What do you expect. Why would someone running for senate spend money out of state?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Advertising really benefits lesser known candidates. I think his plan is to win SC and hope knowledge of the win and name recognition carries him on ST. It's a terrible plan so that's likely what he's going for.
This entire post re: 2016 Joe is on the mark.
However, we are not ignorant now. The minutia of shitty Democratic politics aren't particularly insightful. What we are seeing now is the complete and utter collapse of what is traditionally understood as "Democratic politics," and we can all see the result. People are sick of the party ostensibly representing them. They're either settled on an alternative or totally disenchanted with "normal" recourse.
The party as it was known pre-Clinton is dead. We are seeing it attempt to rise from the ashes. "Typical Democratic voters" can be there or not.
He is in trouble that is for sure. Maybe he will take up the Anyone But Bernie mantle but Bloomberg won't give that up easily.
But Bernie has spent somewhere north of $10M in Super Tuesday states and his name recognition is sky-high too?
Oh, the last bit was just a joke about how unpredictable this primary has been.
Like you say, the politics of the Democratic base have shifted significantly in the last four years. That's not the result of ignorance. That's the result of progress.
I mean it disproportionately benefits lesser known candidates. People who don't have preestablished personas/positions. That's why advertising has worked great for Steyer and Bloomberg in places they're lesser known. They can run vague ads about general subjects without people stopping to go, "wait, isn't that the billionaire asshole who did Stop and Frisk?"
I think what he means is that if you've never heard of somebody and don't know anything about them, their advertisements are going to significantly influence your perspective on them because it becomes your only perspective of them. This is what we see happening with Bloomberg. He runs great ads where he emphasizes specific progressive policies like climate change, gun control, and minimum wage. People don't know he's a totally dishonest monster. They just see a guy with great ads promising progressive policies. That's a benefit only lesser known candidates get: the benefit of a strong first impression.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your post is objectively false.
a) Bernie is not expanding the electorate or the party. He is winning because he bas broadened his coalition from 2016. The people voting for him *are* typical democratic voters. He is not tapping into a huge amount of new voters - the data shows that very clearly.
b) Those typical democratic voters also delivered the mid term wins in 2018. The wins that took back the house were in moderate districts and seats. The noted leftist candidates failed spectacularly in most seats.
It's great that people are engaged and Bernie has passionate support. I hope he wins the primary quickly so we can focus on taking down Trump. But don't ignore the data on the ground to read more into this than there is. It's not a 'new' Democratic Party not a new voting base, and whilst Bernie is swinging the party to the left on the presidential level it's still a large coalition that wins power by appealing to multiple groups.
You've always been a tremendously strong speaker in my eyes, and the bolded here is no exception. What an invigorating message.
Biden needs a good debate performance, a good win in South Carolina and then people might go back to him as the anti-Bernie. Then he does pretty well in the South/Midwest on Super Tuesday and is in striking distance. and makes up ground on March 17th where you could see those states being favorable to him. You've got Georgia/Louisiana after that. You'd probably have the "BIDEN MOMENTUM" narrative all the way through April, where the big Northeast primaries probably decide things at the end of the month.
This isn't true at all. It's been shown that Bernie is bringing Independents, people who don't identify with either party to the table.
In 2016 he did overwhelmingly well with independents.
Why Sanders Does Better With Independents
During the 2004 presidential primaries, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean made headlines by asserting that he represented the “Democratic wing of the Democratic P…
fivethirtyeight.com
I don't have any sort of data in front of me so I can't say definitively whether he is or isn't expanding here or there or whatever. I believe Sanders is more popular with Independents and I believe he is responsible for activating a generation of Democratic youth, which to me suggests expansion. But I also know that the existing Democratic base as it exists - moderates and all - has really warmed up to Sanders since 2016 and that is transformation and coalition versus expansion. So I'm inclined to say he is succeeding, or will succeed, at both.
I guess from the discussion above we can now consider this: if Sanders is not dramatically expanding the electorate, but he is succeeding in transforming the existing electorate and motivating younger voters specifically, what will his lasting influence on the Democratic Party be? Assuming he wins and his politics become part of the American conversation longterm, will it have been better to expand the electorate or to transform the electorate? Will transformation lead to expansion?
I guess from the discussion above we can now consider this: if Sanders is not dramatically expanding the electorate, but he is succeeding in transforming the existing electorate and motivating younger voters specifically, what will his lasting influence on the Democratic Party be? Assuming he wins and his politics become part of the American conversation longterm, will it have been better to expand the electorate or to transform the electorate? Will transformation lead to expansion?
Also worth noting, just because people identify as independents doesn't mean they don't usually vote for Democrats. A lot of independents heavily favor one of the two major parties. He's winning overwhelmingly with independents that vote in Democratic primaries. That's not the same as winning independents handily in a general election for example.
wint on Twitter
“issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"”
twitter.com
Basically my thoughts on the Cuba comments.
Nuance or not, he was asked about why the Cuban people didn't rise up against Castro. Using this as a time to plug the supposed benefits of his government instead of pointing out there were actually hundreds of dissidents Castro had put to death.
Maybe there were things that were "good" about it. But maybe also keep that to yourself and get out of your own way by disavowing it later. It's not a big deal in the end, but it strikes me as insensitive and kind of stupid.
He may be spending his money "on hand" on this, but his infrastructure is still pretty poor.
He's spending his cash on hand to build out infrastructure in anticipation of a SC win giving him a boost. You generally want field offices setup a few weeks in advance of a contest not a few days.
In 2016 he did overwhelmingly well with independents.
Why Sanders Does Better With Independents
During the 2004 presidential primaries, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean made headlines by asserting that he represented the “Democratic wing of the Democratic P…
Independents and new/unlikely voters are two different and distinct groups.
wint on Twitter
“issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"”
Basically my thoughts on the Cuba comments.
Nuance or not, he was asked about why the Cuban people didn't rise up against Castro. Using this as a time to plug the supposed benefits of his government instead of pointing out there were actually hundreds of dissidents Castro had put to death.
Maybe there were things that were "good" about it. But maybe also keep that to yourself and get out of your own way by disavowing it later. It's not a big deal in the end, but it strikes me as insensitive and kind of stupid.
We live in a world where Ana Navarro can go on live TV and praise the Contras without any pushback from anyone.
Its manufactured outrage, mostly being pushed by the never-Trumper brigade. If it wasn't this, it'd be something else related to socialisms.
Also apparently from Morning Joe:
Yes, people exit college to earn 80k a year straight off the bat. This manufacturing of some alternate reality is just getting pathetic honestly, its not anything people actually experience in their lives.
Last edited:
I make literally half that and I've been out of college for five years. 😭
I live in metro Detroit, and no one I know made that much out of college. Lower it by 30k or 40k maybe. Hell, most of my family members that have been working for decades haven't hit that.
Well technically I did, but I'm an engineer. My first job started at 70k and I was 80k after 4 years. But that's standard for chemical engineers. And it's unusual so I definitely wouldn't use that to make a point in an argument.
No doubt there's high paying entry level jobs. My first job related to my degree paid $60,000 USD equivalent. But the point is that the majority of people are either not making that or literally working slave wages because they need "experience".
My first job was 40k a year.
8 years later I still make 40k a year :(
User Warned: Antagonizing another member
this is IWMTB19s modus operandi lol
I think the argument that the electorate is being transformed to an extent could be made now in the primary, but we'll probably have to wait until October (when voter registration wraps up) or November (the actual election) to really know whether or not it's being expanded significantly. I mean, the vast majority of people never could have imagined that Obama would win Indiana of all states in 2008. Bernie might surprise us in Arizona, North Carolina or Texas (long shot) come November. Then we'll know.
It's funny because Bernie's medical letters provided us a much better and bigger understanding of his current health than Warren's lab values.
I'm not talking about Ana Navarro. I'm talking about my own thoughts and opinions on this. And I think he was in the wrong. Like, not damning enough for me to hate him, but enough for me to get frustrated by it.
Why is it always about deflection when Sanders puts his foot in his mouth? I know other people get away with worse. That doesn't make this magically a smart or okay thing to do.
This is based on nothing. The Sanders campaign strategist recently have said they are employing the same strategy in SC as they did in Nevada which they dominated and that is setting shops almost a year ago in SC.
easy Godwin
There's plenty to criticize in Castro's regime, you just don't have to be intellectually dishonest about it.
Man....if Bernie wins SC, that will be quite something. Basically unstoppable at that point.
idk the reporting on it makes it seem like South Carolina is a recent pivot. he had some early events there, but seems to have written the state off pretty early
Or the "Never Trumpers" despite the fact those people have been consistently wrong even before Donald Trump got into office. We have to listen to them now because apparently the Dem candidate has to be a conservative, now.
Blows my fucking mind that in this climate people listen to rancid ass ghouls like Bill Kristol and Steve Schmidt. These are people who, to put in plainly, are not welcome in a progressive/leftist space. War criminals, defenders of bad ideas, and even projectors of violent ideas don't have a home to go to now, and I think this is a positive thing. If they're really risking and ""threatening"" us with voting for Trump, the honest answer is they were going to do this anyway and are looking for the smallest thing to do so. Being like the NHS is a flag for some of the anti-intellectuals of this cloth, but I'm sure that's already been posted and talked about here over the last few days. These are the same people who would say people like Mayo Pete are socialists.
Is it foot in mouth when he's intentional in his comments. Sanders was absolutely right in his assessment of Castro and Cuba. Shit, they're the first country in the world to eradicate HIV transmission from mother to child. They are a country where Americans used to smuggle lung cancer vaccines out of. Its a damning assessment of the United States, which is the point of his statements. It wasn't a support for their rule or brutality.
I brought up Ana Navarro because the outrage over these comments are entirely from intentionally dishonest actors like her, most of whom are never-Trumpers. These same people support groups that are far more brutal and authoritarian, all of these political pundits and politicians are throwing stones from pre-cracked glass houses.
- Status