Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[Zaybay]

Nice, one of my top choices. Still undecided though, I want to see how he campaigns.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/tomwatson/status/1088999602848714752

What does this even mean? Hes had the most sizable influence on D politics in a while now, considering many house candidates and presidential candidates are copying his playbook, and many candidates he endorsed were able to win their races.

Seriously, what is this guy using to grade Sanders?

[Zaybay]

Do some posters seriously still believe that Sanders primary voters cost her the election? Wow, didnt think people would still believe such a falsehood.

Just to give some historical context:
(The first number supported their nominee, the second number defected to the other side)

Sanders: 91/9

GOP 2016(Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, etc.): 89/11

Clinton 2008: 73/27

Historically, the defect from Sanders to Trump was one of the lowest in recent electoral history, and yet people still say "His supporters held out and ruined Clinton's Election". Its a falsehood that has no basis in reality.

[Zaybay]

If his supporters will stop doing what they are doing, I will wish him well. Democrats must act united.

No, that's literally the opposite of the purpose of a party primary. Might as well abolish primaries altogether if no criticism of fellow candidates is allowed for fear of "disunity".

Truly amazing how many people (presumably mostly the younger types) think 2016 or 2020 thus far has been "nasty" or "divisive"; they must not remember what 2008 was like.

I have to agree here. Its so weird how people are treating criticism of any candidate as some kind of attack that cannot be allowed(weird enough, its coming more from the anti-Bernie crowd than the Pro-Bernie crowd). The whole point of a primary is for divisiveness so you can air out grievances and pick a candidate that the party can largely agree on. If a candidate cannot be fact-checked or criticized, whats the point of a Democratic Primary?

[Zaybay]

If his supporters will stop doing what they are doing, I will wish him well. Democrats must act united.

No, that's literally the opposite of the purpose of a party primary. Might as well abolish primaries altogether if no criticism of fellow candidates is allowed for fear of "disunity".

Truly amazing how many people (presumably mostly the younger types) think 2016 or 2020 thus far has been "nasty" or "divisive"; they must not remember what 2008 was like.

I have to agree here. Its so weird how people are treating criticism of any candidate as some kind of attack that cannot be allowed(weird enough, its coming more from the anti-Bernie crowd than the Pro-Bernie crowd). The whole point of a primary is for divisiveness so you can air out grievances and pick a candidate that the party can largely agree on. If a candidate cannot be fact-checked or criticized, whats the point of a Democratic Primary?

But do all the democratic banter, the cause of conflict, of division in democracy justify outright acting against the rest of the party like most of progressives does? Most of progressives doesn't seem to care about these things, they just like to whine and bitch about "Bernie would have won" or "corrupt Clintons", "corrupt Democratic Party". The priest forgets that he was a clerk. 

You've spent way too much time on the internet, my friend.

[Zaybay]

Looking forward to all the BernieBros refusing to vote for some equally progressive dem when Bernie loses the primary.

Didnt happen in 2016, I really doubt it will happen in 2020.

[Zaybay]

quote author=TarHeelDem link=topic=312152.msg6643845#msg6643845 date=1548613961]
I did not support him in 2016 and my opinion of him as a leader has only deteriorated since.  He did an absolutely terrible job uniting his supporters behind Clinton, his record on gun control and Russia is abysmal, he clearly doesn't understand racism and misogyny, his ego is the size of Mars, and I believe it's incredibly disingenuous of him to ask to represent the Democratic Party when he hasn't even put in his time as a member like every other person in the field.

I'll vote and even organize for him (as I would any other Democratic nominee) if he's chosen, but as far as the primary goes he's in the bottom of the barrel with Gabbard for me. I'm especially interested in Warren, Castro, and Buttigieg, but please give me literally anyone else besides Saint Bernard or Ethnonationalist Tulsi.
[/quote]

My god.....

Its not true, its simply not true. Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

[Zaybay]

Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

I'm assuming from the 100% total there that the 91%-9% figure is between Clinton and Trump only and does not include Stein, Johnson, write-in votes, and abstentions.

You are right, found the Stein/Johnson numbers

If we are to talk about abstentions, the percentage is 4%. So, out of the 100% of Sanders voters, 4% stayed home, 12% voted for Trump, 78% voted for Clinton, and 6% for a 3rd party.

 This puts Sanders voters below 2012 GOP voters, but above GOP 2016, 2008, 2000, and DEM 2008, 2004, and 2000.

So, still not really that much.

[Zaybay]

My god.....

Its not true, its simply not true. Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

What is the source for this by the way? I don't believe Sanders supporters went neatly 91-9 for Clinton and Trump.

And Sanders supporters could have stayed home because their leader kept perpetuating that the election was stolen from them and vowed to fight her nomination up until 2 weeks before the convention. He definitely sowed discord and to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Its easily searchable information.

Heres a graph of the numbers
https://twitter.com/b_schaffner/status/900375362604892160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...


Sorry, your narrative that the Sanders voters didnt vote en masse due to the fact that they didnt have their god emperor just doesnt line up with reality.

[Zaybay]

Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

I'm assuming from the 100% total there that the 91%-9% figure is between Clinton and Trump only and does not include Stein, Johnson, write-in votes, and abstentions.

You are right, found the Stein/Johnson numbers

If we are to talk about abstentions, the percentage is 4%. So, out of the 100% of Sanders voters, 4% stayed home, 12% voted for Trump, 78% voted for Clinton, and 6% for a 3rd party.

 This puts Sanders voters below 2012 GOP voters, but above GOP 2016, 2008, 2000, and DEM 2008, 2004, and 2000.

So, still not really that much.

Wait, how did you go from 91%/9% to 78% Clinton / 12% Trump / 10% 3rd party or didn't vote?  What does the 91/9 represent?

Also, a later tweet in that thread:

https://twitter.com/aaron_strauss/status/900361632747896834

shows that 78% is lower than the comparable number for GOP 2008.  I don't know how it compares to the others without tracking down whatever original source this guy was quoting.

I was using a different source for the original numbers, one that didnt include abstains and 3rd parties, so just disregard the original.

Also, havent seen this source for 2008 GOP, very interesting. That would mean the GOP has generally been more united after a primary than the Dems(makes a lot of sense saying it out loud).

[Zaybay]

Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

I'm assuming from the 100% total there that the 91%-9% figure is between Clinton and Trump only and does not include Stein, Johnson, write-in votes, and abstentions.

You are right, found the Stein/Johnson numbers

If we are to talk about abstentions, the percentage is 4%. So, out of the 100% of Sanders voters, 4% stayed home, 12% voted for Trump, 78% voted for Clinton, and 6% for a 3rd party.

 This puts Sanders voters below 2012 GOP voters, but above GOP 2016, 2008, 2000, and DEM 2008, 2004, and 2000.

So, still not really that much.

Wait, how did you go from 91%/9% to 78% Clinton / 12% Trump / 10% 3rd party or didn't vote?  What does the 91/9 represent?

Also, a later tweet in that thread:

https://twitter.com/aaron_strauss/status/900361632747896834

shows that 78% is lower than the comparable number for GOP 2008.  I don't know how it compares to the others without tracking down whatever original source this guy was quoting.

I was using a different source for the original numbers, one that didnt include abstains and 3rd parties, so just disregard the original.

Also, havent seen this source for 2008 GOP, very interesting. That would mean the GOP has generally been more united after a primary than the Dems(makes a lot of sense saying it out loud).

And Sanders should have been aware of this. Instead of actively working against the trend he reinforced it.

These are the best numbers for D retention out of a primary since 2000. It doesnt get better than this.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074023088428380161

It's pretty clear Sanders voters didn't cost Clinton the 2016 election, no matter which numbers you look at. Keep in mind more people voted in the GOP primaries in 2016 than the Democratic primaries nationwide, so the GOP defectors are more in number.

There's also this to consider:
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074029583417139200

Nearly all Sanders-Trump voters were Obama disapprovers. That suggests that many Sanders-Trump voters were registered Dems who were protest voting in closed primaries. We can see this in places like the Florida Panhandle (where Dems have registration advantages in VERY Republican counties), West Virginia, the coalfields of Kentucky, etc. where Bernie did well in uniformly GOP counties with large Dem registration advantages thanks to Dem ancestry.

How do we know this is because of that though? Consider 2008 primary defectors:

2008 primary defectors were less likely to happen in the open primary states than closed primary states. This makes sense because people who switched parties in open primary states will vote in the  party they now prefer's primary, while they won't in closed primary states because most people never change their registration. That's also why Orange County, CA (Clinton +9 county entirely represented by Democrats in Congress) still has a solid R registration advantage.


TL:DR: No, Bernie-Trump voters did not cost Clinton at all, because the vast majority of them were going to vote Trump even if Bernie was the nominee anyway.

Sanders supporters who voted for Stein or Johnson in Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania cost Hillary the election.

In a close election, anything can be used to ascribe a victory/loss. You can also say Hillary's lack of funding in these states, her lack of trips, the campaigns lack of care, Trump's appeal, etc, etc, cost Hillary the election.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy. I mean, there really is no reason for him not to join in. He has a good amount of support in the polls, even with Warren and others taking some votes, and Trump is much easier to take on than, say, Bush 2004 or Clinton 1996. I can get the distaste for his policy, but there seems to be some weird idea permeating in this thread that:

A. He cant possibly win
B. That his candidacy somehow splits the Left

Both of which simply arent true, especially if you consider the Left to be made up of Harris, Sanders, and Warren.

He has every right to run a campaign if he wants, if he loses, its on him, and if he wins, its also on him.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy. I mean, there really is no reason for him not to join in. He has a good amount of support in the polls, even with Warren and others taking some votes, and Trump is much easier to take on than, say, Bush 2004 or Clinton 1996. I can get the distaste for his policy, but there seems to be some weird idea permeating in this thread that:

A. He cant possibly win
B. That his candidacy somehow splits the Left

Both of which simply arent true, especially if you consider the Left to be made up of Harris, Sanders, and Warren.

He has every right to run a campaign if he wants, if he loses, its on him, and if he wins, its also on him.

I think the argument is he can’t win the primary. He’s getting a fraction of the support he received in 2016, and most of what he’s getting now is based on his universal name recognition. Both he and Biden are leading based primarily on name recognition

But the way the primary works is that candidates get eliminated as time goes on. So, if Sanders and Warren are both in the race, Warren is likely to drop out and her support would have a substantial chunk that would go to him. Just as an example.

I also think it needs to be stated that, since the field is so fractured right now, its hard to tell who has the advantage right now in the primary. None of the candidates really have a path to a majority of the vote, nor delegates. I would rather wait until the primary to see how things evolve.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

I should have phrased that differently. I dont know why an overrepresented amount of people on Twitter and Atlas seem to oppose his candidacy. Polling would disagree with your statement.

Also, while Warren is a pretty good policy wonk, she has the charisma of a brick(this is coming from one of her adoring constituents). If the Left is depending on Warren to be the standard bearer, then the Left has a problem.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

I should have phrased that differently. I dont know why an overrepresented amount of people on Twitter and Atlas seem to oppose his candidacy. Polling would disagree with your statement.

Also, while Warren is a pretty good policy wonk, she has the charisma of a brick(this is coming from one of her adoring constituents). If the Left is depending on Warren to be the standard bearer, then the Left has a problem.

Polling is just name recognition. It doesn't mean anything.

Sanders is not winning the primary and he's not going to get close to winning.

The arguement of "Name Rec" is starting to fall apart, especially when you look at the current name rec numbers.

Ill be using the most recent Morning Consult numbers:


(Never heard Of)
Biden- about 5%
Sanders- about 5%
Harris- 21%
Warren- 14%
Booker- 27%
Beto- 33%

At this point, most of the challengers are getting pretty well known, and still, the numbers havent really changed besides the increase by Harris. We havent seen them debate and campaign, but that could also have a positive or negative effect on both Biden and Sanders' campaign.

So no, its not just name rec.

I also dont see how Sanders has no chance at the nomination, or that hes DOA. He has one of the better starts in the primary, and a much easier coalition he can piece together due to how the delegate system works.

Edit: Accidentally insinuated that Sanders was guaranteed the nomination. Hes not, he just got a strong chance.

[Zaybay]

I dont get why everyone is so opposed to his candidacy.

He is old and a lot of people don't like the way he conducted himself when he was mathematically eliminated from the nomination. We don't owe him anything. I'd like to leave the 2016 primary in the past. He would be a terrible president anyway. Warren would be much more competent.

I should have phrased that differently. I dont know why an overrepresented amount of people on Twitter and Atlas seem to oppose his candidacy. Polling would disagree with your statement.

Also, while Warren is a pretty good policy wonk, she has the charisma of a brick(this is coming from one of her adoring constituents). If the Left is depending on Warren to be the standard bearer, then the Left has a problem.

Polling is just name recognition. It doesn't mean anything.

Sanders is not winning the primary and he's not going to get close to winning.

The arguement of "Name Rec" is starting to fall apart, especially when you look at the current name rec numbers.

Ill be using the most recent Morning Consult numbers:


(Never heard Of)
Biden- about 5%
Sanders- about 5%
Harris- 21%
Warren- 14%
Booker- 27%
Beto- 33%

At this point, most of the challengers are getting pretty well known, and still, the numbers havent really changed besides the increase by Harris. We havent seen them debate and campaign, but that could also have a positive or negative effect on both Biden and Sanders' campaign.

So no, its not just name rec.

I also dont see how Sanders isnt going to win. He has one of the better starts in the primary, and a much easier coalition he can piece together due to how the delegate system works.

... So you are just gonna ignore that Biden has a double-digit lead to start with?

I didnt phrase that correctly, thats my bad. What I mean is that, I dont see how Sanders has no chance to win, as some on the forum are saying. I dont think Sanders is guaranteed the nomination, just that he has a pretty strong start for it.

[Zaybay]

I also dont see how Sanders isnt going to win.

Please for the love of God tell us you meant to write “is”.

You’re gonna be extremely embarrassed otherwise when Bernie Sanders fails to win the nomination. This post is extremely arrogant even by your standards.

Thanks for pointing that out. Didnt realized how I bungled that sentence.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1097881486588444673

[Zaybay]

Bernie's people actually think he can compete in WV!!! If only IceSpear was here to react to this.



This map will come to fruition

I remember Bernie bots decrying the notion that Dems would compete in GA, NC, TX, and AZ and this fool wants to compete in freaking OK.

Why does Bernie not want to compete in the Sun Belt states with heavy non-white populations?

I believe its suppose to be that the point of the poll is to show that White Rural Voters are a big fan of Sanders' message which would allow them to make plays in states with high White Rural voter populations. That would make sense for the states mentioned.

[Zaybay]

Atlas, debating about something no one cares about since 1999.

[Zaybay]

Ro Khanna has endorsed Sanders.

[Zaybay]

Something I just heard on Fox Business. The program led with nearly 6 million Sanders raised in the first 24 hours. They asked Austin Goolsbee, ( former chair of President Obama's Economic Advisors) his thoughts. He said something to the effect of, "I was honestly surprised it was so small. He raised hundreds of times that last campaign. This may suggest his base is smaller than it used to be and many of his supporters have abandoned him."

Personally I felt it was one of the most creative attempts at spin I have heard.    

I think Austin may have Dyschronometria.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/robillard/status/1099708185223577601?s=21

https://twitter.com/tomwatson/status/1099714854384996354

"Just sent out an email for people to be respectful during the campaign"

"Oh yeah, well you got the endorsement from the NRA and have a Stein voter as a co-chair. Nothing has changed."

Sensing a huge disconnect.

[Zaybay]

"Just sent out an email for people to be respectful during the campaign"

"Oh yeah, well you got the endorsement from the NRA and have a Stein voter as a co-chair. Nothing has changed."

Sensing a huge disconnect.

Actions speak louder than words.

The actions in question have literally nothing to do with each other.