It seems like his whole strategy was based on winning 30 something percent of the vote and going to a contested convention So ironically his problem was that Mayor Pete, Amy and Liz didn't do well enough to stay in
He defeated Liz in the "left wing lane/track". In entrance and exit polls those who described themselves as "very liberal" by large pluralities picked Bernie over Warren. His downfall was he couldn't win over a larger part of the base AA then in 2016. With Joe massive victory in SC and no room of real estate for Pete and Amy the two moderates left in the race dropped out pre-Super Tuesday basically coalescing the anti-Bernie moderate vote all to Biden. You cannot win a nomination with 25-30% of the vote. Bloomberg disastrous debate performance combined with his paltry results on Super Tuesday meant his 10-15% of the vote went to Biden as well when he dropped out. What did Bernie pick up support wise when all the candidates dropped out? Nothing perhaps half of Warren's votes but even if he got all of her vote it wouldnt be enough to defeat Joe.
I can’t remember where I saw it (maybe Kos’s twitter?), but that literally was their strategy. His strategists assumed that the 2020 Dem primary would mirror the 2016 Rep primary. They figured that Bernie would easily win a vast majority of the Liberal and Very Liberal wing of the party (this happened) and that the moderate wing of the party would remain hopelessly split until Bernie’s lead was too much for them to catch even if they did rally around someone.. They were completely unprepared for the moderates to learn a lesson from the 2016 Rep primary and rally around a candidate as quickly as they did.
I posted an article about it here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/the-2020-election-mega-thread.2049399/page-433#post-38561414
That was a pretty short-sighted strategy as well since candidates dropping out after the first 3 or 4 contests is staple of primaries. Furthermore, they have done their best to alienate potential allies, starting with Warren. The online campaign against her was simply brutal, uncalled for and finally counter productive. When they needed her endorsement, she rightfully declined. I remember writing here that I did not see the purpose for Bernie going to campaign in Mass, trying to humiliate a potential ally on her own turf. That time would have been better spent in Tx that he lost. One other inexplicable mistake...Going to South Carolina, they never reached out to Clyburn. Yes, he may not have endorse Bernie but that was a ridiculous slight.
Yeah, that was just plain fecking stupid I don't know if it was him or his 'representative on earth' but whoever it was wants bloody shooting. But I think a lot of that comes back to the fact that, at the end of the day, the guy wasn't a member of the democratic party... which rather raises the question as to why he was considered for the democratic candidate as we've discussed before but that's another matter.
An excellent and long profile on Gretchen Whitmer. I thought it relevant to post here as there's talk of her being a potential pick for VP. Written by Tim Alberta, also from Michigan. https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...igan-profile-2020-coronavirus-biden-vp-177791
Someday, I'll buy the book that explains why Pete and Amy both dropped out on practically the same day. That was absolutely the moment of truth in the campaign, since it made a scattered anti-Bernie wing coalesce around one candidate. Biden, a candidate who appeared completely incompetent, irrelevant, and rudderless became the favorite, practically overnight. That was the moment Sanders lost. (I'll also just note that Bloomberg got into the race when he saw Biden floundering. But with Bloomberg at the Nevada debate, Bernie and Warren focused on the billionaire and ignored Biden. If Bloomberg hadn't been at the debate, Biden would have been the chum in the shark tank. So in a perverse irony, Biden can thank Bloomberg for saving his campaign.) Biden is probably the most ambivalent Democratic candidate since Mondale. He's dimwitted and old. He's never shown any vertebrate or intellectual rigor. He's got a lazy and incurious mind, He's a born follower who's big idea is...I dunno, that it's his turn, I guess. He's got a terrible civil rights record, his attitude towards women is, shall we say, interesting. I don't even want to guess when he changed his mind on whether gays deserved basic human dignity. He's quite possibly a rapist. He's definitely a plagiarist. He's a terrible campaigner who inspires negative confidence. He's ugly and dumb and he looks like he smells of dirty diapers. Don't get me wrong. I'll windsprint to vote for Biden, of course. I'm just bummed about him getting the nomination. But not nearly as bummed as I was when I thought Sanders was gonna win SC, cruise to the nomination, and get absolutely clobbered in the general.
Biden is probably the most ambivalent Democratic candidate since Mondale. He's dimwitted and old. He's never shown any vertebrate or intellectual rigor. He's got a lazy and incurious mind, He's a born follower who's big idea is...I dunno, that it's his turn, I guess. He's got a terrible civil rights record, his attitude towards women is, shall we say, interesting. I don't even want to guess when he changed his mind on whether gays deserved basic human dignity. He's quite possibly a rapist. He's definitely a plagiarist. He's a terrible campaigner who inspires negative confidence. He's ugly and dumb and he looks like he smells of dirty diapers. ‐‐‐-----‐-------------------------------------------------------------- AMEN!
Do we need a book? @American Brummie pointed out before Iowa that candidates in a broad field would start to run out of money real fast once reality took hold. Bernard was able to rely on a broad base of small donors. For the likes of Pete dependent on big donors, he was done as soon as the tap got turned off. Iowa gave him an impetus with a strong result, but his campaign was over as soon as it was clear he had no path. Ditto Amy. It's not that dissimilar to how Bloomberg stopped wasting his own money once he realised he was done.
I'm sure that Pete had a conversation with his donors wherein they pressured him out of the race. Overall, the fact that Pete still failed to overtake Joe when the states stopped being lily-white was a huge red flag that he had no path forward. Pete battled to a draw in Iowa, and a strong second in New Hampshire, meanwhile Joe did awful in both. Yet Pete still couldn't dent Biden's firewall of African-American support. There's no point at all in running for the Dem nomination without African-American support. And after Pete dropped, Amy would've looked really bad for not dropping, given that she did worse than Pete with a similar demographic makeup.
Dude, you can do better. That is a really disappointing post to write. You can be bummed because your candidate didnt make it but that was slander plain and simple. On what base can you accuse him of being a rapist? Smell like ditry diapers? Who write stuff like that? That is beyond the pale. Anyway, no need to respond. It is really a poor reflection of you. Shame.
Can we stop playing dumb on the bolded? We're all familiar with the Reade allegations. Whether you choose to give it credibility is up to you, but it is out there, and it is damning if you believe it. I don't begrudge anyone with concerns about it.
Both Pete and Amy are pretty smart, could read polls and see the proverbial writings on the wall. They knew the had no chance in the South and would be hammered. They were also acutely aware that they could not compete financially either. Finally and importantly, they knew as well they had to coalesce behind a candidate that could stop Bernie. That was the smart and right thing to do. It was also a good move from the Biden campaign to keep the communication open with both along this process and manage to land their endorsement.
Pete, I think, had more delegates than Biden when he dropped out. Now he may have seen the writing on the wall. Same with Klobuchar. I don't know. Maybe they were both presuming that they would do poorly in SC and fade out before Super Tuesday. But they didn't know that for sure. For either one, success in SC probably would have propelled them to momentum on Super Tuesday. I thought it was weird at the time and I still don't really get their thinking. To be clear, I'm not assuming that there was pressure on them from the DNC or anybody else to drop out. After those two dropped out, Bloomberg was revealed as a fraud, and Warren inexplicably failed to ignite any passion at all, it became a two-person race practically overnight. Biden, who had done absolutely nothing whatsoever to earn it, was now the only person left standing in the anti-Bernie lane.
Any Bernie supporters whining about collusion should instead question why their candidate lacked the consensus or second-choice support to actually win when the field thinned. Pete and Amy or even the all-powerful DNC can't force their voters to go to Joe. Their endorsement doesn't matter unless it was in keeping with what their voters already wanted. In a straightforward choice, Joe won landslides.
Give me a break. If you want to give credibility to it, that is your problem. First, even in her convoluted story, there was no rape involved. She talked about being assaulted. Second, anyone with a once of brain could read through the story and realize it is a rather bizarre one. So the same woman who stated a few months before there was nothing sexual about her discomfort with Biden, suddenly remembered that she was assaulted a few months ago. She has been shopping that story around to different campaigns (Harris, Warren among others). She was in touch with Ronan Farrow, all decided not to get involved. The mainstream media has largely steered clear of this messy situation, despite the efforts from the Berners to push it. So let's cut the crap on this.
I've been thinking about it and I kind of want to retract this statement. The Democrats, since they committed electoral harakiri in 1972 have nominated two different types of candidates. They either pick: 1)The Next Establishment Candidate. This is the person who would have been the odds-on pick at the end of the previous cycle. They're typically experienced and competent but lack any grand vision other than that it's their turn to run. Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Biden. To me, these are all, without exception, terrible candidates and their record of futility speaks volumes. Or they pick: 2)The Needle Threader. This is an outsider who threads the needle between the Looney Left and the Next Establishment Candidate that's expected to win. Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama. With the exception of Dukakis, for whom I'll always have a soft spot, that's a pretty damn good record of success. Warren would have been the Needle Threader candidate in 2020 but she couldn't successfully navigate between the Looney Left and the Next Establishment Candidate.
This is of course why the party traditionally decides. Candidates compete in the invisible primary for money and support. As soon as lots of key donors say to Pete that they are shifting their money to Biden, then Pete is done. He can't run with no money. It also shouldn't come as a surprise that as the race shifted to many large battle ground states, not having enough money becomes fatal, compared to campaigning in Iowa & New Hampshire to begin with. I think people lose sight of that because Bernard (and Warren to a lesser extent) had lots of independent small donors. And of course Mikey B didn't need any money This is also what didn't happen with Trump in 2015. Large GOP donors stayed on the sideline early on because they were scared of Trump ploughing in lots of his own money, and also they hoped Trump would eliminate rivals for free. In many respects this was a return to normal - and certainly no great conspiracy
You are asking the wrong questions: 1 - Why would Clinton have needed to worry about flipping a Romney state? 2 - Why would Clinton have needed to worry about flipping a McCain state? 3 - Why would Obama have needed to worry about flipping a McCain state? 4 - Kerry/Bush is an irrelevant question as the election was not close. 5 - Obama flipping Bush states is the only relevant note. But which states where those? We could argue Virginia, but with the expansion of the Metro DC area, it was going to go Blue eventually, so that is not necessarily a flip as it is and organic change. That is very similar to Colorado, but it is the massive influx of Latinos which changed the vote, so Obama didn't really flip that state. Obama in 2008 got Iowa, but Iowa was blue in 2000. Obama got NC in 2008 as well as Indiana, but lost both in 2012. So I don't think we can necessary call those flips for Obama. New Mexico was Blue in 2000, but red in 2004. New Mexico was Bule i both 2008 and 2012. Ohio is flip. Ohio voted Bush in 2000/2004 and Obama in 2008/2012. But then reverted. Florida is also a flip, same pattern as Ohio. But a lot of this is irrelevant because Clinton lost by only 120k votes, and at least in Wisconsin, had neither Johnson or Stein run, we might have gone Clinton. The states too look at are Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida. And possibly Texas, but that will probably 2024. Both Wisconsin and Michigan look to be motivated to vote Blue. North Carolina appears to have a demographic shift so they will eventually vote Blue (just like Texas). My guess is that Pennsylvania is a lock for Biden as he can claim roots. The only toss up is Florida. Maybe Ohio, and maybe even Kentucky, though I'm based that latter on how they are responding to their democratic governor rather than any numbers. What is your obsession with have to tell everybody that you were or will be right? What do you think that gains you? No, Biden did not become the favorite overnight. He had been leading in polls for months. He played a risky strategy blowing off Iowa and New Hampshire and it worked out. It was the Black vote which really prompted both Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out. I am not surprised they both announced on the same day, but I also think Biden't domination of Super Tuesday was just a knock-on effect of South Carolina and not due to anything else.
The problem will this analysis is that Warren just isn't popular in the way Bill Clinton, Obama and Biden were. That is also why I don't agree with grouping Biden and HRC. Biden may be establishment, but he is reasonably popular with Americans
Good take on it. As a card carrying member of the Looney Left I disagree with Warren being that Needle Threader. Can't even place top 2 in her home state. Her support was very niche not good enough to win a democratic primary.