The Democratic Presidential Debates

CM189191

Ledbetterman10 said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

That said, and despite pleas to the contrary, I am firmly in the Make Third Parties Happen lane

Do you know how you make a multi-party system happen? 
By rewriting the Constitution.

Do you know what you need to rewrite the constitution?
A constitutional convention.

Do you know what you need to make a constitutional convention happen?
By winning two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

Now I'm not sure under what scenario you think that's going to happen. But there's an entire element of the GOP that has been actively campaigning for a constitutional convention for years now. And it's certainly not going to result in a multi-party system.

https://apnews.com/e84cdca5b568402398eabfcd2b6ada07
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conservative-plan-to-rewrite-the-constitution-and-yes-its-a-thing
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/republicans-and-the-constitution/amp
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/351204-gop-state-lawmakers-meet-to-plan-possible-constitutional-convention?amp
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/11/conservatives-call-for-constitutional-convention-alec

It is extraordinarily unlikely, but the Libertarian or Green candidate could be elected President this year. Depending on individual state ballot access situations, they'll also be running candidates in many Senate and House races who could be elected. That is the extent of what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you're carrying on about.

It's such a no-win situation. Either you run third-party and everyone hates you for it (Nader), or you join a party to avoid having to run third-party, and everyone hates you for it (Sanders) 

see, this guy gets it

dignin

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The Juggler said:

It's all happening folks. Bloomberg is out. If Biden can do what he did yesterday with no money.....imagine what he can do with an unlimited budget?

Yep....he immediately endorsed Biden and pledged his support.  It's going to be beautiful.

Warren is next.

I imagine Sanders will fall in line and give a great speech asking his supporters to get behind Biden

Keep imagining!  

Biden does have a strong lead.  The way the delegates are allocated makes it difficult to close big gaps, but not impossible.  

Yeah Sanders isn't dropping out. Nor should he. He's run a competitive campaign and is still in the thick of things. I do think though that once his time is up, he'll back Biden and ask his supporters to do the same. 

But I've been wrong before...

I didn't mean he was dropping out today....but he will drop out due to Joementum

I highly doubt it. Most likely take this to the convention. Sanders is far from done.

Everyone keeps forgetting that Joe hasn't been a very good candidate. But neither was Trump so who knows what will happen at this point. 

I sure hope Biden can do better (debates, energy).

Sanders is done. Time to immediately change his message.

He needed record breaking turnout to get the change he thinks the country wants.

But the reality is, in stunning victory after stunning victory in Bernie states, Biden got Obama level turnout to stop sanders cold and socialism.

I'm not saying he's going to win, I'm saying I don't think he will give up. 

dignin

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The Juggler said:

It's all happening folks. Bloomberg is out. If Biden can do what he did yesterday with no money.....imagine what he can do with an unlimited budget?

Yep....he immediately endorsed Biden and pledged his support.  It's going to be beautiful.

Warren is next.

I imagine Sanders will fall in line and give a great speech asking his supporters to get behind Biden

Keep imagining!  

Biden does have a strong lead.  The way the delegates are allocated makes it difficult to close big gaps, but not impossible.  

Yeah Sanders isn't dropping out. Nor should he. He's run a competitive campaign and is still in the thick of things. I do think though that once his time is up, he'll back Biden and ask his supporters to do the same. 

But I've been wrong before...

I didn't mean he was dropping out today....but he will drop out due to Joementum

I highly doubt it. Most likely take this to the convention. Sanders is far from done.

Everyone keeps forgetting that Joe hasn't been a very good candidate. But neither was Trump so who knows what will happen at this point. 

I sure hope Biden can do better (debates, energy).

I think we've learned that the core of the party doesn't really care about the debates.  We trust Joe.  We know him.  He's been one of us since before I was even born.  I think that's all very powerful to the average Democrat who gets up, goes to work, slacks off during meetings on a PJ board, and goes home to the family at night.  Perhaps all the things the talking heads (and us) gnashed our teeth over for six months was less relevant... debates, ads, ground game, social media (duh), etc.  

I don't disagree, I just have my doubts it will be enough to get out enough people to win vs. Trump.

I still think Warren was that candidate, but there's no path for her.

Biden fans owe Warren a debt for absolutely kicking the shit out of Bloomberg to give Biden this chance. She destroyed his candidacy.

pjl44

F Me In The Brain said:

pjl44 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

pjl44 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

That said, and despite pleas to the contrary, I am firmly in the Make Third Parties Happen lane

Do you know how you make a multi-party system happen? 
By rewriting the Constitution.

Do you know what you need to rewrite the constitution?
A constitutional convention.

Do you know what you need to make a constitutional convention happen?
By winning two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

Now I'm not sure under what scenario you think that's going to happen. But there's an entire element of the GOP that has been actively campaigning for a constitutional convention for years now. And it's certainly not going to result in a multi-party system.

https://apnews.com/e84cdca5b568402398eabfcd2b6ada07
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conservative-plan-to-rewrite-the-constitution-and-yes-its-a-thing
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/republicans-and-the-constitution/amp
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/351204-gop-state-lawmakers-meet-to-plan-possible-constitutional-convention?amp
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/11/conservatives-call-for-constitutional-convention-alec

It is extraordinarily unlikely, but the Libertarian or Green candidate could be elected President this year. Depending on individual state ballot access situations, they'll also be running candidates in many Senate and House races who could be elected. That is the extent of what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you're carrying on about.

It's such a no-win situation. Either you run third-party and everyone hates you for it (Nader), or you join a party to avoid having to run third-party, and everyone hates you for it (Sanders) 

Yeah, for sure. We could probably have a separate thread about all the strategy considerations and even speculate on the disposition of someone like Sanders. As a voter, I just want to see a candidate that I align with and feel good about voting for. Gary Johnson was close enough for me and Justin Amash would be even better. Trump, Clinton, Biden, Sanders not so much.

I voted for the pothead Johnson last time around - this time I won't be fooled.  Every vote to go where it is needed.

What state are you in? Does it make a difference? I'm in a deep blue state, so even from a strategic standpoint it doesn't matter. 

NJ, and no it didn't.  Assume it would not this time, either, but I am not willing to take that chance.  Would rather do something I thought I might not ever do & vote Dem in a Presidential Election. 

Totally fair. The current Libertarian field is pretty weak anyway so you'd hardly be tempted unless something changes soon.

CM189191

bye warren

https://twitter.com/alivitali/status/1235229610536775681?s=20

CM189191

bloomberg supporting biden (obvs)

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1235222302410727426?s=20

mrussel1

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The Juggler said:

It's all happening folks. Bloomberg is out. If Biden can do what he did yesterday with no money.....imagine what he can do with an unlimited budget?

Yep....he immediately endorsed Biden and pledged his support.  It's going to be beautiful.

Warren is next.

I imagine Sanders will fall in line and give a great speech asking his supporters to get behind Biden

Keep imagining!  

Biden does have a strong lead.  The way the delegates are allocated makes it difficult to close big gaps, but not impossible.  

Yeah Sanders isn't dropping out. Nor should he. He's run a competitive campaign and is still in the thick of things. I do think though that once his time is up, he'll back Biden and ask his supporters to do the same. 

But I've been wrong before...

I didn't mean he was dropping out today....but he will drop out due to Joementum

I highly doubt it. Most likely take this to the convention. Sanders is far from done.

Everyone keeps forgetting that Joe hasn't been a very good candidate. But neither was Trump so who knows what will happen at this point. 

I sure hope Biden can do better (debates, energy).

I think we've learned that the core of the party doesn't really care about the debates.  We trust Joe.  We know him.  He's been one of us since before I was even born.  I think that's all very powerful to the average Democrat who gets up, goes to work, slacks off during meetings on a PJ board, and goes home to the family at night.  Perhaps all the things the talking heads (and us) gnashed our teeth over for six months was less relevant... debates, ads, ground game, social media (duh), etc.  

I don't disagree, I just have my doubts it will be enough to get out enough people to win vs. Trump.

I still think Warren was that candidate, but there's no path for her.

Biden fans owe Warren a debt for absolutely kicking the shit out of Bloomberg to give Biden this chance. She destroyed his candidacy.

I agree Biden owes Warren a thanks.  I don't think there is any evidence that she was teh candidate to get out the vote.  I haven't sifted through the data myself at this point, but my understanding is that turnout in VA and the other states where Biden rolled was very strong.  And to see Biden win in MA was honestly a total shock.  It proves that everyone is still just guessing. 

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

pjl44 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

pjl44 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

That said, and despite pleas to the contrary, I am firmly in the Make Third Parties Happen lane

Do you know how you make a multi-party system happen? 
By rewriting the Constitution.

Do you know what you need to rewrite the constitution?
A constitutional convention.

Do you know what you need to make a constitutional convention happen?
By winning two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

Now I'm not sure under what scenario you think that's going to happen. But there's an entire element of the GOP that has been actively campaigning for a constitutional convention for years now. And it's certainly not going to result in a multi-party system.

https://apnews.com/e84cdca5b568402398eabfcd2b6ada07
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conservative-plan-to-rewrite-the-constitution-and-yes-its-a-thing
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/republicans-and-the-constitution/amp
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/351204-gop-state-lawmakers-meet-to-plan-possible-constitutional-convention?amp
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/11/conservatives-call-for-constitutional-convention-alec

It is extraordinarily unlikely, but the Libertarian or Green candidate could be elected President this year. Depending on individual state ballot access situations, they'll also be running candidates in many Senate and House races who could be elected. That is the extent of what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you're carrying on about.

It's such a no-win situation. Either you run third-party and everyone hates you for it (Nader), or you join a party to avoid having to run third-party, and everyone hates you for it (Sanders) 

Yeah, for sure. We could probably have a separate thread about all the strategy considerations and even speculate on the disposition of someone like Sanders. As a voter, I just want to see a candidate that I align with and feel good about voting for. Gary Johnson was close enough for me and Justin Amash would be even better. Trump, Clinton, Biden, Sanders not so much.

I voted for the pothead Johnson last time around - this time I won't be fooled.  Every vote to go where it is needed.

What state are you in? Does it make a difference? I'm in a deep blue state, so even from a strategic standpoint it doesn't matter. 

NJ, and no it didn't.  Assume it would not this time, either, but I am not willing to take that chance.  Would rather do something I thought I might not ever do & vote Dem in a Presidential Election. 

Totally fair. The current Libertarian field is pretty weak anyway so you'd hardly be tempted unless something changes soon.

There are libertarian polices that appeal to me but too many roam into the world of objectivism, of which I'm not a fan.  While I don't think government can solve every problem, I also don't think government fundamentally IS the problem.  The distrust of gov't and belief that the market solves most ills is misplaced in my mind.  It's hard for a person who hates government to be in charge of gov't.  

dignin

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The Juggler said:

It's all happening folks. Bloomberg is out. If Biden can do what he did yesterday with no money.....imagine what he can do with an unlimited budget?

Yep....he immediately endorsed Biden and pledged his support.  It's going to be beautiful.

Warren is next.

I imagine Sanders will fall in line and give a great speech asking his supporters to get behind Biden

Keep imagining!  

Biden does have a strong lead.  The way the delegates are allocated makes it difficult to close big gaps, but not impossible.  

Yeah Sanders isn't dropping out. Nor should he. He's run a competitive campaign and is still in the thick of things. I do think though that once his time is up, he'll back Biden and ask his supporters to do the same. 

But I've been wrong before...

I didn't mean he was dropping out today....but he will drop out due to Joementum

I highly doubt it. Most likely take this to the convention. Sanders is far from done.

Everyone keeps forgetting that Joe hasn't been a very good candidate. But neither was Trump so who knows what will happen at this point. 

I sure hope Biden can do better (debates, energy).

I think we've learned that the core of the party doesn't really care about the debates.  We trust Joe.  We know him.  He's been one of us since before I was even born.  I think that's all very powerful to the average Democrat who gets up, goes to work, slacks off during meetings on a PJ board, and goes home to the family at night.  Perhaps all the things the talking heads (and us) gnashed our teeth over for six months was less relevant... debates, ads, ground game, social media (duh), etc.  

I don't disagree, I just have my doubts it will be enough to get out enough people to win vs. Trump.

I still think Warren was that candidate, but there's no path for her.

Biden fans owe Warren a debt for absolutely kicking the shit out of Bloomberg to give Biden this chance. She destroyed his candidacy.

I agree Biden owes Warren a thanks.  I don't think there is any evidence that she was teh candidate to get out the vote.  I haven't sifted through the data myself at this point, but my understanding is that turnout in VA and the other states where Biden rolled was very strong.  And to see Biden win in MA was honestly a total shock.  It proves that everyone is still just guessing. 

No evidence, just my gut (as you said, guessing). I believe she was the bridge between moderates and progressives. 

dignin

Not to mention she was a lot of voters second choice according to polls.

Its all moot now 

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

pjl44 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

pjl44 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

That said, and despite pleas to the contrary, I am firmly in the Make Third Parties Happen lane

Do you know how you make a multi-party system happen? 
By rewriting the Constitution.

Do you know what you need to rewrite the constitution?
A constitutional convention.

Do you know what you need to make a constitutional convention happen?
By winning two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

Now I'm not sure under what scenario you think that's going to happen. But there's an entire element of the GOP that has been actively campaigning for a constitutional convention for years now. And it's certainly not going to result in a multi-party system.

https://apnews.com/e84cdca5b568402398eabfcd2b6ada07
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conservative-plan-to-rewrite-the-constitution-and-yes-its-a-thing
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/republicans-and-the-constitution/amp
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/351204-gop-state-lawmakers-meet-to-plan-possible-constitutional-convention?amp
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/11/conservatives-call-for-constitutional-convention-alec

It is extraordinarily unlikely, but the Libertarian or Green candidate could be elected President this year. Depending on individual state ballot access situations, they'll also be running candidates in many Senate and House races who could be elected. That is the extent of what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you're carrying on about.

It's such a no-win situation. Either you run third-party and everyone hates you for it (Nader), or you join a party to avoid having to run third-party, and everyone hates you for it (Sanders) 

Yeah, for sure. We could probably have a separate thread about all the strategy considerations and even speculate on the disposition of someone like Sanders. As a voter, I just want to see a candidate that I align with and feel good about voting for. Gary Johnson was close enough for me and Justin Amash would be even better. Trump, Clinton, Biden, Sanders not so much.

I voted for the pothead Johnson last time around - this time I won't be fooled.  Every vote to go where it is needed.

What state are you in? Does it make a difference? I'm in a deep blue state, so even from a strategic standpoint it doesn't matter. 

NJ, and no it didn't.  Assume it would not this time, either, but I am not willing to take that chance.  Would rather do something I thought I might not ever do & vote Dem in a Presidential Election. 

Totally fair. The current Libertarian field is pretty weak anyway so you'd hardly be tempted unless something changes soon.

There are libertarian polices that appeal to me but too many roam into the world of objectivism, of which I'm not a fan.  While I don't think government can solve every problem, I also don't think government fundamentally IS the problem.  The distrust of gov't and belief that the market solves most ills is misplaced in my mind.  It's hard for a person who hates government to be in charge of gov't.  

There is definitely an aggravating rigidly objectivist contingent of libertarians. In my opinion, they hold back the Libertarian Party more than any systemic duopoly blah blah blah. There is a persistent struggle between that wing and more pragmatic types. Gary Johnson was no hardliner, for example. This specifically is my beef with the current Presidential crop...a lot of no-name ideologues. 

CM189191

dignin said:

Not to mention she was a lot of voters second choice according to polls.

Its all moot now 

for everyone crowing about 3rd or multi party politics : 
we need ranked choice voting
this is how you bring US politics back to the middle ground, without having to rewrite the constitution
https://www.fairvote.org/rcv

JimmyV

It is partly due to my location and my circle, no doubt, but I know at least a dozen women who are devastated by Warren's showing yesterday.

mrussel1

CM189191 said:

dignin said:

Not to mention she was a lot of voters second choice according to polls.

Its all moot now 

for everyone crowing about 3rd or multi party politics : 
we need ranked choice voting
this is how you bring US politics back to the middle ground, without having to rewrite the constitution
https://www.fairvote.org/rcv

Ranked choice would definitely inform the delegates and SD's in the event of a convention vote.  However, even in a year where it seemed for sure we would go to the convention, in 24 hours that narrative has flipped on its head. 

ikiT

that escalated quickly...

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

So Liz comes in third in her home state, has less delegates than Pete who already dropped out, and yet she’s still going forward. For fuck’s sake. 

Time for her to drop out.  

All her sticking around does is add to the perception that some Sanders supporters have that the Dems are all against him. There were three candidates with no hope in hell. Pete and Amy, who were in Biden’s “lane” got out of the way. And Liz, who’s in Bernie’s “lane” refuses to. She has every right to go forward with her pointless campaign. I don’t mind it. I think Biden would be a better nominee than Sanders. But come on...

Bloomberg needs to go too. What a failure his campaign was. He spent like over $700 million. Imagine that. Almost a billion dollars for nothing. 

Yeah well he’s prepared to triple that to help the nominee. That’s more than Bernie can say. We’ll see if it was all for nothing come November. 

Yeah all that money was for nothing. Future money put behind Biden would be for something. Frankly he should have just backed someone financially like Biden from the start. Instead all he got for his billion dollars was an undressing from Liz and a nickname from Trump. 

The money he spent was a drop in the bucket to him....
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bloomberg-lost-but-he-may-still-get-what-he-wanted/

Bloomberg Lost, But He May Still Get What He Wanted

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg suspended his presidential campaign on Wednesday. 

JOE RAEDLE / GETTY IMAGES

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $400 million on television commercials alone during his ultimately brief 2020 presidential campaign. He blanketed the airwaves across the nation, running ads in almost every single state. And in the end, which came on Wednesday when Bloomberg announced that he was exiting the race and endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden, all he had to show for it was a handful of delegates and a win in American Samoa.

So Bloomberg’s candidacy failed in getting him to the Oval Office — but he won in another way.

Bloomberg entered the race in late November. At that point, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was ascendant, and fears about Biden’s weaknesses were rampant. Bloomberg opposed many of Warren’s more liberal ideas, such as her wealth tax plan, and he viewed her as unlikely to defeat President Trump in a general election. He reportedly saw both her and Sen. Bernie Sanders as unacceptable general election nominees and doubted Biden or any of the other more establishment, moderate candidates in the race could beat them. So he got in.

But Bloomberg opted for an unorthodox strategy to win the Democratic nomination, skipping the first four contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — while hoping his huge spending advantage would put him in a position to rack up delegates on Super Tuesday.

His strategy looked like it could work a few weeks ago. Sanders had jumped to the front of the queue instead of Warren, but the same fears about nominating too liberal a candidate applied to him. Bloomberg began amassing endorsements from more center-left figures in the party who opposed a Sanders nomination. Black voters started to move from Biden to Bloomberg. In short, Bloomberg looked like he could replace Biden as the candidate for older and more moderate Democratic voters and the party’s center-left elites. National polls showed Bloomberg climbing into a tie with Biden for second:

Then, Bloomberg’s plan fell apart. In fact, it fell apart so fast that national polls really didn’t have enough time to capture it. First, his surge in the polls resulted in the news media and the other candidates, particularly Warren, hammering him in the debates and on the trail, particularly about accusations that he has made sexist comments in the past. His performance in his first debate, in Las Vegas, was almost universally panned. It’s not clear that Bloomberg could have recovered from any of that — we didn’t get a ton of polling between that Nevada debate and South Carolina. But the real end of the former mayor’s candidacy came when Biden won overwhelmingly in South Carolina, got a surge of endorsements and then did well on Super Tuesday. The center-left, establishment wing of the party no longer needed a Biden replacement — they had Biden.

So with Biden now back as the most likely Democratic nominee, it did not make much sense for Bloomberg to keep running.

But I don’t think Bloomberg’s candidacy was a mistake or unwise. He’s worth more than $50 billion — so it’s not clear the $400 million he spent on television commercials or the other money he poured into his campaign matters much to him. He got to go on stage in the debates and attack Sanders and Warren. We don’t know if that boosted Biden, but it likely didn’t hurt him. With Biden now in a much stronger position than when Bloomberg entered the race, you could argue that Bloomberg provided what he and other more center-left figures wanted — to steer the race towards a more moderate nominee. The more extreme back-up plan — nominate Bloomberg — ended up not being needed. My guess is that Bloomberg would have preferred to be the candidate instead of Biden but knew that was a fairly unlike outcome, since he is a one-time Republican who entered the race in late November.

So Bloomberg, who has flirted with running for president since 2008, can now go back to his previous political role: pumping his billions into a variety of liberal causes. He hired people in numerous states for his presidential campaign, and his employees were reportedly told that they would have jobs through November. It’s not clear if Bloomberg will end up retaining these staffers for some kind of operation to boost Biden against Sanders and Warren in the primary, have his team start focusing now on the general election against Trump or simply wind down his apparatus. But I expect him to stay out of the primary and focus on Trump.

In short, Bloomberg may end up spending more than $1 billion in 2020 to get Trump out of the Oval Office — and from Bloomberg’s view, spending about half of that money to replace Trump with Michael Bloomberg was probably a failed investment that was well worth the risk.

mrussel1

Lex is always on about turnout, but he's dead right.  Here's something just posted on the Hill about the turnout.  VA and SC had explosive turnout and those were the two Biden route states.  NH had strong turnout, but NV and IA did not.  

Nearly twice as many voters cast their ballots in Virginia’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday as in 2016. 

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, some 1.3 million votes had been counted in the commonwealth. That’s nearly double the roughly 780,000 votes cast in the state’s 2016 Democratic primary race between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). 

The number of votes also surpassed the 986,000 cast in the 2008 primary.

Former Vice President Joe Biden won a decisive victory in Virginia on Tuesday. Current tallies show him with more than 700,000 votes in the state — a roughly 40 percent increase over the half-million votes Clinton received when she won the state four years ago. 

Sanders saw a more modest 10 percent increase over the 275,000 votes he won in Virginia in 2016. He currently has a little over 300,000 votes in the state. 

The sky-high turnout in Virginia comes amid mixed turnout in the four early nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Turnout in Iowa and Nevada fell short of expectations. In New Hampshire, it exceeded the record previously set in 2008. And in South Carolina, turnout nearly matched the record set in 2008 when former President Obama was on the ballot.

Turnout is seen as an important measure of voter enthusiasm. Democrats see voter turnout as an electoral game changer, arguing that the more people who show up to cast their ballot, the better the party’s chances are of defeating President Trump in November. 

Ledbetterman10

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

So Liz comes in third in her home state, has less delegates than Pete who already dropped out, and yet she’s still going forward. For fuck’s sake. 

Time for her to drop out.  

All her sticking around does is add to the perception that some Sanders supporters have that the Dems are all against him. There were three candidates with no hope in hell. Pete and Amy, who were in Biden’s “lane” got out of the way. And Liz, who’s in Bernie’s “lane” refuses to. She has every right to go forward with her pointless campaign. I don’t mind it. I think Biden would be a better nominee than Sanders. But come on...

Bloomberg needs to go too. What a failure his campaign was. He spent like over $700 million. Imagine that. Almost a billion dollars for nothing. 

Yeah well he’s prepared to triple that to help the nominee. That’s more than Bernie can say. We’ll see if it was all for nothing come November. 

Yeah all that money was for nothing. Future money put behind Biden would be for something. Frankly he should have just backed someone financially like Biden from the start. Instead all he got for his billion dollars was an undressing from Liz and a nickname from Trump. 

The money he spent was a drop in the bucket to him....
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bloomberg-lost-but-he-may-still-get-what-he-wanted/

Bloomberg Lost, But He May Still Get What He Wanted

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg suspended his presidential campaign on Wednesday. 

JOE RAEDLE / GETTY IMAGES

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $400 million on television commercials alone during his ultimately brief 2020 presidential campaign. He blanketed the airwaves across the nation, running ads in almost every single state. And in the end, which came on Wednesday when Bloomberg announced that he was exiting the race and endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden, all he had to show for it was a handful of delegates and a win in American Samoa.

So Bloomberg’s candidacy failed in getting him to the Oval Office — but he won in another way.

Bloomberg entered the race in late November. At that point, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was ascendant, and fears about Biden’s weaknesses were rampant. Bloomberg opposed many of Warren’s more liberal ideas, such as her wealth tax plan, and he viewed her as unlikely to defeat President Trump in a general election. He reportedly saw both her and Sen. Bernie Sanders as unacceptable general election nominees and doubted Biden or any of the other more establishment, moderate candidates in the race could beat them. So he got in.

But Bloomberg opted for an unorthodox strategy to win the Democratic nomination, skipping the first four contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — while hoping his huge spending advantage would put him in a position to rack up delegates on Super Tuesday.

His strategy looked like it could work a few weeks ago. Sanders had jumped to the front of the queue instead of Warren, but the same fears about nominating too liberal a candidate applied to him. Bloomberg began amassing endorsements from more center-left figures in the party who opposed a Sanders nomination. Black voters started to move from Biden to Bloomberg. In short, Bloomberg looked like he could replace Biden as the candidate for older and more moderate Democratic voters and the party’s center-left elites. National polls showed Bloomberg climbing into a tie with Biden for second:

Then, Bloomberg’s plan fell apart. In fact, it fell apart so fast that national polls really didn’t have enough time to capture it. First, his surge in the polls resulted in the news media and the other candidates, particularly Warren, hammering him in the debates and on the trail, particularly about accusations that he has made sexist comments in the past. His performance in his first debate, in Las Vegas, was almost universally panned. It’s not clear that Bloomberg could have recovered from any of that — we didn’t get a ton of polling between that Nevada debate and South Carolina. But the real end of the former mayor’s candidacy came when Biden won overwhelmingly in South Carolina, got a surge of endorsements and then did well on Super Tuesday. The center-left, establishment wing of the party no longer needed a Biden replacement — they had Biden.

So with Biden now back as the most likely Democratic nominee, it did not make much sense for Bloomberg to keep running.

But I don’t think Bloomberg’s candidacy was a mistake or unwise. He’s worth more than $50 billion — so it’s not clear the $400 million he spent on television commercials or the other money he poured into his campaign matters much to him. He got to go on stage in the debates and attack Sanders and Warren. We don’t know if that boosted Biden, but it likely didn’t hurt him. With Biden now in a much stronger position than when Bloomberg entered the race, you could argue that Bloomberg provided what he and other more center-left figures wanted — to steer the race towards a more moderate nominee. The more extreme back-up plan — nominate Bloomberg — ended up not being needed. My guess is that Bloomberg would have preferred to be the candidate instead of Biden but knew that was a fairly unlike outcome, since he is a one-time Republican who entered the race in late November.

So Bloomberg, who has flirted with running for president since 2008, can now go back to his previous political role: pumping his billions into a variety of liberal causes. He hired people in numerous states for his presidential campaign, and his employees were reportedly told that they would have jobs through November. It’s not clear if Bloomberg will end up retaining these staffers for some kind of operation to boost Biden against Sanders and Warren in the primary, have his team start focusing now on the general election against Trump or simply wind down his apparatus. But I expect him to stay out of the primary and focus on Trump.

In short, Bloomberg may end up spending more than $1 billion in 2020 to get Trump out of the Oval Office — and from Bloomberg’s view, spending about half of that money to replace Trump with Michael Bloomberg was probably a failed investment that was well worth the risk.

So in summation, he wasted millions of dollars but he's so rich that it's no big deal that he did. And he might spend over a billion dollars between his pathetic campaign and backing Biden to TRY and get Trump out of the Oval Office. Got ya. 

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Lex is always on about turnout, but he's dead right.  Here's something just posted on the Hill about the turnout.  VA and SC had explosive turnout and those were the two Biden route states.  NH had strong turnout, but NV and IA did not.  

Nearly twice as many voters cast their ballots in Virginia’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday as in 2016. 

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, some 1.3 million votes had been counted in the commonwealth. That’s nearly double the roughly 780,000 votes cast in the state’s 2016 Democratic primary race between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). 

The number of votes also surpassed the 986,000 cast in the 2008 primary.

Former Vice President Joe Biden won a decisive victory in Virginia on Tuesday. Current tallies show him with more than 700,000 votes in the state — a roughly 40 percent increase over the half-million votes Clinton received when she won the state four years ago. 

Sanders saw a more modest 10 percent increase over the 275,000 votes he won in Virginia in 2016. He currently has a little over 300,000 votes in the state. 

The sky-high turnout in Virginia comes amid mixed turnout in the four early nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Turnout in Iowa and Nevada fell short of expectations. In New Hampshire, it exceeded the record previously set in 2008. And in South Carolina, turnout nearly matched the record set in 2008 when former President Obama was on the ballot.

Turnout is seen as an important measure of voter enthusiasm. Democrats see voter turnout as an electoral game changer, arguing that the more people who show up to cast their ballot, the better the party’s chances are of defeating President Trump in November. 

:-)

When I saw the great state of VA get put in Bidens column right at 7, I had a strong feeling Bernie was on the ropes.

Then the hundreds of thousands of additional voters who did not show up in 2016... to stop Sanders? 

The campaign has been a battle between the base and the millenials as we know. One group wants some sort of Euro fantasy utopia.  The other wants to beat trump. Period.No socialist American fantasies. Like I've been saying to Chaos for months.  Is he off today?

SC was a huge hint that the base is energized. We can only hope Shelby v. Holder isnt strong  enough to stop the entire base from voting in PA MI & WI this November 

HughFreakingDillon

if it works, it wasn't a waste.