Nevada debate and caucus

[Lagom Lite]

Sanders is unelectable because of socialism and young voters.

(I'm paraphrasing.)

Valid points, but it's equally true that Donald Trump was "unelectable" in 2016 because he's a sexist, racist, lying gameshow host clown. And Hillary was the most moderate, status quo, name recognition establishment candidate there ever was.

I think what makes Sanders the most electable among the current democratic nominees is:

- Polls says so
- He is building a grassroots movement of millions of people (like Trump did)
- He has a strong message (like Trump did)
- He is anti-establishment (like Trump pretended to be)
- He has the potential to mobilize new voter groups that normally don't vote (independents, young voters, disillusioned midwestern working class)
- He is one of the most well-known and most popular politicians in the country (by favorability ratings)
- Where are moderate voters gonna go anyway? Abstain? Vote for Trump? "Vote blue no matter who" goes both ways.

Bloomberg on the other hand is one of the weakest candidates against Trump. He will lose the working class vote and the minority vote, he lacks excitement, has no message and no political movement behind him.

Sanders recently held a rally in Washington attended by 17,000 people. Bloomberg buys TV ads.

The problem isn't Sanders' popularity but its distribution.

Sure, he'll win blue states overwhelmingly, but this whole election will turn on a small number of swing states, most of them trending slightly Red and far more inclined to centrism than socialism.

Winning New York by 35 points means nothing if you lose Pennsylvania and Ohio by one point each.

Yeah, you're right. Better nominate one of the less popular candidates.

Snark aside, which other candidate do you think would have a better chance of winning the swing states? Pete? Biden? Warren? I just don't see it, not in the general against Trump. Sanders might just be able to win back some disappointed Trump voters. But I can't see that happening with any of the other candidates.

[Holman]

Yeah, you're right. Better nominate one of the less popular candidates.

Snark aside, which other candidate do you think would have a better chance of winning the swing states? Pete? Biden? Warren? I just don't see it, not in the general against Trump. Sanders might just be able to win back some disappointed Trump voters. But I can't see that happening with any of the other candidates.

The answer to your question is Biden, but I'm terribly worried about him.

I'm not totally anti-Sanders, but "socialist" is a HUGE liability. The polls are clear on that.

Because of the Electoral College, general popularity really does take a back seat to swing state electability. A national poll on "Trump vs Sanders" tells us very little. State-by-state polls are where it matters, and there the Sanders picture is dire.

My answer is that Warren is the strong unity candidate. As such, she is suffering in a race where the extremes (vs unity) are solidifying. My hope is that by the end of the primary unity seems most viable because it's the best option left standing.

[Kraken]

I wish Democrats would stop trying to guess who everyone else will vote for and just go with who they think would be the best president. Maybe the best candidate is also the most electable candidate.

It is said that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Problem is, Democrats are still speed dating while the Republicans have been goose-stepping for months already.

[Isgrimnur]

It's primary season. Compare it to the 2016 cattle call on the other side.

[Kraken]

It's true, democracy is messy and the Dems have a lot to work through. If they'd fallen in line, we'd all be trying to feel Bidenmania right now.

[Lagom Lite]

Yeah, you're right. Better nominate one of the less popular candidates.

Snark aside, which other candidate do you think would have a better chance of winning the swing states? Pete? Biden? Warren? I just don't see it, not in the general against Trump. Sanders might just be able to win back some disappointed Trump voters. But I can't see that happening with any of the other candidates.

The answer to your question is Biden, but I'm terribly worried about him.

I'm not totally anti-Sanders, but "socialist" is a HUGE liability. The polls are clear on that.

Because of the Electoral College, general popularity really does take a back seat to swing state electability. A national poll on "Trump vs Sanders" tells us very little. State-by-state polls are where it matters, and there the Sanders picture is dire.

My answer is that Warren is the strong unity candidate. As such, she is suffering in a race where the extremes (vs unity) are solidifying. My hope is that by the end of the primary unity seems most viable because it's the best option left standing.

Well, Biden and Warren are already in trouble. Biden especially. My first choice would be Warren as well, but her campaign seems to be fading. Maybe she's the best hope to beat Sanders, but frankly I doubt it. It would require several candidates to start dropping out and endorsing her, and somehow gather voter blocs that she's not reaching now. And even then she'd probably just be seen as a somewhat beige variation of the "real deal" (Sanders).

[El Guapo]

I wish Democrats would stop trying to guess who everyone else will vote for and just go with who they think would be the best president. Maybe the best candidate is also the most electable candidate.

It is said that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Problem is, Democrats are still speed dating while the Republicans have been goose-stepping for months already.

Part of the problem is that the most logical thing is to vote for whomever is most likely to defeat Trump. Given the structure of the U.S. government, and the Senate in particular, the policy outcome differences between (say) Sanders and Klobuchar will be small to nil. If McConnell is still majority leader (which is I think still probable at this point) then the next President is mostly going to be running the administrative state and trying to keep the government open - new progressive policy will be almost zero. Even if Democrats take the Senate, it will be with a narrow majority, so (assuming that the filibuster is abolished) the people deciding what new progressive policies get enacted are going to be Joe Manchin and Jon Tester.

By contrast, the policy differences between Trump and the Democratic field are enormous. So, it makes all the sense in the world to pick whomever maximizes the odds of beating Trump. The problem is identifying who that is is not easy.

[Kurth]

Because, when you get right down to it, if we’re being honest, they all kind of suck.

[El Guapo]

Because, when you get right down to it, if we’re being honest, they all kind of suck.

I wouldn't say that. They all have great aspects and they all have areas where they suck.

[Smoove_B]

They're all debating nuances on policy while Trump is whipping crowds into a frenzy over a movie from South Korea winning an Oscar.

We.Are.So.Fuct.

[YellowKing]

I think we're freaking about a bit too much about the whole thing. It's a primary - candidates are going to battle it out. No primary in the history of the presidency has had all the candidates on stage agreeing to do the same thing and presenting a united front. Ultimately all this in-fighting is valuable experience for the nominee that is going to have to face Trump.

There will be plenty of time to freak out when we have an actual nominee. And who really cares that Trump is whipping up his base? They're going to vote for him anyway. I highly doubt there are a bunch of undecided voters out there going, "I was going to vote for the Democratic candidate, but Trump brings up some great points about the Oscars."

[Dogstar]

I think we're freaking about a bit too much about the whole thing. It's a primary - candidates are going to battle it out. No primary in the history of the presidency has had all the candidates on stage agreeing to do the same thing and presenting a united front. Ultimately all this in-fighting is valuable experience for the nominee that is going to have to face Trump.

There will be plenty of time to freak out when we have an actual nominee. And who really cares that Trump is whipping up his base? They're going to vote for him anyway. I highly doubt there are a bunch of undecided voters out there going, "I was going to vote for the Democratic candidate, but Trump brings up some great points about the Oscars."

Not that he hasn't done it before, and not that he won't do it again, but I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Smoove's point was that the Democrats are battering each other on policy nuances to earn support while Trump's message to his supporters is considerably simpler and easier for them to get behind: "Vote for me because I will support you and our culture against The Other."

[Smoove_B]

Exactly. One side is trying to have legitimate discourse over important policies, while the other is stoking the flames of divisiveness by pandering to the morons that are happy to vote (R) over and over again, no matter what.

[El Guapo]

Exactly. One side is trying to have legitimate discourse over important policies, while the other is stoking the flames of divisiveness by pandering to the morons that are happy to vote (R) over and over again, no matter what.

Yeah, but that'll shift once there's a nominee and we're switching to the general electorate. At that point the message becomes less "discussions over which health care policy is the best" and more "Trump is trying to take away your healthcare and give the money to large corporations."

[Kraken]

Exactly. One side is trying to have legitimate discourse over important policies, while the other is stoking the flames of divisiveness by pandering to the morons that are happy to vote (R) over and over again, no matter what.

Yeah, but that'll shift once there's a nominee and we're switching to the general electorate. At that point the message becomes less "discussions over which health care policy is the best" and more "Trump is trying to take away your healthcare and give the money to large corporations."

...or even hammer on the real stakes: "This election is our last chance to avoid becoming a dictatorship." Young people aren't keen on democracy, but oldsters are, making it the perfect retort to "Ermahgerd SOCIALISM!!!" (which will surely be used on any Dem nominee).

[Apollo]

It's primary season. Compare it to the 2016 cattle call on the other side.

Living in a Deep Red State, I can't ever recall any Republican being bitter enough over the primary to even consider not voting for the eventual nominee (The closest would be McCain-Bush in 2000). On the other hand, it has happened several times in the Democratic party...1980 and 2016 come quickly to mind. In other words, I think the Democrats are probably doomed, much as that scares me.

The last debate wasn't so much about policy differences as it was making personal attacks, the kind which won't be forgotten. Compare it to how civilized the Bernie-Clinton debates were, and yet many Bernie supporters wouldn't get behind Hillary.

While it is still early, and 8 months is an eternity in politics, the only way I can see the Dems having a chance right now is if all of them except Biden suddenly drop dead.

[malchior]

While it is still early, and 8 months is an eternity in politics, the only way I can see the Dems having a chance right now is if all of them except Biden suddenly drop dead.

The CW around Biden is as dangerous as the belief that Hillary was a lock. He is simply not the right person to take on Trump. Frankly none of these people are. We are in big trouble especially with Bernie signalling like this.

I've got news for the Republican establishment. I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us.

[Apollo]

While it is still early, and 8 months is an eternity in politics, the only way I can see the Dems having a chance right now is if all of them except Biden suddenly drop dead.

The CW around Biden is as dangerous as the belief that Hillary was a lock. He is simply not the right person to take on Trump. Frankly none of these people are. We are in big trouble especially with Bernie signalling like this.

I've got news for the Republican establishment. I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to say that Biden is the best candidate. But Biden's biggest weakness is his inept debating style. If he didn't have to face the other Democrats in the Primary (and get repeatedly savaged by them) he could cruise into the Presidential debates largely unscathed. And then when he faced off against the Angry Idiot, his debate performances would simply make him look human, and would garner him sympathy with the folks that the Dems need to win the general election.

My fear right now is that the Progressive wing of the party will not support any of the moderates strongly enough to get them elected. And if a Progressive candidate (Sanders or Warren) wins, they'll never be able to do well enough in Battleground States to beat Trump. That's why I am convinced that the Democratic Party is screwed, at least the way things stand right now.

[YellowKing]

I'm not convinced Bernie would be the disaster everyone thinks he would be. And I'm saying that as NOT a Bernie fan.

For better or worse, he does have fierce devotion from his supporters and has (at least in the early going) managed to expand his appeal more broadly than most expected. If the election depends on turnout, maybe he drives more turnout from his devotees than he offsets with people who aren't into his brand of liberalism. He may be the disruptor for the left that Trump was for the right.

And while I hesitate to put any trust in polls, he's currently leading against Trump in almost every head to head poll.

[Apollo]

I'm not convinced Bernie would be the disaster everyone thinks he would be. And I'm saying that as NOT a Bernie fan.

For better or worse, he does have fierce devotion from his supporters and has (at least in the early going) managed to expand his appeal more broadly than most expected. If the election depends on turnout, maybe he drives more turnout from his devotees than he offsets with people who aren't into his brand of liberalism. He may be the disruptor for the left that Trump was for the right.

And while I hesitate to put any trust in polls, he's currently leading against Trump in almost every head to head poll.

Another thing going for him is that he (and Mayor Pete) has Charisma, something the others are lacking.

[malchior]

What's jarring to me is that people keep talking about this like it'll be a normal election. Debates are not going to matter. Policy is going to matter far less than it ever has if 2016 is any guide. You have to assume past models are all going to be wrong about what will matter.

That said, I agree that Bernie isn't necessarily a disaster but he is a *massive* risk. We don't know how the socialism angle is going to play but it is most of the risk with his selfishness being a key factor. And the Democratic base is terrible at gauging risk collectively. Going with him is essentially rolling the dice and not knowing what game you are going to be playing.

[El Guapo]

What's jarring to me is that people keep talking about this like it'll be a normal election. Debates are not going to matter. Policy is going to matter far less than it ever has if 2016 is any guide. You have to assume past models are all going to be wrong about what will matter.

Honestly, what's your basis for any of this? And if so, why not just pick a random name out of the phone book for the nominee, since nothing matters and everything is random?

I'm especially curious about the assertion that debates are not going to matter, when debates have mattered in this primary (have moved the polls at least somewhat), and debates mattered a TON in 2016 - each debate gave Clinton a huge boost, like 5ish points in the polls. But of course debates aren't the *only* thing that matters - it certainly impacts the election when (say) the current FBI director writes a vague letter to Congress opening an investigation into one candidate 8 days prior to voting.

[Formix]

Maybe y'all can help my myopia here, but there are some items that just seem obvious to me that it seems like they aren't obvious to most everyone else.
1) Biden is showing signs of cognitive decline every time he talks. Not to knock him, I recognize some of that in myself, but let's be brutally honest here, if he gets into a debate with the orange honeybadger, he'll look weak and indecisive and old.
2)Bernie is in many ways a traditional politician in that he evades questions, ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message, and as a democratic socialist, will scare the hell out of a lot of voters who think that means communist - and let's be frank here, there are a LOT of Americans who think that.
3) Warren is smart, has thought through her plans, has government experience, can elucidate her thinking with reason and math, and would tear a chunk out of Trump the size of Bloomberg's head while reminding you of your spunky grandma or sassy aunt.

What am I missing that Warren seems like far and away the sensible candidate?

[malchior]

What's jarring to me is that people keep talking about this like it'll be a normal election. Debates are not going to matter. Policy is going to matter far less than it ever has if 2016 is any guide. You have to assume past models are all going to be wrong about what will matter.

Honestly, what's your basis for any of this? And if so, why not just pick a random name out of the phone book for the nominee, since nothing matters and everything is random?

2016 is the basis. At a macro level things fell into place as predicted. At the micro level we had many things happen that are explainable post-election but were missed by the traditional model. And then we had the interference.

I'm especially curious about the assertion that debates are not going to matter, when debates have mattered in this primary (have moved the polls at least somewhat), and debates mattered a TON in 2016 - each debate gave Clinton a huge boost, like 5ish points in the polls.

Primary debates matter for sure. I was talking specifically about Presidential debates. They either won't happen or if they do...won't matter. They didn't matter much in 2016. Clinton got some poll bumps but they smoothed away. Trump has no reason to even participate. And if he does it'll be with conditions that favor him. He doesn't want to play on a fair field.

But of course debates aren't the *only* thing that matters - it certainly impacts the election when (say) the current FBI director writes a vague letter to Congress opening an investigation into one candidate 8 days prior to voting.

This is exactly my point. I've been hammering on this point. There is little chance that this election is not going to suffer from interference. Potentially massive interference. We also had Russian social media infiltration that potentially had an effect. Isn't the GOP actively resisting addressing that right now? Even though the risk is greater?

At the 30k foot view, we are in the middle of a massive inflection/failure point in our nation and anyone who thinks that traditional messaging/calculations matter didn't learn the right lessons 2016 and isn't paying attention to how many of the same mistakes are being repeated in 2020.

At the moment, 2020 appears to be trending towards the Democrats taking massive gambles *again* with our future because they can't get their shit together. We'll know more in a few weeks but right now it certainly looks like a divisive convention in the middle of July. One of the dividers has already shown he only cares about his own power and brands himself a socialist while trying to co-opt a center left party. The other leading person is a young, relatively gay Mayor of a small city in the midwest. They are running against the worst President in American history who happens to have lucked into being at the tail end of a strong expansion in the economy.

In that context, what possible model from the past is useful in this context? The only thing of value perhaps are comparisons of the Democratic primary to the GOP disaster in 2016? So when I say it is jarring to me that is the basis. The media and people are talking about this using their familiar framework while not realizing it is most likely going to totally miss the mark. That doesn't mean pull a name out of the phone book. The ship has sailed and the choices are all flawed if the singular purpose was removing Trump. Look at where we are we have to be realistic that there is a high chance that things are going to go very badly. Unless a miracle happens in the Democratic party.

[malchior]

Maybe y'all can help my myopia here, but there are some items that just seem obvious to me that it seems like they aren't obvious to most everyone else.
1) Biden is showing signs of cognitive decline every time he talks. Not to knock him, I recognize some of that in myself, but let's be brutally honest here, if he gets into a debate with the orange honeybadger, he'll look weak and indecisive and old.
2)Bernie is in many ways a traditional politician in that he evades questions, ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message, and as a democratic socialist, will scare the hell out of a lot of voters who think that means communist - and let's be frank here, there are a LOT of Americans who think that.
3) Warren is smart, has thought through her plans, has government experience, can elucidate her thinking with reason and math, and would tear a chunk out of Trump the size of Bloomberg's head while reminding you of your spunky grandma or sassy aunt.

What am I missing that Warren seems like far and away the sensible candidate?

This all seems right. The trouble is Bernie doesn't care about the Democratic party or getting rid of Trump...unless he is the one who wins. Warren doesn't have the progressive support. Bernie does. Warren doesn't have the centrist support. Others do.

The whole thing is very analogous to how Trump got the nomination. Trump just eked out enough plurality in a crowded field to solidify support. This seems unlikely in the Democrats because they have two strong power bases who appear at the moment to be unlikely to support a unity candidate.

[Kraken]

Maybe y'all can help my myopia here, but there are some items that just seem obvious to me that it seems like they aren't obvious to most everyone else.
1) Biden is showing signs of cognitive decline every time he talks. Not to knock him, I recognize some of that in myself, but let's be brutally honest here, if he gets into a debate with the orange honeybadger, he'll look weak and indecisive and old.
2)Bernie is in many ways a traditional politician in that he evades questions, ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message, and as a democratic socialist, will scare the hell out of a lot of voters who think that means communist - and let's be frank here, there are a LOT of Americans who think that.
3) Warren is smart, has thought through her plans, has government experience, can elucidate her thinking with reason and math, and would tear a chunk out of Trump the size of Bloomberg's head while reminding you of your spunky grandma or sassy aunt.

What am I missing that Warren seems like far and away the sensible candidate?

This all seems right. The trouble is Bernie doesn't care about the Democratic party or getting rid of Trump...unless he is the one who wins. Warren doesn't have the progressive support. Bernie does. Warren doesn't have the centrist support. Others do.

The whole thing is very analogous to how Trump got the nomination. Trump just eked out enough plurality in a crowded field to solidify support. This seems unlikely in the Democrats because they have two strong power bases who appear at the moment to be unlikely to support a unity candidate.

Warren isn't the first choice of either the progressives (Bernie) or the moderates (take your pick), but she is the second choice of many in both camps. That will work in her favor if she carries a substantial number of delegates into a brokered convention, which will be decided by a party establishment (superdelegates) looking for unity. She's a compromise that everybody can live with and many actually like. For that to work, she does need to win some states and keep the money flowing in. NV isn't going to help, but SC might.

[Blackhawk]

Trying to follow this election is starting to feel like reading Michael Crichton write about chaos theory. There are so, so many unprecedented and unknown factors that I'm not sure that any predictions can go beyond the 'educated guess' level. I mean, will people in battleground states vote for Bernie? Maybe not, but will they vote against Trump? How many silent defectors who are registered (R) will vote for the (D), then put their MAGA hat back on for their friends? How will the last 3 1/2 years affect voter turnout? How will it affect protest votes? Will the Rs get over confident like the Ds did last time? Or will all of the stigginit get them even more fired up? Will the Bernie/Warren folks stage a silly protest vote/non-vote if they lose the nomination? Will a losing Bernie stand up and loudly declare his support for the winner, and press his Bros to vote to protect the nation? What will Trump do that gets on the front page starting in October? What will happen if we have a coronavirus outbreak, and how will the shutdown in China affect the economy?

So many new factors.

[Smoove_B]

I mean, with Bernie openly showing his contempt for the (D) party now, I have to believe if he's not nominated it's going to get ugly. Not sure if he's expressing that anger in anticipation of not being nominated (his internal tracking is telling him bad things) or he's just getting the supporters ready to riot, but my gut feeling is that if he doesn't get the nomination there will be pain.

Which isn't to say he should get the nomination or that he's even the best candidate, I'm just speculating on what I think will happen if he doesn't. What's weird is that I'm having a hard time imagining a transition from angry MAGAts to angry Bernie Bros (if he was nominated and won) - it seems like that combination would be volatile - like the pendulum was rubber-banding back in the other direction. It feels like it could be an even more chaotic time for America as a whole. I dunno. Just sort of going with my gut here.

Again, I don't know how anyone watching that debate couldn't be impressed with Warren, but I'm not getting a sense it moved the needle for her nationally.

[Kraken]

Conventional wisdom at the moment thinks that Bernie will come out of this with the most delegates, but not the majority that he needs to win the nom. TPTB will use their superdelegates to take it away from him at the convention, mightily pissing off the progressive wing (which hasn't had as good a shot at power in decades).

But like Blackhawk said, there are so many moving parts that the conventional wisdom will surely change. We won't have a reasonable expectation until after Super Tuesday, and even that will be provisional unless somebody unexpectedly sweeps.

[Lagom Lite]

I've said it before - Warren is probably the only candidate who could beat Sanders in this primary and get away with it, but it's contingent upon other candidates dropping out and endorsing her and the never-Bernie voters to rally around her as the compromise candidate. So it will probably never happen.

[Holman]

NV Caucus results are starting to come in now.

[malchior]

If estimates hold up this is looking like a clear Bernie win with Pete coasting in at a distant 2nd.

[Kurth]

If estimates hold up this is looking like a clear Bernie win with Pete coasting in at a distant 2nd.

I think even a distant second for Buttigeig is a satisfactory showing. What matters most isn’t the delta between him and Bernie. It’s the delta between Pete and the other moderates.

[Drazzil]

If estimates hold up this is looking like a clear Bernie win with Pete coasting in at a distant 2nd.

I think even a distant second for Buttigeig is a satisfactory showing. What matters most isn’t the delta between him and Bernie. It’s the delta between Pete and the other moderates.

I like Pete. He's my #3 candiate.

[Apollo]

I mean, with Bernie openly showing his contempt for the (D) party now, I have to believe if he's not nominated it's going to get ugly. Not sure if he's expressing that anger in anticipation of not being nominated (his internal tracking is telling him bad things) or he's just getting the supporters ready to riot, but my gut feeling is that if he doesn't get the nomination there will be pain...

You mean just like in 2016, when he refused to concede before the Convention? Yeah, I think that's a real danger right now.

[Drazzil]

I mean, with Bernie openly showing his contempt for the (D) party now, I have to believe if he's not nominated it's going to get ugly. Not sure if he's expressing that anger in anticipation of not being nominated (his internal tracking is telling him bad things) or he's just getting the supporters ready to riot, but my gut feeling is that if he doesn't get the nomination there will be pain...

You mean just like in 2016, when he refused to concede before the Convention? Yeah, I think that's a real danger right now.

I'd defect to Warren before I rioted. I'm too fucking old to riot.

[Drazzil]

I mean, with Bernie openly showing his contempt for the (D) party now, I have to believe if he's not nominated it's going to get ugly. Not sure if he's expressing that anger in anticipation of not being nominated (his internal tracking is telling him bad things) or he's just getting the supporters ready to riot, but my gut feeling is that if he doesn't get the nomination there will be pain...

You mean just like in 2016, when he refused to concede before the Convention? Yeah, I think that's a real danger right now.

If Bernie gets the majority of Dem votes before the convention but someone else gets the nod, I suspect yes... A riot would be warrented. If Bernie loses fair and square I suspect we will suck it up and support whatever centrist makes the grade. If said centrist loses though expect a civil war in the Democratic party, as the left and right wings duke it out.