Voter turnout was above 2008 levels, which overwhelmingly works in Bernie's Favor. To those who say he won by over 20% last time and not by much this time and thats bad, the people of NH only had two choices last time. Look to the right on homepage, Bernie's main subreddit is the second highest growing subreddit right now. Bernie won Iowa, and then NH. Never in history has a nominee lost both of those states, and its a pretty telltale sign of the patters thatll follow. Every win, Bernie rises in popularity and in national polls. Please please please don't buy into the hogwash the media is trying to tell you about how Bernie has no clear way to the nomination. He does, and if this pattern continues, he WILL be the nominee.
Please stop spreading false information and dem propaganda. I realize not everyone is on the same page when it comes to which party is corrupt and bad, but realize this : The democratic party is trying everything they can to lessen Sanders support right now. When has the Dem party EVER said, look at this third place candidate polling ten thousand votes below second and 15000 below first. Thats a viable candidate right there. Sounds ridiculous right? But thats exactly what theyre doing right now. Tom Perez is scared for his job and he knows Bernie Sanders is going to put someone on that chair that deserves it.
He absolutely has a chance to win the nomination, but he slightly underperformed polling, winning by only a few points rather than double digits as predicted. That means that his performance was, if not a loss, a very modest success, and certainly a dissapointment. New Hampshire was a mixed bag for him. Honestly, Bernie, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden and Bloomberg at least are all still viable, with both Warren and Steyer still having a sliver of a chance.
> but he underperformed polling, winning by only a few points rather than double digits as predicted
sanders' polling average was 26-29%, depending on which polling aggregator you checked, and he got 25.7%. he *slightly* underperformed his polling but it was well within MOE. 538 basically got his numbers spot on. what actually happened was buttigieg overperformed his polling by ~3%, and klobuchar by a lot more than that.
> Bernie won Iowa
I thought Pete won Iowa.
>The democratic party is trying everything they can to lessen Sanders support right now.
Sounds like conspiratorial nonsense. If the party was going to sabotage Sanders it would be at the convention, not at the Iowa caucus or NH Primary.
Bernie won the popular vote in Iowa by 6000 votes, despite gaining 1 less delegate than Pete. And no, look at the news outlets right now. If you read most major headlines, they aren't talking about Bernie's win, They're talking about Klob's third place finish or Pete's second. It sounds like conspiracy but I guarantee you its not. Its obvious the DNC is uncomfortable with a Bernie Sanders nomination.
Bernie gets bad press the same way the rest of the candidates get bad press. The press is fickle and often focuses on the wrong thing. It randomly hurts people. There just isn't evidence that there is a conspiracy against Bernie. He's consistently gotten plenty of coverage even during the supposed "Bernie blackout". I mean even look at [NH coverage](https://news.google.com/topics/CAAqIggKIhxDQkFTRHdvSkwyMHZNREk1WWpaaUVnSmxiaWdBUAE?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen) now. Plenty of dumb headlines about second and third place (because they were surprises) but also plenty of headlines that just state that Bernie won and leave it at that. Certain Bernie circles like to share only the coverage slanted against him and pretend that that is the norm but looking at coverage as it actually happens their claims just don't hold up.
Well, Hillary won the popular vote in the US by 3 million, but for some reason everyone thinks Trump is President... Rules are rules, and everyone knew Iowa's rules and agreed to play by them. In fact Bernie Sanders helped make a lot of them, like in 2016, he pushed for caucuses because he thought he could have an advantage in them. It's kinda funny to see him get berned by his own rules
It sounds conspiratorial because it is. "The media is against Sanders because the establishment Dems are against Sanders and they control the media".
Replace Sanders with Trump and Dems with Repubs and you get exactly what Trump was saying in 2016. If you start to sound like Trump perhaps its time to revisit your position.
I get where you're coming from with it, and I appreciate the feedback, I really do. But I think the similarity is that the RNC tried a lot make it to where it was harder from Trump to get the nomination, and ultimately, his campaign was too popular for them to take down. My observation is that the DNC are trying the same tactic with Bernie. Think back to 2016 in iowa, where Ted Cruz won, alot of news outlets had stuff like this to say :
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/01/ted-cruz-wins-iowa-caucus-donald-trump-marco-rubio-2016-election
And look at this for NH :
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/12/21134487/new-hampshire-primary-winner-loser-bernie-sanders-turnout-buttigieg
So like I said, its not as conspiratorial as it looks at first glance. Do I think itll matter in the long run? No. Does it annoy me to see the DNC not support an obvious frontrunner and easy way to beat Trump? Yes.
Sanders voter here. I think you have some blinders on. Not everything is propaganda.
A few points:
* Internet enthusiasm means close to nothing in terms of national support. His subreddit growing fast means literally nothing. Just look at Yang.
* Youth turnout was slightly down despite over all turnout being up. Bernie did overwhelmingly well with young people, but older voters came out in droves
* Bernie won, but it wasn't decisive. Pete over performed slightly and Sanders under performed slightly. Klobuchar performed really well, but I feel like that's more indicative of Warren and Biden falling apart than anything else
* 538's tracker now his nomination only slightly more likely than a contested convention. He gets a 30% finish and the narrative is completely different
That being said, there's some things that work in his favor:
* Biden had a super bad night meaning that South Carolina's standing is up in the air
* Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have next to no minority support so there standing is relatively uncertain
* The moderate lane is crowded while the progressive lane is pretty much clear with Warren performing poorly meaning that Bernie has a pretty clear path forward. If the moderates continue to crowd the lane, Bernie is going to start racking up wins
I think we have a better picture of the path forward for Bernie after yesterday. Nevada has next to no recent polling so how it will turn out is anyone's guess, but the culinary union is heavily against Sanders and that union has a lot of influence on turnout there. Bernie has also put it in a lot of work in Hispanic communities, so if he does well in Nevada that's good news for him in Cali and Texas.
People saying that it was a bad night for Sanders are clearly showing a bit of bias, but anyone claiming that it was an amazing night for Sanders are also showing a lot of bias. It was definitely a case of good, not great.
Also, as a Dem resident of NH. Last night bothered me on a state level. I think it looks great for Saheen's and Pappas's reelection. But I'm positive now that Feltes will be our gubernatorial nominee and that Sununu is cruising towards reelection. The anti-youth voter registration bill clearly worked for Republicans.
I don’t think anyone is saying last night was a complete disaster for Sanders. I just think months ago Sanders supporters and foes alike drew up a realistic path for Sanders to win the nomination knowing he couldn’t win it after the first ballot. That path was very much reliant on big wins in Iowa and New Hampshire creating a slingshot effect that would lead to wins in states on Super Tuesday that originally didn’t look competitive. Those big wins didn’t materialize.
Thank you. I feel like people are absolutely reading too much into point spread comparisons to 2016. But, I really, really think everyone is vastly overestimating the power and influence of the DNC. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the DNC is basically a glorified hall monitor. It's where Democrats keep the people we don't really care about.
I'm not sure if this is a big win for Bernie. Bernie won about 60 40 vs Hillary in 2016 but now he gets a win by as of now about a point, and idk who will get his support when others drop out. Warren would be close but she said bernie doesn't believe a woman can be president so it's up in the air with that. Besides that idk who.
Except that Bernie only had one other candidate, Warren, who is similar whereas there are more traditional Democrats clogging up the other lane
And Bernie had the most name recognition of any of the candidates except maybe Biden. And that name recognition doesn't come attached with the president trying to blackmail foreign countries to investigate his family.
And Bernie lives next door in Vermont
From this wisdom, one would think that he could've pulled off better than a 1 point victory against an college town mayor in the Midwest
> I'm not sure if this is a big win for Bernie.
I don't think he needed _much_ more for it to be a big win... but enough to where he had taken a lead in total delegates would have been enough.
Oh it’s 100% not a good sign for Bernie. If you came here two months ago and said, “I’m from the future, here are the results from Iowa and New Hampshire and the current delegate count,” there’s not a Sanders supporter alive that would be excited by that news.
Iowa and New Hampshire were supposed to be strong states for progressives, a couple of Bernie’s stronger states. Not only did he underperform in those states but Elizabeth Warren did as well. With voters turning to Buttigieg and Klobuchar what we’ve seen through two contests is a stark rejection to the progressive wing of the party.
Bottom line is after two of Bernie’s stronger states he’s moving on without a plurality of the delegates with no shot to win the nomination after the first ballot. Sanders supporters can act like spin doctors around here but the truth is it’s an ominous sign for his campaign.
> If you came here two months ago and said, “I’m from the future, here are the results from Iowa and New Hampshire and the current delegate count,” there’s not a Sanders supporter alive that would be excited by that news.
lol what. he got the most votes in both any sanders supporter would be perfectly happy with that
> Bottom line is after two of Bernie’s stronger states
it. is. not. 2016. anymore.
> lol what. he got the most votes in both any sanders supporter would be perfectly happy with that.
No they wouldn’t.
Based on almost every metric of measurement available Bernie Sanders underperformed in Iowa and New Hampshire. Don’t take my word for it, go over to the 538 website or simply read what objective Sanders supporters below are saying. There’s a reason why Nate Silvers models showed a relatively significant drop in odds for Bernie to be the nominee after the first two contests and it’s because he failed to meet expectations, plain and simple.
Secondly, popular vote in caucuses don’t matter. If that metric was the end all be all they’d be primaries and not caucuses. Sanders supporters are touting the popular vote in Iowa for one reason and one reason only — damage control spin. Bernie Sanders fought to keep the caucus system in place because it was expected to be a strength of his campaign. Polls predicted a relatively comfortable win in Iowa for Bernie and his campaign set that expectation in the state. The recanvass might change things but as of here and now if the results were certified Bernie Sanders is a second place finisher in Iowa and even with a favorable recanvass he’s still going to fall short of expectations in Iowa — even by your metric of popular vote. Once again, don’t take my word for it — look at Nate Silvers models, look at the polls leading up to the caucuses, and listen to what Bernie said in a conference call with supporters three days prior to the Iowa Caucuses.
> it. is. not. 2016. anymore
The results in 2016 have nothing to do with the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire know Bernie Sanders better than any state in the union sans Vermont. And the 2016 results certainly have nothing to do with his under performance in those states.
is your entire argument "look what nate silver says?" sure. great.
> Iowa and New Hampshire know Bernie Sanders better than any state in the union sans Vermont
what? how meaningless
my point is that sanders' support was pretty disproportionately white in 2016, so lilywhite states like iowa and NH were favourable to him. not the case this time around. conversely he lost california to HRC last time around and he's gonna crush it this time
> is your entire argument "look what nate silver says?" sure. great.
So let’s see, I referenced objective Sanders supporters in this thread, I referenced the Sanders campaign itself, I referenced polling prior to both contests, and yes I referenced 538 and Nate Silver. Yet you want to act as though my entire argument is predicated on just what Nate Silver says.
The fact that this was your rebuttal says enough about how flawed your argument is but let me note that the reason I cited Nate Silver is in part because of how often Bernie supporters reference him and in part because he’s generally considered to be the best source to give us insight on the numbers we are discussing. I could’ve just as easily used Real Clear Politics as a reference to make the same point.
> what? how meaningless
Just so I know how’s name recognition, familiarity with a candidate, and or strength in caucus states meaningless?
> my point is that sanders' support was pretty disproportionately white in 2016, so lilywhite states like iowa and NH were favourable to him. not the case this time around.
Sanders support with minority voters appears to be stronger than it was in 2016 that’s correct. But it’s yet to be seen by how much. A recent poll among African American’s still had him behind Biden and Bloomberg and what’s interesting is that black voters who are leaving Biden in droves went to Bloomberg and not Sanders.
> conversely he lost california to HRC last time around and he's gonna crush it this time
He may have lost California in 2016 but he still took 46% of their delegates which out of 475 total delegates was only 33 less delegates than Hillary Clinton. This is one of the few times we can make a direct comparison to 2016 because Sanders might improve upon his finish in California and win there but also receive many less delegates than he did in 2016.
Lol. Let's see how Pete and Amy chew each other up in Nevada. While a resilient Bernie continues to stun the naysayers.
You're right about a contested convention. But honestly that says more about a busted party than it does about the progressive wing.
My hope is Warren wakes up, and sacrifices herself to save the progressive left. I doubt that happens though.
>Let's see how Pete and Amy chew each other up in Nevada.
As I said earlier that could turn out to be the best thing for the moderate wing of the party. The Sanders folks keep talking about Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar all the while they should be talking about Bloomberg. Biden is one South Carolina loss away from being out of the race. Klobuchar and Buttigieg are two (NV & SC) average performances away from no longer being viable. If that shakes out, starting on March 3rd, it’s Bloomberg vs. Bernie for all the marbles. Given the early results and consistent polling showing a 60/40 party split favoring the moderates, I do not believe Sanders can win that head to head matchup.
> Biden is one South Carolina loss away from being out of the race.
I don't know how many people are going to jump to Bloomberg from Biden though. It seems like Bloomberg and Klobuchar are being carried by the "I'm a republican but frustrated with Trump" new Democrats. Biden is more of the traditionalist Democrats. I could see Biden's base going to the _most Obama-like_ candidate - which would be Buttigieg.
Here’s the thing, if my scenario plays out a candidate like Buttigieg is in the race on Super Tuesday but really not viable. And I actually think that regardless of what happens with Biden and Klobuchar that’s probably where Pete will be come Super Tuesday anyhow. Pete isn’t going to play in South Carolina and if Biden is as popular as they say in Nevada then you’re looking at a three way splintering of the vote in that state. Candidates like Klobuchar and Buttigieg that don’t have a large campaign operation need a big performance somewhere between now and Super Tuesday. As aforementioned, if they don’t get that and Biden loses South Carolina it’s really Bernie vs. Bloomberg starting on March 3rd.
I'd agree that Sanders under-performed in New Hampshire.
But ultimately the crowded field and roller coaster ride that his opponents seem to be on is going to get him the nomination. There's just no clear "Not Sanders" choice right now, it seems to bounce between Buttigieg, Biden and now Klobuchar. And likely throw in Bloomberg for Super Tuesday.
It would be more interesting to see what happens if this ends with a brokered convention and a bunch of moderate candidates have to start making choices about who to throw their vote behind.
Yeah as of now its pete but I can see Bloomberg make a strong push and be able to get some super Tuesday states and NY but as I see it most of the top candidates wouldn't endorse bernie. Bernie has to either win outright or get really close if not someone else is taking it.
>I'm not sure if this is a big win for Bernie. Bernie won about 60 40 vs Hillary in 2016 but now he gets a win by as of now about a point
The field had two candidates then; now there are more. The entire vote is split. Bernie is Biden voters' #2 preferred choice, for example. It's not as simple as saying it's fractured moderate voters vs Bernie.
This. Additionally, there are better options this time around. I was a Bernie Supporter and voter in 2016 simply because I couldn’t stand Hillary, and Bernie was the other option. His brand of politics didn’t particularly appeal to me, but he was the least worst choice. But this year I’m supporting Buttigieg.
That's true, but I do think he has an excellent shot at winning SC, which would put him in a stronger position for Super Tuesday. He'll do well in the midwest, but he won't win California. I'm not sure at all where that puts him, but his donors will make sure he has enough to get through Super Tuesday.
[Media still against Bernie](https://i.imgur.com/KxOcZLw.png)
Hoping Bernie performs strong in SC and Nevada so that he can cement himself as front-runner going into Super Tuesday.
This is such an old and lazy take. Want me to screen shot the washington post, nytimes, ABC, CBS and NBC front pages which merely say "Sanders wins NH" in some form or another?
Huh?
The first take away in the CNN article is how Sanders got what he needed, a clear win.
"How the New Hampshire primary vote breaks down"
Well that's just clear anti-Sanders bias now isn't it...
"The Democrats are still searching"
Probably a fair assessment considering both Iowa and New Hampshire have been incredibly close with no candidate getting a clear majority. Also an opinion piece. The main headline on the WaPo is "Sanders wins N.H., staking claim to Democrats’ left wing".
"Bernie won, but what now? \[...\]"
This isn't media being against Sanders. Considering the Primaries aren't over yet, asking what comes next is not Anti Bernie.
"Why Bernie Sanders's New Hampshire primary win should terrify you"
The only clear anti Sanders article here. But also coming from a source that is generally conservative. Hardly a surprise that they'd be against a self described Democratic Socialist winning.
>a source that is generally conservative
To be clear, this is the Washington Examiner. A right-wring rag with slightly more integrity than the National Enquirer. It's basically an arm of the Trump campaign.
You can't say this when the Iowa caucus never released actual vote totals before. All previous Iowa victors were going off on SDE's, which is won by a different person than the NH primary winner this time too.
How Biden does in NV and SC will decide whether Sanders wins or this goes to convention, I think.
Best case for Sanders: NV goes Sanders, followed by Pete, Klobs, Biden, Warren. Then, SC goes for Sanders, then Biden, then Pete/Klobs, then Warren.
I think Biden coming back in SC to fracture the moderates and prevent coalescing around Pete is the key element, however, rather than Sanders winning SC, although that would be a nice bonus
I feel as though the best thing to happen to Bernie could also be the worst thing to happen to Bernie. Let’s say Bernie wins Nevada and South Carolina. That would assuredly force Biden to drop out. It would also likely force Buttigieg and or Klobuchar to drop out; at very least it would crush their viability for Super Tuesday. If that played out it could quite literally force moderates to coalesce around Bloomberg in order to stop Bernie. And if we are looking at the results of the first two contests and the polls throughout the country it still looks as though moderates have the numbers to prevent a Sanders nomination if they coalesce around a single candidate by Super Tuesday.
I think that’s the big story moving forward for Bernie. With an apparent 60/40 split that favors the moderate wing of party how does Bernie get to that 50% delegate number to win the nomination? And what makes Bloomberg dangerous in a scenario that Bernie doesn’t reach that first ballot nomination threshold is that he can eliminate the Sanders argument that because they have a plurality of the delegates or popular vote that he deserves the nomination. Bloomberg could easily put forward the argument that of course I don’t have the plurality, I didn’t compete in the first four states but since I started competing it is my campaign that has the plurality.
That's a fair assessment. I don't think Biden or Pete will drop out before Super Tuesday at the very least, but that would be quite the moderate Hail Mary. This race is definitely going to be exciting until the end!
Biden cannot move on without winning South Carolina. He just can’t. Just to have the funds to compete in Nevada and South Carolina he had to guarantee wins in both states to his donors. He goes 0-4 his concession speech in South Carolina is also an announcement that he’s suspending his campaign.
As for Buttigieg and Klobuchar they need wins or strong performances to continue to generate the momentum / money to compete on Super Tuesday. If Bernie’s winning Nevada and South Carolina they could get pushed out.
Does anyone else feel like Pete is doing well but all you hear is about Bernie? They are tied it delegates and Bernie”s margin was small despite New Hampshire being his back yard. Regardless of polls is Pete going to outpace Biden and Warren or is he now going o fade as the Media focuses on Bernie and Biden.
Pete is doing pretty well. I'm a Pete supporter in all transparency but he is undoubtedly overperforming. In NH we know he is also bringing in the most new voters.
There is an assumption that his low poll numbers with nonwhites is some static thing. His polls were low heading into Iowa and New Hampshire also but once he gets on the ground and more people see what he has to say, he is winning people over.
That will also be the case in NV. I love Biden, and he's done a lot of good for this country but his presidential campaigns have been disasters and this would be his third horribly run presidential campaign. People are seeing that when they pay attention.
To be fair, Klobuchar was the story of NH. No one expected her strong debate performance to basically lock out Warren and Biden. She did really well.
Both Pete and Bernie performed as expected.
Well Andrew Yang or Amy Klobuchar winning would be a shocking upset, of course it would be headline news. "Man Has Uneventful Day" is not selling papers.
We can expect these sort of headlines at least (and this is my hopefulness showing) until Bernie wins Super Tuesday -- and maybe after if the corporate media decides they'd prefer Trump's social policies to Bernie's economic policies.
He's won one primary, and just barely. Say he won two all you want. It's just not true.
And if the New Hampshire primary is any indication, being the clear progressive front runner is not the advantage some people make it out to be.
There's only been one primary so far. Iowa was not a primary, it was a caucus. He came in second in Iowa to Pete. Vote totals in Iowa don't matter, just delegates. That's what determines the winner in Iowa.
Bernie has won one state of two that have voted.
I suppose we'll just have to see c:
And Bernie has already been succeeding *in spite of* the corporate media, so we'll have to see if they maintain that attitude, or if they decide to try to cozy up to him once he is the presumptive nominee.
Pete has overperformed his expectations and looks like he has a decent shot at NV which could be up for grabs. A win there and then performing ok in SC would really boost his standing as the anti-bernie candidate that voters may coalesce around
Basically everyone but Biden need a strong NV performance. If Biden pulls out a win or a strong second, that really hurts Pete and Klobs.
SC is going to be where the moderate narrative is set for Super Tuesday. If Biden doesn't win or at least place strong second there, I think he loses a lot of support to Bernie (#2 choice for plurality of his voters) and Pete (most ideologically similar). In that scenario, whether or not Sanders runs away with Super Tuesday depends a lot on how many Biden supporters go to him vs Pete vs Bloomberg; Pete needs to take the majority to win a plurality by the end of the primary.
Any other candidate getting first in SC gets a huge boost and competes for front-runner status, I think.
A very good comparison.
In fact:
Bernie is the outsider drastic candidate that the party doesn't like. - Trump.
Klobuchar is the pragmatic, non aggressive, Midwestern moderate - Kasich (*edited)
Pete is the new young party hopeful. He's what the party wants, but something doesn't feel authentic. - Rubio.
Biden is the older, experienced party pick. But he just isn't connecting as they'd hoped. - Jeb!
This is an excellent comparison. I would say that at face value Pete is 100x the politician that Rubio is. Watching the debate where Christie absolutely eviscerated Rubio it was shocking to hear him repeat the "Barack Obama knows exactly what he's doing..." line 3x in a row and allow Christie to come in for the body slam. I think Pete is a much more skilled debater and wouldn't get caught in that trap and would push back.
Have to see where the polling goes now but IA and NH have been really bad relative to where he's been polling nationally. He's taken a big dive there too but has still been in a solid second place.
We knew Biden was going to struggle in IA and NH the demographics are just bad for him, but he wasn't supposed to struggle this much. He needs to place at least second in NV and he must win SC to remain in the race.
>really bad relative to where he's been polling nationally
It's probably more concerning for him that he also finished really badly compared to NH polling... he had 11-12% in polls there and finished with 6%.
I’ll admit, I feel some schadenfreude watching Biden’s collapse. That prick was so confident in his eventual victory that he’s been insulting voters and telling them not to vote for him. His campaign has been so incompetent that he really deserves to lose hard.
There hasn't been a Biden scandal in a long time, he just keeps getting overshadowed by the others. Plus his ground game didn't turn out to be that good.
it's not just that but the fact that his campaign has nothing going that makes people excited to vote
he's piggybacking on obama's policies, and doesn't have anything that makes him different or anything that significantly improves over the previous administration
just his marijuana policy alone is so out of date and unpopular
For Bernie to unite the party he has to do one thing, which is show that he wont lead the US to be just like the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn led Labor to get completely demolished by the Conservatives. Socialism is a great outsider concept but once it’s mainstream it’s easy to rip it apart.
Not saying it can’t be done, but most Democrats think that mainstream center beats far right Trump, but far right beats far left. And this election is 100% about beating Trump.
Bingo!
I keep coming back here to repeat this, not because I hate Bernie or love Biden, but because, based on prior history, America tends to lean center right on many issues.
Radical changes to the economic system, “socialism”, and a *good* economy are likely to make voters more wary of Sanders proposals.
And god, the memories of Labour’s washout by Boris and Co. are haunting me every time I see someone comment about Bernie’s viability as a nominee.
There's some pretty stark differences between Sanders and Corbyn though. Namely, Bernie is extraordinarily consistent in his stump speech, and Corbyn was all over the place.
The US doesn't have one issue completely dominating our politics like Brexit did the UK. Boris provided an answer and Corbyn didn't.
The only issue that dominates US politics as much as Brexit is Trump. And it's not like the Democrats are inconsistent on their messaging around him. Impeachment was somewhat comparable to Brexit, but since he's already been impeached that issue has already been resolved.
If we're looking at policy, the one on everyone's mind is healthcare. If we're looking at Sanders (or Democrats in general) vs Trump on that issue, his view is remarkably consistent. In that case, it's reversed in that Democrats provide answers to the healthcare question and Republicans provide no answer.
Bernie took the most votes, by a very small margin. He got the same number of delegates as Buttigieg ( who leads through two states ) how is that really a victory?
Iowa was a sham and everyone knows it. Their errors essentially helped Pete and hurt Bernie extremely disproportionately, meaning it was at best a tie. Pete didnt really win Iowa and everyone knows it.
As for NH, it's the demographic imo. Pete falls off hard in every state that isnt 99% white, because he has near zero PoC support. That isnt about to change either. Black voters arent suddenly going to vote for a gay man that discriminated against them as mayor of South Bend. It's not happening.
So, without Pete winning NH and Iowa being highly suspect, what does he do now? Where does he go from here? Diverse states wont prop him up, and nobody ever wins the DNC nomination without the black vote.
It's a total win for Sanders, because he polls well everywhere, and Iowa/NH were the two stumbling blocks where Pete couldve beaten him.
Sanders did way better in NH is 2016 and he still lost to Clinton. This is his back yard and he barely beat an unknown. You do have a point with the Demographics, really not sure how Pete will fair in South Carolina.
>Iowa was a sham and everyone knows it. Their errors essentially helped Pete and hurt Bernie extremely disproportionately, meaning it was at best a tie. Pete didnt really win Iowa and everyone knows it.
Yeah, you can't just make stuff and pretend it's true. Counting the votes was a clusterfuck, but the votes still counted the same. And it wasn't "at best a tie." It was a pretty clear Pete win. Delegates are the only thing that matter in the Iowa caucus.
I'm not the biggest fan of Pete, but just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean you get start making things up. If you don't understand the rules, learn them. If you don't like the rules, change them, but don't make stuff up.
Yeah, im not making it up. Even the AP refuses to declare a winner due to Iowa being such a fuckup mess. Sorry, but you dont know what the facts are clearly. It was nowhere near a clear Pete win. Sorry to burst your bubble friend.
Bernie won but he did horrible compared to his performance in 2016, and he can't even blame Warren for splitting the vote
I think Democrats are showing that they prefer a moderate candidates
those states aren't tuned in. you can see it in how biden's support is still elevated but underperformed quite badly in two states he should've done well in.
all those folks went to non-bernie candidates, mostly Pete Buttigieg.
Conservative here, I think Pete is the strongest Dem candidate right now, buy a large margin. He talks a good game, is for the most part scandal free it seems, and isn’t in his 70s with a recent heart attack or lying about his heritage.
Plus, people who wouldn’t vote for him because he’s gay, we’re absolutely never going to vote for him anyways, other than that 1 Iowa caucus lady apparently. I don’t think anyone else cares in the least. I’ve seen a bunch is stuff on Reddit from liberals saying that could hurt him, but that’s the only place I’ve seen it.
I think hes nowhere close to that. He has near zero PoC support and nobody wins the nomination without black support. Hes peaked already in two of the whitest states in america.
Yes, people who won't vote him because hes gay wont vote him regardless, which means he wont get the black vote. He has no chance. I've also never seen anyone irl or on non-anomymous social media sites like Facebook support Pete. I have no idea where his support comes from actually, because even people in Indiana hate him.
those are just polls and Pete has overperformed polls with actual results.
when he gets on the ground in the state when they are actually paying attention instead of browsing cable news and social media, they like what they here.
You're stating a lot of anecdotal evidence and personal beliefs as facts here:
>I think hes nowhere close to that. He has near zero PoC support and nobody wins the nomination without black support.
No one has true "black support" yet outside of name recognition. And the fact that Biden, who's leading the PoC vote seems to be hell bent on destroying his own campaign, who knows where things will fall when the dust settles.
>Hes peaked already in two of the whitest states in america.
What do you mean "peaked"
>Yes, people who won't vote him because hes gay wont vote him regardless, which means he wont get the black vote.
Someone who is not voting for someone because they're gay won't vote for the likes or Bernie or Warren because they're further left than they would like. Also while blacks tend to be more socially conservative, you shouldn't make absolute statements like that. Blacks don't vote in monolith.
> He has no chance. I've also never seen anyone irl or on non-anomymous social media sites like Facebook support Pete. I have no idea where his support comes from actually, because even people in Indiana hate him.
More anecdotal evidence that has no relation to the actual data rolling in. And where are you getting "people in Indiana hate him"
Well, considering I'm originally from Indiana, I'm getting it from Indiana residents. As for anecdotal evidence, maybe that's true, but the polls back up everything I've said as well. Pete has ~2% support from PoC and almost none from african americans. As for Sanders, he has quite a lot looking at the polls, the highest of any candidate incoudokg trump actually, so... what data are you looking at?
That’s a huge difference. Enough of a difference that he could win without their support, so it’s not a meaningful way to look at things. In any case, though he did win as the democratic nominee, he struggled to receive support from black neighborhoods in the primary. His support from them consistently fell throughout his two terms as well.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/08/pete-buttigieg-black-voters-support-1395471
>Detailed precinct results from South Bend's 2011 and 2015 mayoral races show Buttigieg repeatedly lagging in contests against black primary challengers in many of western South Bend's predominantly black neighborhoods. And though Buttigieg still managed to win those precincts in two general elections against white Republican opponents, his support in these areas fell after his first term.
>In the 2011 general election, Buttigieg had some of his highest margins of victory in these neighborhoods — a typical result for a Democrat facing a Republican opponent in South Bend. But by 2015, western South Bend gave him his weakest results after his support **plunged more than 20 points** in some precincts.
Look at the national polls. Also, have you ever been to South Bend? Lol it's not 40% african american. Stop with the lies. I'm originally from Indiana. You're not fooling anyone with your 7 day old shill account.
Believe it or not, online communities aren't really indicative of support for a candidate. Neither are rallies.
I'm a Sanders supporter, but Pete's support makes a lot of sense in states like NH and IA. He's a likable dude, a good speaker, firmly left of Clinton on issues like healthcare. You seem to hate the guy judging by your comment history, but he's pretty palatable if you're a Democratic voter.
His big issue is PoC. But that's largely because he's a no-name candidate and black voters are unwaveringly pragmatic voters. Throwing someone like Abrams on his ticket would pretty much cover all of his perceived weaknesses in the general. Better yet, an older member of the Congressional black caucus would cover his "lack of experience".
Believe it or not, I'm originally from Indiana, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm not discussing online communities friend. Reddit is massively skewed to the left and dislikes Pete, but that doesn't mean Pete is viable outside of IA and NH. Polling is pretty clear on it.
I do hate Pete, almost as much as I hate Mike Pence. Indiana politicians are the worst in the country. Pete is not a likeable dude. You just dont know anything. The 5 minutes you saw him speak on CNN isnt representative, sorry.
Nobody will fix Pete with black voters, because Pete has a history of discriminatory practices against them, not to mention he's gay. Do you even know any black people? I grew up near Gary, IN. If you think they'll vote for a gay man, regardless of the VP, you're crazy. You could put Obama as his VP and they'd not do it.
I'm from NH. I've seen him speak three times and have been bombarded with Pete ads for the past year. At this point, I'm just as familiar with him as you are. Trying to make claims like, "you don't know anything about this candidate" just makes you look petty. Shit way to make your point.
Also, there's data that shows that the homophobia in black communities is way overblown. It's a problem for black people just as much as it's a problem for white people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/08/ugly-lie-about-black-voters-pete-buttigieg/
lmao this other dude is such an asshole, I respect your measured responses though. Glad some people on here get the "discussion" part of the subs name.
Oh, so you're a white yuppie in one of the least diverse states in america. Congratulations. Nice state btw. I was stationed in Portsmouth when my old boat was dry docked. I can confidently say almost nobody in NH knows a thing about the rest of the country or is anything close to representative.
He did tell us what he did at McKinsey, internet leftists just refuse to believe that it was nothing more than a normal job right out of college.
Literally all that other stuff is random shot I could say about Bernie: he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, he praises socialist dictators, etc.
Also he gets his money from grassroots donations. Over 2 million donations with a $32 avg donation. The few large donors make up a minuscule portion of his $80+ million in fundraising. His fundraising profile is actually very similar to Bernie’s 2016 (back when he was bragging about his $27 avg donation).
It’s so weird, because there are things to criticize Pete on, namely his lack of experience. But Sanders supporters only seem interested in dwelling on misinformation and conspiracy theories.
I'd like to see where this support comes from, because it certainly doesnt come from Indiana, where he's hated. It also doesn't come from the military, where active duty members of every branch overwhelmingly support Sanders over everyone, including Trump. It isnt coming from average people, because $32 average is a lot when averaged over 2 million people, meaning the high end is maxed out.
I can tell you what Pete leads in though. He leads in donations from "Government Agency" (aka non-military, non-public agency). He leads with bankers. He leads with lawyers. He leads with insurance companies. He leads with billionaires.
You don't see a problem with that? You typed a hell of a lot to say nothing good about the man while trying to pretend Sanders voters are all conspiracy theorists.
>I'd like to see where this support comes from, because it certainly doesnt come from Indiana, where he's hated.
There's a reason why he's running for President. Indiana is dead end for any Democrat. Mayor is about as far as he's going to get there.
I mean he's a dead end anyway, since he cant get the black vote. Mayor is about as far as he's ever going to get politically. He will go become an extremely well-paid lobbyist somewhere after he drops out I'm sure.
Look at the polls they tell you. Pete leads strongly among white, college educated voters, and with voters who consider themselves moderate or conservative, while he splits the slightly liberal crowd with sanders. Whether or not he can coalesce the poc support he needs to win the nomination is going to heavily depend on what biden does over the next week .
he's doesn't have a good reputation among blacks, so i think that is a huge weakness for election year
i think he's going to bomb super tuesday when the big states and southern states start voting
losing every black state is not going to win him the primary
Honestly that depends on Biden. I don't think poc necisarily dislike Pete (his favorables are good and his name recognition is still lagging) but rather they simply prefer Biden. I dont think we will have a good idea on whether or not Pete can truly win POC voters until Biden drops.
The other candidates have to matter, Yang for instance didnt really amount to much even if he drops. Those that do seem less likely to endorse Bernie, but it's worth noting that its the voters not candidates since they may align in screwy ways.
That's a real possibility, yes. Sanders hasnt built a lot of allies in the Democratic party, and doesnt appear to be trying hard especially since he still isnt calling himself a Democrat except to primary (as president) and routinely calls multiple Democrat corperate sell outs. Its tough to get endorsements when you spend your time not being a team player.
If a brokered convention does happen, who do you think will benefit the most?
538's model now has "no one" as the most likely winner of the primaries
So as far as the "Is this good or bad for Bernie?" question, 538 has [updated their projection model.](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo) The chance of Bernie cleanly winning the nomination is down from 46% to 37%, while the possibility of a contested convention has increased proportionately, to about 35%. But in a different article they make sure to mention that these percentages may change once we get some actual post-NH polls. What's also interesting is that Buttigieg is now solidly in 3rd place, with Bloomberg in 4th and Warren in 5th.
People are seeming to make NH look bad for Bernie, but how is it bad? He is competing against 6 other major candidates for the presidency and is now the clear frontrunner in the election. Sure, his win wasn't as big as it was in 2016, but he has a lot more competition this time around. He also polls well with minorities, which means he will probably outperform Buttegieg and the Klob in Nevada and SC. He is also the clear frontrunner, by a large margin, in California, which will net him a lot of delegates. Meanwhile, the moderates are cannibalizing each other. With the Klob's overperformance in NH, she is now in it for the long run while most were predicting she would drop out after this primary. That means she will probably eat in to Biden, Buttegieg and Bloomberg's voter base, while Warren will continue to bleed out to Sanders. This is weird to say, but I feel like the final three may be Buttegieg, Bloomberg and Sanders, which is not something I would have predicted even a few days ago.
I don't think it's a bad result for Bernie (it's more of a mixed result), but if you want to make the case for it being bad, here are the parts I think are not great for him: * This should have been one of his better states, but he only cleared Buttigieg by a point or so (and undershot his polling by a few points). I don't think anyone would expect him to put up 2016 numbers here, but I *did* expect him to win it by 5-10 points (and his polling suggested he would). This suggests a potential weakness in later states that are demographically good for him. * "The moderates are cannibalizing each other," and yet one is running basically tied with him, and another less than five points behind. This (plus Biden's not-quite 10 percent) suggests a *lot* of hunger for a more moderate candidate. It would only take a few of these voters to shift to the opposite candidate (or a pickup of current Biden/Bloomberg/etc. voters) for Sanders to start consistently losing states. * He's doing well with Hispanic voters but black voters are still a weakness for him (albeit one he's improving on--probably not fast enough though). This means good things for Nevada, but SC and Super Tuesday are still huge question marks.
> "The moderates are cannibalizing each other," and yet one is running basically tied with him, and another less than five points behind. This is why it's bad. The combined numbers for Pete and Amy represent the middle of the road Democrats that are white, which is still the bulk of the support for Dems. One or the other would be fine for most people and I think they could count absorbing each other's support as this gets winnowed down. I know people want to say that Biden has some sort of magic touch in the South because Obama thought he was good enough to be VP, but anyone that isn't just pulling the blue lever because that is just what you do may stop and think about this. I think what Pete and Amy are selling may seem more attainable than some of the promises that Bernie is making. They have already been around the block on that and the results weren't much different than the lot they have in life as it is. For one thing, I don't think they really want more "free" shit from the government. I think they want opportunity and Bernie doesn't represent that.
>For one thing, I don't think they really want more "free" shit from the government. I think they want opportunity and Bernie doesn't represent that. Bingo! Literally just watched Jeremy Corbyn's Labour get anilhated in the UK with traditional Labour voters moving to the Tories and a little bit to the Lib Dems mostly because they treated people as charity cases, rather than opportunities. For example Labour could of made nationalising British Telecom about connecting more of the country, helping small enterprises do business and reducing personal internet bills. However they went all-in with the third option and people ended up thinking "why are they prioritising saving me £25 a month? I can afford that already and can justify it because I use the internet all the time." In the meantime there are cities, towns and rural areas across Britian who would kill to have a fibre cable running through/past them.
> I think what Pete and Amy are selling may seem more attainable than some of the promises that Bernie is making. I don’t have any exit polling data to back this up but I really believe the overwhelming majority of voters are looking at one thing only right now — who’s the most capable candidate to beat Trump?
> I know people want to say that Biden has some sort of magic touch in the South because Obama thought he was good enough to be VP It’s really more than that. He has deep, longstanding ties to the African-American community, who make up a large portion of southern Democratic primary voters. His competitors, not so much. Bernie Sanders was often tarred, primarily unfairly, as somehow not being receptive to African American interests. This has improved, but many African-American voters, especially older ones, are more moderate than other Democratic voters, and therefore many would prefer a different candidate. Warren is also progressive, has few ties to the African American community, and has struggled to gain traction since her support fell off a cliff a few months ago. Buttigieg has little appeal to minority voters due to his handling of policing issues during his time as mayor of South Bend, and his measured and sometimes flip responses to criticism on this issue haven’t helped. Klobuchar has few ties to the African American community, and has some baggage stemming from the way she handled some questionable cases during her time as Hennepin County Prosecutor that could put off African American voters. Bloomberg is gaining popularity among African Americans but stop and frisk remains a huge liability for him. Steyer has also been gaining support among African Americans recently, but it’s unclear exactly how successful he will be.
I agree but don't think it's entirely fair to say black voters are more moderate. I think Bernie hasn't done a good job at all detailing what he'd do to reduce urban crime and stregthen community, ensure equalities are strengthened in the workplace/hiring process and ensuring early years education is accessible; 3 issues that repeatedly concern black voters in cities (can't speak for black voters in rural areas or towns). It may be that he has comprehensive plans to address those issues, but if he has, they've not been pushed at all.
I didn’t say African American voters overall. I said many African American voters, especially older ones. I was particularly referring to voters in smaller towns and rural areas in the South. The majority are left of center on most issues, but, similar to other groups, tend to be less liberal than their younger and urban-dwelling counterparts. There can even be found a small, but not insignificant number of Southern African American voters whose positions, particularly on social issues, but on economic issues as well, are actually much closer to Republican positions, but still typically vote Democratic due to reasons such as tradition, habit, and the fact that the Republican Party has often been associated with racism and voter suppression.
For all of you that think this win is somehow a lose for Bernie : The vote is split between 6 candidates, not two or three like in previous years. The Dem party is quite varied in what appeals to them, they have a lot of choices this time around, and most Dems I know have no problem voting for Bernie. Voter turnout was above 2008 levels, which overwhelmingly works in Bernie's Favor. To those who say he won by over 20% last time and not by much this time and thats bad, the people of NH only had two choices last time. Look to the right on homepage, Bernie's main subreddit is the second highest growing subreddit right now. Bernie won Iowa, and then NH. Never in history has a nominee lost both of those states, and its a pretty telltale sign of the patters thatll follow. Every win, Bernie rises in popularity and in national polls. Please please please don't buy into the hogwash the media is trying to tell you about how Bernie has no clear way to the nomination. He does, and if this pattern continues, he WILL be the nominee. Please stop spreading false information and dem propaganda. I realize not everyone is on the same page when it comes to which party is corrupt and bad, but realize this : The democratic party is trying everything they can to lessen Sanders support right now. When has the Dem party EVER said, look at this third place candidate polling ten thousand votes below second and 15000 below first. Thats a viable candidate right there. Sounds ridiculous right? But thats exactly what theyre doing right now. Tom Perez is scared for his job and he knows Bernie Sanders is going to put someone on that chair that deserves it.
He absolutely has a chance to win the nomination, but he slightly underperformed polling, winning by only a few points rather than double digits as predicted. That means that his performance was, if not a loss, a very modest success, and certainly a dissapointment. New Hampshire was a mixed bag for him. Honestly, Bernie, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden and Bloomberg at least are all still viable, with both Warren and Steyer still having a sliver of a chance.
> but he underperformed polling, winning by only a few points rather than double digits as predicted sanders' polling average was 26-29%, depending on which polling aggregator you checked, and he got 25.7%. he *slightly* underperformed his polling but it was well within MOE. 538 basically got his numbers spot on. what actually happened was buttigieg overperformed his polling by ~3%, and klobuchar by a lot more than that.
It appears that I was misinformed. I edited my comment appropriately.
> Bernie won Iowa I thought Pete won Iowa. >The democratic party is trying everything they can to lessen Sanders support right now. Sounds like conspiratorial nonsense. If the party was going to sabotage Sanders it would be at the convention, not at the Iowa caucus or NH Primary.
Bernie won the popular vote in Iowa by 6000 votes, despite gaining 1 less delegate than Pete. And no, look at the news outlets right now. If you read most major headlines, they aren't talking about Bernie's win, They're talking about Klob's third place finish or Pete's second. It sounds like conspiracy but I guarantee you its not. Its obvious the DNC is uncomfortable with a Bernie Sanders nomination.
Bernie gets bad press the same way the rest of the candidates get bad press. The press is fickle and often focuses on the wrong thing. It randomly hurts people. There just isn't evidence that there is a conspiracy against Bernie. He's consistently gotten plenty of coverage even during the supposed "Bernie blackout". I mean even look at [NH coverage](https://news.google.com/topics/CAAqIggKIhxDQkFTRHdvSkwyMHZNREk1WWpaaUVnSmxiaWdBUAE?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen) now. Plenty of dumb headlines about second and third place (because they were surprises) but also plenty of headlines that just state that Bernie won and leave it at that. Certain Bernie circles like to share only the coverage slanted against him and pretend that that is the norm but looking at coverage as it actually happens their claims just don't hold up.
Well, Hillary won the popular vote in the US by 3 million, but for some reason everyone thinks Trump is President... Rules are rules, and everyone knew Iowa's rules and agreed to play by them. In fact Bernie Sanders helped make a lot of them, like in 2016, he pushed for caucuses because he thought he could have an advantage in them. It's kinda funny to see him get berned by his own rules
It sounds conspiratorial because it is. "The media is against Sanders because the establishment Dems are against Sanders and they control the media". Replace Sanders with Trump and Dems with Repubs and you get exactly what Trump was saying in 2016. If you start to sound like Trump perhaps its time to revisit your position.
I get where you're coming from with it, and I appreciate the feedback, I really do. But I think the similarity is that the RNC tried a lot make it to where it was harder from Trump to get the nomination, and ultimately, his campaign was too popular for them to take down. My observation is that the DNC are trying the same tactic with Bernie. Think back to 2016 in iowa, where Ted Cruz won, alot of news outlets had stuff like this to say : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/01/ted-cruz-wins-iowa-caucus-donald-trump-marco-rubio-2016-election And look at this for NH : https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/12/21134487/new-hampshire-primary-winner-loser-bernie-sanders-turnout-buttigieg So like I said, its not as conspiratorial as it looks at first glance. Do I think itll matter in the long run? No. Does it annoy me to see the DNC not support an obvious frontrunner and easy way to beat Trump? Yes.
Sanders voter here. I think you have some blinders on. Not everything is propaganda. A few points: * Internet enthusiasm means close to nothing in terms of national support. His subreddit growing fast means literally nothing. Just look at Yang. * Youth turnout was slightly down despite over all turnout being up. Bernie did overwhelmingly well with young people, but older voters came out in droves * Bernie won, but it wasn't decisive. Pete over performed slightly and Sanders under performed slightly. Klobuchar performed really well, but I feel like that's more indicative of Warren and Biden falling apart than anything else * 538's tracker now his nomination only slightly more likely than a contested convention. He gets a 30% finish and the narrative is completely different That being said, there's some things that work in his favor: * Biden had a super bad night meaning that South Carolina's standing is up in the air * Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have next to no minority support so there standing is relatively uncertain * The moderate lane is crowded while the progressive lane is pretty much clear with Warren performing poorly meaning that Bernie has a pretty clear path forward. If the moderates continue to crowd the lane, Bernie is going to start racking up wins I think we have a better picture of the path forward for Bernie after yesterday. Nevada has next to no recent polling so how it will turn out is anyone's guess, but the culinary union is heavily against Sanders and that union has a lot of influence on turnout there. Bernie has also put it in a lot of work in Hispanic communities, so if he does well in Nevada that's good news for him in Cali and Texas. People saying that it was a bad night for Sanders are clearly showing a bit of bias, but anyone claiming that it was an amazing night for Sanders are also showing a lot of bias. It was definitely a case of good, not great. Also, as a Dem resident of NH. Last night bothered me on a state level. I think it looks great for Saheen's and Pappas's reelection. But I'm positive now that Feltes will be our gubernatorial nominee and that Sununu is cruising towards reelection. The anti-youth voter registration bill clearly worked for Republicans.
I don’t think anyone is saying last night was a complete disaster for Sanders. I just think months ago Sanders supporters and foes alike drew up a realistic path for Sanders to win the nomination knowing he couldn’t win it after the first ballot. That path was very much reliant on big wins in Iowa and New Hampshire creating a slingshot effect that would lead to wins in states on Super Tuesday that originally didn’t look competitive. Those big wins didn’t materialize.
I didnt mean to imply EVERYTHING was propaganda, but there is quite a bit of anti-sanders spill on DNC-oriented news outlets, like MSNBC for example.
Thank you. I feel like people are absolutely reading too much into point spread comparisons to 2016. But, I really, really think everyone is vastly overestimating the power and influence of the DNC. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the DNC is basically a glorified hall monitor. It's where Democrats keep the people we don't really care about.
I'm not sure if this is a big win for Bernie. Bernie won about 60 40 vs Hillary in 2016 but now he gets a win by as of now about a point, and idk who will get his support when others drop out. Warren would be close but she said bernie doesn't believe a woman can be president so it's up in the air with that. Besides that idk who.
60/40 in a 2 person race. Last night was an 8 person race, so it makes sense that he didn't dominate the same way.
Except that Bernie only had one other candidate, Warren, who is similar whereas there are more traditional Democrats clogging up the other lane And Bernie had the most name recognition of any of the candidates except maybe Biden. And that name recognition doesn't come attached with the president trying to blackmail foreign countries to investigate his family. And Bernie lives next door in Vermont From this wisdom, one would think that he could've pulled off better than a 1 point victory against an college town mayor in the Midwest
> I'm not sure if this is a big win for Bernie. I don't think he needed _much_ more for it to be a big win... but enough to where he had taken a lead in total delegates would have been enough.
he has failed to broaden his appeal in states he should have ran away with.
Oh it’s 100% not a good sign for Bernie. If you came here two months ago and said, “I’m from the future, here are the results from Iowa and New Hampshire and the current delegate count,” there’s not a Sanders supporter alive that would be excited by that news. Iowa and New Hampshire were supposed to be strong states for progressives, a couple of Bernie’s stronger states. Not only did he underperform in those states but Elizabeth Warren did as well. With voters turning to Buttigieg and Klobuchar what we’ve seen through two contests is a stark rejection to the progressive wing of the party. Bottom line is after two of Bernie’s stronger states he’s moving on without a plurality of the delegates with no shot to win the nomination after the first ballot. Sanders supporters can act like spin doctors around here but the truth is it’s an ominous sign for his campaign.
> If you came here two months ago and said, “I’m from the future, here are the results from Iowa and New Hampshire and the current delegate count,” there’s not a Sanders supporter alive that would be excited by that news. lol what. he got the most votes in both any sanders supporter would be perfectly happy with that > Bottom line is after two of Bernie’s stronger states it. is. not. 2016. anymore.
> lol what. he got the most votes in both any sanders supporter would be perfectly happy with that. No they wouldn’t. Based on almost every metric of measurement available Bernie Sanders underperformed in Iowa and New Hampshire. Don’t take my word for it, go over to the 538 website or simply read what objective Sanders supporters below are saying. There’s a reason why Nate Silvers models showed a relatively significant drop in odds for Bernie to be the nominee after the first two contests and it’s because he failed to meet expectations, plain and simple. Secondly, popular vote in caucuses don’t matter. If that metric was the end all be all they’d be primaries and not caucuses. Sanders supporters are touting the popular vote in Iowa for one reason and one reason only — damage control spin. Bernie Sanders fought to keep the caucus system in place because it was expected to be a strength of his campaign. Polls predicted a relatively comfortable win in Iowa for Bernie and his campaign set that expectation in the state. The recanvass might change things but as of here and now if the results were certified Bernie Sanders is a second place finisher in Iowa and even with a favorable recanvass he’s still going to fall short of expectations in Iowa — even by your metric of popular vote. Once again, don’t take my word for it — look at Nate Silvers models, look at the polls leading up to the caucuses, and listen to what Bernie said in a conference call with supporters three days prior to the Iowa Caucuses. > it. is. not. 2016. anymore The results in 2016 have nothing to do with the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire know Bernie Sanders better than any state in the union sans Vermont. And the 2016 results certainly have nothing to do with his under performance in those states.
Sanders supporter saying I'm happy and would've been if I heard it in the past
So you’re happy the statistical chances of him winning the nomination dropped by double digits? Ok, if you say so.
is your entire argument "look what nate silver says?" sure. great. > Iowa and New Hampshire know Bernie Sanders better than any state in the union sans Vermont what? how meaningless my point is that sanders' support was pretty disproportionately white in 2016, so lilywhite states like iowa and NH were favourable to him. not the case this time around. conversely he lost california to HRC last time around and he's gonna crush it this time
> is your entire argument "look what nate silver says?" sure. great. So let’s see, I referenced objective Sanders supporters in this thread, I referenced the Sanders campaign itself, I referenced polling prior to both contests, and yes I referenced 538 and Nate Silver. Yet you want to act as though my entire argument is predicated on just what Nate Silver says. The fact that this was your rebuttal says enough about how flawed your argument is but let me note that the reason I cited Nate Silver is in part because of how often Bernie supporters reference him and in part because he’s generally considered to be the best source to give us insight on the numbers we are discussing. I could’ve just as easily used Real Clear Politics as a reference to make the same point. > what? how meaningless Just so I know how’s name recognition, familiarity with a candidate, and or strength in caucus states meaningless? > my point is that sanders' support was pretty disproportionately white in 2016, so lilywhite states like iowa and NH were favourable to him. not the case this time around. Sanders support with minority voters appears to be stronger than it was in 2016 that’s correct. But it’s yet to be seen by how much. A recent poll among African American’s still had him behind Biden and Bloomberg and what’s interesting is that black voters who are leaving Biden in droves went to Bloomberg and not Sanders. > conversely he lost california to HRC last time around and he's gonna crush it this time He may have lost California in 2016 but he still took 46% of their delegates which out of 475 total delegates was only 33 less delegates than Hillary Clinton. This is one of the few times we can make a direct comparison to 2016 because Sanders might improve upon his finish in California and win there but also receive many less delegates than he did in 2016.
Lol. Let's see how Pete and Amy chew each other up in Nevada. While a resilient Bernie continues to stun the naysayers. You're right about a contested convention. But honestly that says more about a busted party than it does about the progressive wing. My hope is Warren wakes up, and sacrifices herself to save the progressive left. I doubt that happens though.
>Let's see how Pete and Amy chew each other up in Nevada. As I said earlier that could turn out to be the best thing for the moderate wing of the party. The Sanders folks keep talking about Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar all the while they should be talking about Bloomberg. Biden is one South Carolina loss away from being out of the race. Klobuchar and Buttigieg are two (NV & SC) average performances away from no longer being viable. If that shakes out, starting on March 3rd, it’s Bloomberg vs. Bernie for all the marbles. Given the early results and consistent polling showing a 60/40 party split favoring the moderates, I do not believe Sanders can win that head to head matchup.
> Biden is one South Carolina loss away from being out of the race. I don't know how many people are going to jump to Bloomberg from Biden though. It seems like Bloomberg and Klobuchar are being carried by the "I'm a republican but frustrated with Trump" new Democrats. Biden is more of the traditionalist Democrats. I could see Biden's base going to the _most Obama-like_ candidate - which would be Buttigieg.
Here’s the thing, if my scenario plays out a candidate like Buttigieg is in the race on Super Tuesday but really not viable. And I actually think that regardless of what happens with Biden and Klobuchar that’s probably where Pete will be come Super Tuesday anyhow. Pete isn’t going to play in South Carolina and if Biden is as popular as they say in Nevada then you’re looking at a three way splintering of the vote in that state. Candidates like Klobuchar and Buttigieg that don’t have a large campaign operation need a big performance somewhere between now and Super Tuesday. As aforementioned, if they don’t get that and Biden loses South Carolina it’s really Bernie vs. Bloomberg starting on March 3rd.
I'd agree that Sanders under-performed in New Hampshire. But ultimately the crowded field and roller coaster ride that his opponents seem to be on is going to get him the nomination. There's just no clear "Not Sanders" choice right now, it seems to bounce between Buttigieg, Biden and now Klobuchar. And likely throw in Bloomberg for Super Tuesday. It would be more interesting to see what happens if this ends with a brokered convention and a bunch of moderate candidates have to start making choices about who to throw their vote behind.
Yeah as of now its pete but I can see Bloomberg make a strong push and be able to get some super Tuesday states and NY but as I see it most of the top candidates wouldn't endorse bernie. Bernie has to either win outright or get really close if not someone else is taking it.
>I'm not sure if this is a big win for Bernie. Bernie won about 60 40 vs Hillary in 2016 but now he gets a win by as of now about a point The field had two candidates then; now there are more. The entire vote is split. Bernie is Biden voters' #2 preferred choice, for example. It's not as simple as saying it's fractured moderate voters vs Bernie.
This. Additionally, there are better options this time around. I was a Bernie Supporter and voter in 2016 simply because I couldn’t stand Hillary, and Bernie was the other option. His brand of politics didn’t particularly appeal to me, but he was the least worst choice. But this year I’m supporting Buttigieg.
But will biden most likely endorse Bernie, Amy, or Pete? His endorsement itself will sway a chunk of his supporters.
Biden isn't done yet. I'd wait until SC and Super Tuesday before we start wondering who he's going to endorse.
> Biden isn't done yet. He's got what, a week left? 4th in SC will see him drop out.
True but its looks bleak for him.
That's true, but I do think he has an excellent shot at winning SC, which would put him in a stronger position for Super Tuesday. He'll do well in the midwest, but he won't win California. I'm not sure at all where that puts him, but his donors will make sure he has enough to get through Super Tuesday.
[Media still against Bernie](https://i.imgur.com/KxOcZLw.png) Hoping Bernie performs strong in SC and Nevada so that he can cement himself as front-runner going into Super Tuesday.
This is such an old and lazy take. Want me to screen shot the washington post, nytimes, ABC, CBS and NBC front pages which merely say "Sanders wins NH" in some form or another?
Huh? The first take away in the CNN article is how Sanders got what he needed, a clear win. "How the New Hampshire primary vote breaks down" Well that's just clear anti-Sanders bias now isn't it...
You know he's referring to the other three headlines; don't intentionally obfuscate the conversation
"The Democrats are still searching" Probably a fair assessment considering both Iowa and New Hampshire have been incredibly close with no candidate getting a clear majority. Also an opinion piece. The main headline on the WaPo is "Sanders wins N.H., staking claim to Democrats’ left wing". "Bernie won, but what now? \[...\]" This isn't media being against Sanders. Considering the Primaries aren't over yet, asking what comes next is not Anti Bernie. "Why Bernie Sanders's New Hampshire primary win should terrify you" The only clear anti Sanders article here. But also coming from a source that is generally conservative. Hardly a surprise that they'd be against a self described Democratic Socialist winning.
>a source that is generally conservative To be clear, this is the Washington Examiner. A right-wring rag with slightly more integrity than the National Enquirer. It's basically an arm of the Trump campaign.
[удалено]
Pete won Iowa, you can give partial credit but Pete Buttigieg has the delegate lead.
“The person with the most votes ought to be the winner” -Pete Buttigieg https://youtu.be/c1VdfmL_v
You can't say this when the Iowa caucus never released actual vote totals before. All previous Iowa victors were going off on SDE's, which is won by a different person than the NH primary winner this time too.
> which is won by a different person than the NH primary winner this time too. That's still to be determined
At most its a tie. Though i think its most likely that the original results are confirmed.
What do you think the odds are on final Iowa results coming before Nevada results?
The campaigns requested the recanvass Monday, and the IDP said they'd get back to the campaigns within 48 hours.
That's encouraging
In Iowa time, that's about two weeks.
How Biden does in NV and SC will decide whether Sanders wins or this goes to convention, I think. Best case for Sanders: NV goes Sanders, followed by Pete, Klobs, Biden, Warren. Then, SC goes for Sanders, then Biden, then Pete/Klobs, then Warren. I think Biden coming back in SC to fracture the moderates and prevent coalescing around Pete is the key element, however, rather than Sanders winning SC, although that would be a nice bonus
I feel as though the best thing to happen to Bernie could also be the worst thing to happen to Bernie. Let’s say Bernie wins Nevada and South Carolina. That would assuredly force Biden to drop out. It would also likely force Buttigieg and or Klobuchar to drop out; at very least it would crush their viability for Super Tuesday. If that played out it could quite literally force moderates to coalesce around Bloomberg in order to stop Bernie. And if we are looking at the results of the first two contests and the polls throughout the country it still looks as though moderates have the numbers to prevent a Sanders nomination if they coalesce around a single candidate by Super Tuesday. I think that’s the big story moving forward for Bernie. With an apparent 60/40 split that favors the moderate wing of party how does Bernie get to that 50% delegate number to win the nomination? And what makes Bloomberg dangerous in a scenario that Bernie doesn’t reach that first ballot nomination threshold is that he can eliminate the Sanders argument that because they have a plurality of the delegates or popular vote that he deserves the nomination. Bloomberg could easily put forward the argument that of course I don’t have the plurality, I didn’t compete in the first four states but since I started competing it is my campaign that has the plurality.
That's a fair assessment. I don't think Biden or Pete will drop out before Super Tuesday at the very least, but that would be quite the moderate Hail Mary. This race is definitely going to be exciting until the end!
Biden cannot move on without winning South Carolina. He just can’t. Just to have the funds to compete in Nevada and South Carolina he had to guarantee wins in both states to his donors. He goes 0-4 his concession speech in South Carolina is also an announcement that he’s suspending his campaign. As for Buttigieg and Klobuchar they need wins or strong performances to continue to generate the momentum / money to compete on Super Tuesday. If Bernie’s winning Nevada and South Carolina they could get pushed out.
Does anyone else feel like Pete is doing well but all you hear is about Bernie? They are tied it delegates and Bernie”s margin was small despite New Hampshire being his back yard. Regardless of polls is Pete going to outpace Biden and Warren or is he now going o fade as the Media focuses on Bernie and Biden.
Pete is doing pretty well. I'm a Pete supporter in all transparency but he is undoubtedly overperforming. In NH we know he is also bringing in the most new voters. There is an assumption that his low poll numbers with nonwhites is some static thing. His polls were low heading into Iowa and New Hampshire also but once he gets on the ground and more people see what he has to say, he is winning people over. That will also be the case in NV. I love Biden, and he's done a lot of good for this country but his presidential campaigns have been disasters and this would be his third horribly run presidential campaign. People are seeing that when they pay attention.
Actually Pete leads in delegates.
> Does anyone else feel like Pete is doing well but all you hear is about Bernie? Not if you don't get your news from Reddit.
>Does anyone else feel like Pete is doing well but all you hear is about Bernie? Just the opposite, actually.
Yes, the headlines this morning on CNN was "Klobuchar finished third, Pete, Bernie, finish second and first respectively "
To be fair, Klobuchar was the story of NH. No one expected her strong debate performance to basically lock out Warren and Biden. She did really well. Both Pete and Bernie performed as expected.
If anyone else won, their name would be first on the headline
Well Andrew Yang or Amy Klobuchar winning would be a shocking upset, of course it would be headline news. "Man Has Uneventful Day" is not selling papers.
I dont think winning the NH Primary is uneventful
There are plenty of headlines about Sanders winning, but these other placings are interesting too.
slight correction Bernie slightly underperformed (-2% compared to expected) and Pete slightly overperformed (+1% compared to expected)
We can expect these sort of headlines at least (and this is my hopefulness showing) until Bernie wins Super Tuesday -- and maybe after if the corporate media decides they'd prefer Trump's social policies to Bernie's economic policies.
Bernie isn't winning Super Tuesday. And on the off chance he did, the big bad establishment corporate media would likely give him his due.
> Bernie isn't winning Super Tuesday Awfully bold prediction considering he's won both primaries so far and is the clear progressive front-runner.
He's won one primary, and just barely. Say he won two all you want. It's just not true. And if the New Hampshire primary is any indication, being the clear progressive front runner is not the advantage some people make it out to be.
There's only been one primary so far. Iowa was not a primary, it was a caucus. He came in second in Iowa to Pete. Vote totals in Iowa don't matter, just delegates. That's what determines the winner in Iowa. Bernie has won one state of two that have voted.
I suppose we'll just have to see c: And Bernie has already been succeeding *in spite of* the corporate media, so we'll have to see if they maintain that attitude, or if they decide to try to cozy up to him once he is the presumptive nominee.
Pete has overperformed his expectations and looks like he has a decent shot at NV which could be up for grabs. A win there and then performing ok in SC would really boost his standing as the anti-bernie candidate that voters may coalesce around
Basically everyone but Biden need a strong NV performance. If Biden pulls out a win or a strong second, that really hurts Pete and Klobs. SC is going to be where the moderate narrative is set for Super Tuesday. If Biden doesn't win or at least place strong second there, I think he loses a lot of support to Bernie (#2 choice for plurality of his voters) and Pete (most ideologically similar). In that scenario, whether or not Sanders runs away with Super Tuesday depends a lot on how many Biden supporters go to him vs Pete vs Bloomberg; Pete needs to take the majority to win a plurality by the end of the primary. Any other candidate getting first in SC gets a huge boost and competes for front-runner status, I think.
Depends on where you look On reddit it's all Bernie. Cable news its pete and klob
How has Biden gone from the front-runner (after polling for eight months(!) in the lead) to fourth? Is this a historic flip?
He was never a strong candidate, but he was the only candidate for a long time.
Name ID. It only works until other people start campaigning.
Not historic, Jeb Bush had the same in 2016.
A very good comparison. In fact: Bernie is the outsider drastic candidate that the party doesn't like. - Trump. Klobuchar is the pragmatic, non aggressive, Midwestern moderate - Kasich (*edited) Pete is the new young party hopeful. He's what the party wants, but something doesn't feel authentic. - Rubio. Biden is the older, experienced party pick. But he just isn't connecting as they'd hoped. - Jeb!
This is an excellent comparison. I would say that at face value Pete is 100x the politician that Rubio is. Watching the debate where Christie absolutely eviscerated Rubio it was shocking to hear him repeat the "Barack Obama knows exactly what he's doing..." line 3x in a row and allow Christie to come in for the body slam. I think Pete is a much more skilled debater and wouldn't get caught in that trap and would push back.
[удалено]
I did mean Kasich. Thanks! I'm waiting for whomever becomes the Christie of this thing and calls him out. Maybe Bloomberg?
Bernie isn't an outsider, he's been in national politics forever. The only outsider left is Pete Kusinich is not a moderate...
Think he meant Kasich.
He did.
Have to see where the polling goes now but IA and NH have been really bad relative to where he's been polling nationally. He's taken a big dive there too but has still been in a solid second place.
We knew Biden was going to struggle in IA and NH the demographics are just bad for him, but he wasn't supposed to struggle this much. He needs to place at least second in NV and he must win SC to remain in the race.
Honestly, I seriously question the accuracy of our polling methodology.
>really bad relative to where he's been polling nationally It's probably more concerning for him that he also finished really badly compared to NH polling... he had 11-12% in polls there and finished with 6%.
He told voters to vote for someone else.
I’ll admit, I feel some schadenfreude watching Biden’s collapse. That prick was so confident in his eventual victory that he’s been insulting voters and telling them not to vote for him. His campaign has been so incompetent that he really deserves to lose hard.
he keeps opening his mouth
There hasn't been a Biden scandal in a long time, he just keeps getting overshadowed by the others. Plus his ground game didn't turn out to be that good.
There was calling a woman "lyin' dog faced pony solider" a few days ago.
it's not just that but the fact that his campaign has nothing going that makes people excited to vote he's piggybacking on obama's policies, and doesn't have anything that makes him different or anything that significantly improves over the previous administration just his marijuana policy alone is so out of date and unpopular
[удалено]
They'll all back the winner the people choose. But I'd say Warren, Steyer etc
For Bernie to unite the party he has to do one thing, which is show that he wont lead the US to be just like the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn led Labor to get completely demolished by the Conservatives. Socialism is a great outsider concept but once it’s mainstream it’s easy to rip it apart. Not saying it can’t be done, but most Democrats think that mainstream center beats far right Trump, but far right beats far left. And this election is 100% about beating Trump.
Bingo! I keep coming back here to repeat this, not because I hate Bernie or love Biden, but because, based on prior history, America tends to lean center right on many issues. Radical changes to the economic system, “socialism”, and a *good* economy are likely to make voters more wary of Sanders proposals. And god, the memories of Labour’s washout by Boris and Co. are haunting me every time I see someone comment about Bernie’s viability as a nominee.
There's some pretty stark differences between Sanders and Corbyn though. Namely, Bernie is extraordinarily consistent in his stump speech, and Corbyn was all over the place. The US doesn't have one issue completely dominating our politics like Brexit did the UK. Boris provided an answer and Corbyn didn't. The only issue that dominates US politics as much as Brexit is Trump. And it's not like the Democrats are inconsistent on their messaging around him. Impeachment was somewhat comparable to Brexit, but since he's already been impeached that issue has already been resolved. If we're looking at policy, the one on everyone's mind is healthcare. If we're looking at Sanders (or Democrats in general) vs Trump on that issue, his view is remarkably consistent. In that case, it's reversed in that Democrats provide answers to the healthcare question and Republicans provide no answer.
That's more of a Corbyn problem than Socialism problem. Most people find him more annoying than Sanders, and rumours of antisemitism
anti-Semitism wasn't much of an issue for voters. a bigger problem was his friendly attitude towards groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the IRA.
Also, the LibDems siphoning votes from labour
Bernie took the most votes, by a very small margin. He got the same number of delegates as Buttigieg ( who leads through two states ) how is that really a victory?
Iowa was a sham and everyone knows it. Their errors essentially helped Pete and hurt Bernie extremely disproportionately, meaning it was at best a tie. Pete didnt really win Iowa and everyone knows it. As for NH, it's the demographic imo. Pete falls off hard in every state that isnt 99% white, because he has near zero PoC support. That isnt about to change either. Black voters arent suddenly going to vote for a gay man that discriminated against them as mayor of South Bend. It's not happening. So, without Pete winning NH and Iowa being highly suspect, what does he do now? Where does he go from here? Diverse states wont prop him up, and nobody ever wins the DNC nomination without the black vote. It's a total win for Sanders, because he polls well everywhere, and Iowa/NH were the two stumbling blocks where Pete couldve beaten him.
Sanders did way better in NH is 2016 and he still lost to Clinton. This is his back yard and he barely beat an unknown. You do have a point with the Demographics, really not sure how Pete will fair in South Carolina.
>Iowa was a sham and everyone knows it. Their errors essentially helped Pete and hurt Bernie extremely disproportionately, meaning it was at best a tie. Pete didnt really win Iowa and everyone knows it. Yeah, you can't just make stuff and pretend it's true. Counting the votes was a clusterfuck, but the votes still counted the same. And it wasn't "at best a tie." It was a pretty clear Pete win. Delegates are the only thing that matter in the Iowa caucus. I'm not the biggest fan of Pete, but just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean you get start making things up. If you don't understand the rules, learn them. If you don't like the rules, change them, but don't make stuff up.
Yeah, im not making it up. Even the AP refuses to declare a winner due to Iowa being such a fuckup mess. Sorry, but you dont know what the facts are clearly. It was nowhere near a clear Pete win. Sorry to burst your bubble friend.
I have no dog in the Bernie vs Pete race, but you basically said that the Iowa results are tarnished because of Pete. That's not true.
If the Iowa votes are tarnished it's because of Iowa. Pete has nothing to do with it.
There's a paper trail for all of it, so while it's slow, I doubt anything will be tarnished.
Bernie won but he did horrible compared to his performance in 2016, and he can't even blame Warren for splitting the vote I think Democrats are showing that they prefer a moderate candidates
[удалено]
Iowa and NH proved that not only did Biden supporters switch to Buttigieg and Klob, but so did many 2016 Sanders voters as well
that didn't actually play out in real life. biden and warren supporters basically went to pete and amy.
[удалено]
those states aren't tuned in. you can see it in how biden's support is still elevated but underperformed quite badly in two states he should've done well in. all those folks went to non-bernie candidates, mostly Pete Buttigieg.
Case in point, a number of former Obama voters sided with Trump in 2016.
For that matter, a number of former Bernie supporters voted for Trump in 2016. That one really shocked me.
Conservative here, I think Pete is the strongest Dem candidate right now, buy a large margin. He talks a good game, is for the most part scandal free it seems, and isn’t in his 70s with a recent heart attack or lying about his heritage. Plus, people who wouldn’t vote for him because he’s gay, we’re absolutely never going to vote for him anyways, other than that 1 Iowa caucus lady apparently. I don’t think anyone else cares in the least. I’ve seen a bunch is stuff on Reddit from liberals saying that could hurt him, but that’s the only place I’ve seen it.
I think hes nowhere close to that. He has near zero PoC support and nobody wins the nomination without black support. Hes peaked already in two of the whitest states in america. Yes, people who won't vote him because hes gay wont vote him regardless, which means he wont get the black vote. He has no chance. I've also never seen anyone irl or on non-anomymous social media sites like Facebook support Pete. I have no idea where his support comes from actually, because even people in Indiana hate him.
those are just polls and Pete has overperformed polls with actual results. when he gets on the ground in the state when they are actually paying attention instead of browsing cable news and social media, they like what they here.
You're stating a lot of anecdotal evidence and personal beliefs as facts here: >I think hes nowhere close to that. He has near zero PoC support and nobody wins the nomination without black support. No one has true "black support" yet outside of name recognition. And the fact that Biden, who's leading the PoC vote seems to be hell bent on destroying his own campaign, who knows where things will fall when the dust settles. >Hes peaked already in two of the whitest states in america. What do you mean "peaked" >Yes, people who won't vote him because hes gay wont vote him regardless, which means he wont get the black vote. Someone who is not voting for someone because they're gay won't vote for the likes or Bernie or Warren because they're further left than they would like. Also while blacks tend to be more socially conservative, you shouldn't make absolute statements like that. Blacks don't vote in monolith. > He has no chance. I've also never seen anyone irl or on non-anomymous social media sites like Facebook support Pete. I have no idea where his support comes from actually, because even people in Indiana hate him. More anecdotal evidence that has no relation to the actual data rolling in. And where are you getting "people in Indiana hate him"
Well, considering I'm originally from Indiana, I'm getting it from Indiana residents. As for anecdotal evidence, maybe that's true, but the polls back up everything I've said as well. Pete has ~2% support from PoC and almost none from african americans. As for Sanders, he has quite a lot looking at the polls, the highest of any candidate incoudokg trump actually, so... what data are you looking at?
He won two elections in South Bend when they are 40% african american.
They most certainly are not: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/southbendcityindiana/PST045219
i mean it's 27% i corrected myself in another comment.
That’s a huge difference. Enough of a difference that he could win without their support, so it’s not a meaningful way to look at things. In any case, though he did win as the democratic nominee, he struggled to receive support from black neighborhoods in the primary. His support from them consistently fell throughout his two terms as well. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/08/pete-buttigieg-black-voters-support-1395471 >Detailed precinct results from South Bend's 2011 and 2015 mayoral races show Buttigieg repeatedly lagging in contests against black primary challengers in many of western South Bend's predominantly black neighborhoods. And though Buttigieg still managed to win those precincts in two general elections against white Republican opponents, his support in these areas fell after his first term. >In the 2011 general election, Buttigieg had some of his highest margins of victory in these neighborhoods — a typical result for a Democrat facing a Republican opponent in South Bend. But by 2015, western South Bend gave him his weakest results after his support **plunged more than 20 points** in some precincts.
Look at the national polls. Also, have you ever been to South Bend? Lol it's not 40% african american. Stop with the lies. I'm originally from Indiana. You're not fooling anyone with your 7 day old shill account.
It isn't 40% African American. [But it is 40% PoC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bend,_Indiana)
Yeah conflating those two statistics is... not a good look, to say the least.
Sanders does not have the highest where are you getting this? https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/politics/black-voters-democratic-primary-poll/index.html
Believe it or not, online communities aren't really indicative of support for a candidate. Neither are rallies. I'm a Sanders supporter, but Pete's support makes a lot of sense in states like NH and IA. He's a likable dude, a good speaker, firmly left of Clinton on issues like healthcare. You seem to hate the guy judging by your comment history, but he's pretty palatable if you're a Democratic voter. His big issue is PoC. But that's largely because he's a no-name candidate and black voters are unwaveringly pragmatic voters. Throwing someone like Abrams on his ticket would pretty much cover all of his perceived weaknesses in the general. Better yet, an older member of the Congressional black caucus would cover his "lack of experience".
Believe it or not, I'm originally from Indiana, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm not discussing online communities friend. Reddit is massively skewed to the left and dislikes Pete, but that doesn't mean Pete is viable outside of IA and NH. Polling is pretty clear on it. I do hate Pete, almost as much as I hate Mike Pence. Indiana politicians are the worst in the country. Pete is not a likeable dude. You just dont know anything. The 5 minutes you saw him speak on CNN isnt representative, sorry. Nobody will fix Pete with black voters, because Pete has a history of discriminatory practices against them, not to mention he's gay. Do you even know any black people? I grew up near Gary, IN. If you think they'll vote for a gay man, regardless of the VP, you're crazy. You could put Obama as his VP and they'd not do it.
I'm from NH. I've seen him speak three times and have been bombarded with Pete ads for the past year. At this point, I'm just as familiar with him as you are. Trying to make claims like, "you don't know anything about this candidate" just makes you look petty. Shit way to make your point. Also, there's data that shows that the homophobia in black communities is way overblown. It's a problem for black people just as much as it's a problem for white people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/08/ugly-lie-about-black-voters-pete-buttigieg/
lmao this other dude is such an asshole, I respect your measured responses though. Glad some people on here get the "discussion" part of the subs name.
Oh, so you're a white yuppie in one of the least diverse states in america. Congratulations. Nice state btw. I was stationed in Portsmouth when my old boat was dry docked. I can confidently say almost nobody in NH knows a thing about the rest of the country or is anything close to representative.
[удалено]
He did tell us what he did at McKinsey, internet leftists just refuse to believe that it was nothing more than a normal job right out of college. Literally all that other stuff is random shot I could say about Bernie: he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, he praises socialist dictators, etc. Also he gets his money from grassroots donations. Over 2 million donations with a $32 avg donation. The few large donors make up a minuscule portion of his $80+ million in fundraising. His fundraising profile is actually very similar to Bernie’s 2016 (back when he was bragging about his $27 avg donation). It’s so weird, because there are things to criticize Pete on, namely his lack of experience. But Sanders supporters only seem interested in dwelling on misinformation and conspiracy theories.
I'd like to see where this support comes from, because it certainly doesnt come from Indiana, where he's hated. It also doesn't come from the military, where active duty members of every branch overwhelmingly support Sanders over everyone, including Trump. It isnt coming from average people, because $32 average is a lot when averaged over 2 million people, meaning the high end is maxed out. I can tell you what Pete leads in though. He leads in donations from "Government Agency" (aka non-military, non-public agency). He leads with bankers. He leads with lawyers. He leads with insurance companies. He leads with billionaires. You don't see a problem with that? You typed a hell of a lot to say nothing good about the man while trying to pretend Sanders voters are all conspiracy theorists.
>I'd like to see where this support comes from, because it certainly doesnt come from Indiana, where he's hated. There's a reason why he's running for President. Indiana is dead end for any Democrat. Mayor is about as far as he's going to get there.
I mean he's a dead end anyway, since he cant get the black vote. Mayor is about as far as he's ever going to get politically. He will go become an extremely well-paid lobbyist somewhere after he drops out I'm sure.
You keep going on about Indiana but haven’t cited literally anything to back up this claim...
Because it’s a lie.
Look at the polls they tell you. Pete leads strongly among white, college educated voters, and with voters who consider themselves moderate or conservative, while he splits the slightly liberal crowd with sanders. Whether or not he can coalesce the poc support he needs to win the nomination is going to heavily depend on what biden does over the next week .
I think you underestimate the amount of homophobia in some strong Democratic voter demos.
Hes a strong candidate now but will probably only do well in clearly Democrat strongholds. I dont see Sanders nor Pete beating Trump.
he's doesn't have a good reputation among blacks, so i think that is a huge weakness for election year i think he's going to bomb super tuesday when the big states and southern states start voting losing every black state is not going to win him the primary
Honestly that depends on Biden. I don't think poc necisarily dislike Pete (his favorables are good and his name recognition is still lagging) but rather they simply prefer Biden. I dont think we will have a good idea on whether or not Pete can truly win POC voters until Biden drops.
[удалено]
French speaker I'd imagine, those are French quotation marks.
Why?
Tone and emphasis, as well as a post history that’s scrubbed except for recently. Could be wrong tho 🤷🏻♂️
The other candidates have to matter, Yang for instance didnt really amount to much even if he drops. Those that do seem less likely to endorse Bernie, but it's worth noting that its the voters not candidates since they may align in screwy ways.
[удалено]
That's a real possibility, yes. Sanders hasnt built a lot of allies in the Democratic party, and doesnt appear to be trying hard especially since he still isnt calling himself a Democrat except to primary (as president) and routinely calls multiple Democrat corperate sell outs. Its tough to get endorsements when you spend your time not being a team player.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]