2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

[Dobba]

Blaming Warren for Sanders demise is a pathetic as blaming Sanders for Clinton's

So, what you're saying is, people should spend the next 4 years doing it, to ensure they get booked onto every US news network and get book deals to tell the story?

 

[Adisa]

So, what you're saying is, people should spend the next 4 years doing it, to ensure they get booked onto every US news network and get book deals to tell the story?

They shouldn't. Starting an autopsy by saying it's Warrens fault is not the way to go. The left are in a generational battle and right now, they don't have the numbers sadly.

 

[Hamnat]

That's the fundamental problem. Its very difficult to make a bottom up classist argument in American politics where the power structure is inherently top down. Therefore you have to tactically infiltrate the power structure by reaching out to specific groups, creating and nurturing relationships, and constantly reassuring them that your policies will be good for them. Bill Clinton and Obama were very good at this game and Biden is directly benefiting from it in the present (especially in the south). The "Us v Them" class argument isn't enough to get the job done. You have bring other groups into your coalition. If you don't, you will likely get the scenario that is unfolding right now.

Agreed. You can't not work with the people that you need to first of all vote for you. And then when you do get power you need them to vote for the things that you promised. Sanders has to own his own campaign failures. He had 4 years to build on what he had done previously. And we have seen that he isn't being held back by any "establishment". He hasn't done the work reaching voters who are receptive of his policies.

The exit polls tell us clear as day that Democratic voters are receptive of Universal Healthcare. But, they are coming out in droves for Biden not Sanders. Chasing the "youth vote" as some revolution is something many have tried to do before. They didn't show up for him here and that's bad for him and the Democratic party in general. Sanders needed to put more effort and emphasis in showing how he and his policies can help older voters as well. He ran specifically on being the one to beat Trump because of his movement and his turnout. Its not happening as predicted. And that is on him. He had 4 years. He had a Moderate vote split between multiple candidates including Bloomberg.

It isn't that older black voters hate him or anything. But, they are pragmatic in that saying you are going to get some massive youth turnout when they wont even show for you to win the primary. So you have to go to the people that actually do vote.
The results last night are crystal clear. He had an inflated sense of his "movement" because there was so much anti Hillary voting. When you do so much worse 5 years later in Michigan rather than improve, it tells you those people in 2016 were voting against Hillary. That's not the "DNC against you". That's flat out you don't have the votes in an electorate that's accepting and receptive to your policies in general.

 

[Dobba]

They shouldn't. Starting an autopsy by saying it's Warrens fault is not the way to go. The left are in a generational battle and right now, they don't have the numbers sadly.

Don't worry, this talking point will disappear come November when Biden losing is down to Sanders not endorsing him strongly enough.

 

[Eboue]

"Quick, vote for Republican lite, lest the Republican doesn't win". Amazing to still see so many fall for that totally not obvious ploy.
If you really want, there's a lot to read about Biden. Nothing of it suggests what you are talking about.
There won't be liberal justices, Biden's picks will be "bipartisan". There won't be progressive policies, but lot's of "working across the aisle", i.e. doing what McConnell wants of him. and, as others have pointed out, with Dimon and Bloomberg in the cabinet, you'd be a fool not to have an idea who's going to reap the benefits, and who will continue to croak on the streets because they couldn't afford an insulin shot...
I'm no yank, so what I think doesn't really matter, but if I were to be one, I certainly wouldn't do what the corporatists ask of me. Not voting for Biden as a progressive/liberal is sound, you really don't have to be a socialist to reject him.
His political record is that atrocious.

Bingo

 

[Redplane]

Progressives - hold fair elections - let the people speak.

Also progressives - waaah other people are not voting for my candidate. /rage

 

[Raoul]

Agreed. You can't not work with the people that you need to first of all vote for you. And then when you do get power you need them to vote for the things that you promised. Sanders has to own his own campaign failures. He had 4 years to build on what he had done previously. And we have seen that he isn't being held back by any "establishment". He hasn't done the work reaching voters who are receptive of his policies.

The exit polls tell us clear as day that Democratic voters are receptive of Universal Healthcare. But, they are coming out in droves for Biden not Sanders. Chasing the "youth vote" as some revolution is something many have tried to do before. They didn't show up for him here and that's bad for him and the Democratic party in general. Sanders needed to put more effort and emphasis in showing how he and his policies can help older voters as well. He ran specifically on being the one to beat Trump because of his movement and his turnout. Its not happening as predicted. And that is on him. He had 4 years. He had a Moderate vote split between multiple candidates including Bloomberg.

It isn't that older black voters hate him or anything. But, they are pragmatic in that saying you are going to get some massive youth turnout when they wont even show for you to win the primary. So you have to go to the people that actually do vote.
The results last night are crystal clear. He had an inflated sense of his "movement" because there was so much anti Hillary voting. When you do so much worse 5 years later in Michigan rather than improve, it tells you those people in 2016 were voting against Hillary. That's not the "DNC against you". That's flat out you don't have the votes in an electorate that's accepting and receptive to your policies in general.

Indeed. One of the more bizarre subplots in the exit polls was that most people seemed to view Sanders' policies rather favorably (particularly healthcare) but still voted for Biden because they viewed him as more viable. If he loses, Sanders will look back at having squandered a golden chance of expanding his base over the past 4 years, which would have propelled him to the nomination.

 

[MarylandMUFan]

Progressives - hold fair elections - let the people speak.

Also progressives - waaah other people are not voting for my candidate. /rage

I have no rage for the voting public. I am upset that it seems both the media and the DNC have coalesced around the far right/corporate candidate to ensure the progressive doesn't even sniff the nomination. I would love to know what Warren is being promised.

 

[Raoul]

I have no rage for the voting public. I am upset that it seems both the media and the DNC have coalesced around the far right/corporate candidate to ensure the progressive doesn't even sniff the nomination. I would love to know what Warren is being promised.

At the end of the day no one forced people to vote for Biden, so if you're disappointed, the only people you should be taking issue with are the voting public.

 

[Redplane]

I have no rage for the voting public. I am upset that it seems both the media and the DNC have coalesced around the far right/corporate candidate to ensure the progressive doesn't even sniff the nomination. I would love to know what Warren is being promised.

Senate majority leader if the Dems can cause an upset there or otherwise something like SOS? Either way they have her reigned in apparently.

 

[groovyalbert]

I have no rage for the voting public. I am upset that it seems both the media and the DNC have coalesced around the far right/corporate candidate to ensure the progressive doesn't even sniff the nomination. I would love to know what Warren is being promised.

Really though, is he? He's a moderate, middle-ground Democrat. And, based on the last week of voting, that's clearly what the overwhelming majority of quiet voters want right now.

Don't get swayed by the bluster brigades of Bernie and Trump. What got Trump into office in 2016 were these type of voters. No candidate has ever won an election without them. Biden has consistently been the only candidate to reach out to them during primaries.

 

[Siorac]

Indeed. One of the more bizarre subplots in the exit polls was that most people seemed to view Sanders' policies rather favorably (particularly healthcare) but still voted for Biden because they viewed him as more viable. If he loses, Sanders will look back at having squandered a golden chance of expanding his base over the past 4 years, which would have propelled him to the nomination.

Or he will look back and realise that American voters - and most people in general, really - don't really vote on policies but more on likeability, perceived "capability" and many other things.

This armchair analysis that "he hasn't done the work to reach out to those voters he needs" sounds good but is backed by virtually nothing. Those black voters didn't vote for him - so it must be that he had not reached out to them. No: he just didn't manage to sway them, especially the older ones.

Older black voters, for example, are a key Biden demographic, and virtually every study says that they are among the most conservative people in the country (in the traditional sense of the word, not that they are Republicans at heart). Of course they will go with the conservative candidate (again, not conservative in the American sense). It's very hard to overcome that with even the best grassroots organization. Especially when the mainstream news outlets constantly bombard voters with the idea that Biden is a safe, moderate, "more electable" candidate.

I'm sure Sanders made mistakes but overall, it looks like that contrary to the hopes of many, including me, he hit a glass ceiling in terms of support. It's easy to say he should build alliances like Bill Clinton and Obama: these were centrists who were perfectly acceptable to Wall Street, to corporate Democrats, to "moderates".

 

[Siorac]

Really though, is he? He's a moderate, middle-ground Democrat. And, based on the last week of voting, that's clearly what the overwhelming majority of quiet voters want right now.

Don't get swayed by the bluster brigades of Bernie and Trump. What got Trump into office in 2016 were these type of voters. No candidate has ever won an election without them. Biden has consistently been the only candidate to reach out to them during primaries.

Oh come on. On Super Tuesday, he won five states where he didn't even campaign!

Biden certainly didn't win because he reached out to anyone or did the work to connect with supporters. He's seen as the safe hand, he has the Obama connection as an advantage, and he was endorsed by just about every so-called moderate Democrat. He's winning because he's called Joe Biden, that's about it.

 

[Suedesi]

Nice line! Still very true.

Yeah, I mean there’s massive love for Biden, not like Pete, Amy, Beto, Bloomie, Kamala, Corey et al didn’t just fall in line.

 

[Siorac]

Yeah, I mean there’s massive love for Biden, not like Pete, Amy, Beto, Bloomie, Kamala, Corey et al didn’t just fall in line.

I think at this point you are being deliberately obtuse.

Democrats might very well lose the general election because a significant portion of their base doesn't fall in love with Biden. Republicans don't have to fear the same problem: their voters are more likely to fall in line and vote the party line.

Which makes sense: right-leaning voters are consistently shown to value things like authority, hierarchy, and loyalty higher than left-leaning voters.

 

[groovyalbert]

Or he will look back and realise that American voters - and most people in general, really - don't really vote on policies but more on likeability, perceived "capability" and many other things.

This armchair analysis that "he hasn't done the work to reach out to those voters he needs" sounds good but is backed by virtually nothing. Those black voters didn't vote for him - so it must be that he had not reached out to them. No: he just didn't manage to sway them, especially the older ones.

Older black voters, for example, are a key Biden demographic, and virtually every study says that they are among the most conservative people in the country (in the traditional sense of the word, not that they are Republicans at heart). Of course they will go with the conservative candidate (again, not conservative in the American sense). It's very hard to overcome that with even the best grassroots organization. Especially when the mainstream news outlets constantly bombard voters with the idea that Biden is a safe, moderate, "more electable" candidate.

I'm sure Sanders made mistakes but overall, it looks like that contrary to the hopes of many, including me, he hit a glass ceiling in terms of support. It's easy to say he should build alliances like Bill Clinton and Obama: these were centrists who were perfectly acceptable to Wall Street, to corporate Democrats, to "moderates".

I think this is a fair assessment. But someone in his team should probably have pushed the case for him to concede on certain issues/expand his political network rather than persisting with consolidating his core support (which was already there from 2016) and taking a more pluralistic stance.

Constantly attacking the establishment got tiresome and isolated him in areas you need to have support, especially if running as a Democratic candidate. Ironically, there is probably more space for that sort of stance within the Republican party, except his workings lead him to a drastically different outcome.

Progressives need to adhere more to their assigned title and actually plot a legitimate course of progress to ensure they don't suffer a similar fate to that of Corbynites in the UK. That will mean having to play the game, concede on issues in the short-term and make themselves relevant in DC. I can't help but think Sanders was too dogmatic/old-school to ever do this.

 

[Raoul]

Or he will look back and realise that American voters - and most people in general, really - don't really vote on policies but more on likeability, perceived "capability" and many other things.

This armchair analysis that "he hasn't done the work to reach out to those voters he needs" sounds good but is backed by virtually nothing. Those black voters didn't vote for him - so it must be that he had not reached out to them. No: he just didn't manage to sway them, especially the older ones.

Older black voters, for example, are a key Biden demographic, and virtually every study says that they are among the most conservative people in the country (in the traditional sense of the word, not that they are Republicans at heart). Of course they will go with the conservative candidate (again, not conservative in the American sense). It's very hard to overcome that with even the best grassroots organization. Especially when the mainstream news outlets constantly bombard voters with the idea that Biden is a safe, moderate, "more electable" candidate.

I'm sure Sanders made mistakes but overall, it looks like that contrary to the hopes of many, including me, he hit a glass ceiling in terms of support. It's easy to say he should build alliances like Bill Clinton and Obama: these were centrists who were perfectly acceptable to Wall Street, to corporate Democrats, to "moderates".

Identity, culture, and likeabilty are all factors, but so are ideas, which have propelled Sanders two consecutive near misses for the Presidency. All he had to do is tweak his message a bit to bring more people into the fold and he would've won. He instead did nothing and presumed not having to deal with Hilary or superdelegates would be enough, which as we're finding out, isn't the case.

 

[roseguy64]

If I had to take a wild guess - if the progressives, or at least Bernie supporters continue to push and undermine Biden they will alienate a lot of the center left and right that right now might feel tempted by Bernie, AOC and the rest. Help Biden beat Trump, get big boy seats at the table in DC, gain more of a foothold at the state and local levels as well as the judiciary - progress. This is a primary - that means much of the center is likely observing and not voting yet. Guess who they re gonna vote for if elements in the Dems continue to break the party up from within?

The tea party on the right, federalist society, or what ended up being the neocons, etc didn't get to to places of power by only targeting the Presidency itself. It's a vehicle.

This pretty much. Biden needs to have a progressive VP candidate and list some liberals in his prospective cabinet. It's already been noted that he's old and losing it. Having liberal voices around him when decisions are being made should be enough to push the agenda.

 

[roseguy64]

Bernie will probably call it quits tomorrow.

Nah, he'll do the debate and go to the next round of elections. No change and he'll concede then.

 

[Siorac]

I think this is a fair assessment. But someone in his team should probably have pushed the case for him to concede on certain issues/expand his political network rather than persisting with consolidating his core support (which was already there from 2016) and taking a more pluralistic stance.

Constantly attacking the establishment got tiresome and isolated him in areas you need to have support, especially if running as a Democratic candidate. Ironically, there is probably more space for that sort of stance within the Republican party, except his workings lead him to a drastically different outcome.

Progressives need to adhere more to their assigned title and actually plot a legitimate course of progress to ensure they don't suffer a similar fate to that of Corbynites in the UK. That will mean having to play the game, concede on issues in the short-term and make themselves relevant in DC. I can't help but think Sanders was too dogmatic/old-school to ever do this.

I'm not saying you're wrong about this but part of his appeal is that he does not compromise on his views for the sake of the vague concept of electability - and as always, making compromises like that is a balancing game where he would have to make sure he doesn't alienate his core supporters by making too many concessions. It's also not exactly unreasonable to assume that a few moderate concessions wouldn't mean a lot: he'd still be portrayed as a radical with ideas that require a lot of taxes.

 

[Siorac]

Identity, culture, and likeabilty are all factors, but so are ideas, which have propelled Sanders two consecutive near misses for the Presidency. All he had to do is tweak his message a bit to bring more people into the fold and he would've won. He instead did nothing and presumed not having to deal with Hilary or superdelegates would be enough, which as we're finding out, isn't the case.

How?

 

[Raoul]

Nah, he'll do the debate and go to the next round of elections. No change and he'll concede then.

If he drops out, it would be after the 17th imo, since that's the last round of substantial delegate states that could conceivably change the momentum will vote. If Biden holds serve, it will basically be over in a way where people will start to question why Sanders would bother staying in (unless of course he's angling for a Convention fight, which he would almost certainly lose).

 

[fishfingers15]

Biden Nina Turner go

 

[Fergies Gum]

If he drops out, it would be after the 17th imo, since that's the last round of substantial delegate states that could conceivably change the momentum will vote. If Biden holds serve, it will basically be over in a way where people will start to question why Sanders would bother staying in (unless of course he's angling for a Convention fight, which he would almost certainly lose).

If Biden were to offer some credible concessions, then i think Sanders would drop out before the next set of primaries.

 

[Siorac]

If Biden were to offer some credible concessions, then i think Sanders would drop out before the next set of primaries.

There's not much point to staying in now: Biden will obviously win Florida, Arizona and Ohio.

 

[Raoul]

How?

Create and nurture relationships black leaders and voters in the south. Namely the older ones who have made the difference for Biden this cycle. Also, he should've done a better job of reaching out and challenging mainstream media influencers who have been skeptical of him. In 1992, Bill Clinton reached out to radio host Don Imus, who had previously mocked him throughout the campaign, and eventually endorsed him. It was one of several instances that created a perception that Clinton was more than just a southern Governor running for President (the other instances were the Bill/Hillary 60 minutes interview, the Sax playing on Arsenio, and vanquishing Jerry Brown along the way). Sanders needed to broaden his game to make himself a bit more culturally viable to avoid the perception that some old guy who vaguely resembled an old politburo member circa 1984, wants to raise your taxes.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Faith is the way to reach that Southern black voting bloc, so an atheist/agnostic Jewish guy really have no chance in restropect. People laughed at Clinton for using a Southern accent in a black church and we underestimated Biden repeatedly pushing the empathy angle, but that ingratiated them with those older black women who decide those primaries.

I suppose Sanders could’ve adopted a Lincolnian approach wherein he coated his language with religious metaphors without explicitly talking about it, but it’s a tall order for a guy who rhetorics and career is built on a class-based populist understanding of politics.

 

[Raoul]

If Biden were to offer some credible concessions, then i think Sanders would drop out before the next set of primaries.

The concessions would have to come in either case, since Biden will ultimately need Sanders' backing in the Gen.

 

[Eboue]

i dont feel no ways tired

 

[Hamnat]

I'm not saying you're wrong about this but part of his appeal is that he does not compromise on his views for the sake of the vague concept of electability - and as always, making compromises like that is a balancing game where he would have to make sure he doesn't alienate his core supporters by making too many concessions. It's also not exactly unreasonable to assume that a few moderate concessions wouldn't mean a lot: he'd still be portrayed as a radical with ideas that require a lot of taxes.

His appeal to the wrong people apparently. Its not being a "sellout" to realize what the people you want to vote for you are saying. Being receptive of an idea, and you listening to them and assuring them that your plans will not give them worse healthcare plans than hard fought Union plans for example. Or people that are happy with their private insurance from work. You have to assure them that you aren't taking that away and putting them on something worse while increasing their taxes. And you have to say it over and over and over again. You have to go to them and prove that its viable and vote-able.

Look at Warren and how she got considered a sellout by some progressives for doing this very thing.

Faith is the way to reach that Southern black voting bloc, so an atheist/agnostic Jewish guy really have no chance in restropect. People laughed at Clinton for using a Southern accent in a black church and we underestimated Biden repeatedly pushing the empathy angle, but that ingratiated them with those older black women who decide those primaries.

I suppose Sanders could’ve adopted a Lincolnian approach wherein he coated his language with religious metaphors without explicitly talking about it, but it’s a tall order for a guy who rhetorics and career is built on a class-based populist understanding of politics.

We aren't all mindless bible thumpers down here. This is a small way of looking at why he isn't attracting the black vote in the south.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

We aren't all mindless bible thumpers down here. This is a small way of looking at why he isn't attracting the black vote in the south.

I didn’t say you are, and I’d acknowledge that black voters tend to be conservative (not in the left-right dichotomy) voters due to them being affected the most by any major social upheaval, which his platform certainly is. However, I’d be very, very surprise that his lack of outreach to Southern black churches doesn’t have anything to do with the incompatibility in faiths. Voters are moved on personal values, morals and feelings, much more so than policies. Someone who doesn’t invoke or have really any interest in spirituality can’t connect well to people whose have that as a big part of their personal identity.

 

[berbatrick]

@groovyalbert

Bernie had a comprehensive plan for minorities and talked about it a fair bit for a year. So did Warren, though there are parts of that plan which looked iffy. Both had done more than Biden in terms of plans. The votes went the other way. I don't think it was a question of plans, or even of talking about plans, because honestly the little I've heard of Biden I've not heard him talk about any particular plans
.
The national polls swung very heavily after SC and the 3 endorsements, and SC polls swung very heavily after Jim Clyburn. Those 4 very well-times endorsements did it. If you look at black voting within those polls, you see the same trend. Closing the gap mid-Feb, and then a massive reverse.

The nature of this election meant that the front-runner would quickly consolidate. I hoped that after Nevada, Bernie had that status. But the size of Biden's win in SC and those 3 endorsements, without a Warren counter, reversed that. The reason for quick consolidation is because the race was decided by electability almost exclusively, especially among older voters and black voters. Again, based on polling (which has got almost everything right this time), perceptions of electability moved dramatically - Biden throughout 2019, Bernie after NH/NV, back to Biden after SC.

Could Bernie have done better? IDK. A smaller loss in SC could have been possible and a Warren endorsement stealing the headlines from Biden's three might have been enough to make ST a tie and prolong this.

 

[Suedesi]

I think at this point you are being deliberately obtuse.

Democrats might very well lose the general election because a significant portion of their base doesn't fall in love with Biden. Republicans don't have to fear the same problem: their voters are more likely to fall in line and vote the party line.

Which makes sense: right-leaning voters are consistently shown to value things like authority, hierarchy, and loyalty higher than left-leaning voters.

It's a nice soundbite, but it's not true. There's lots of explanations why the left is doing poorly (not only in the US, but also Europe), chief among them that the old base of working-class voters has been eroded and that other issues namely immigration are front and center for most voters.

 

[entropy]

People who are suggesting Bernie didn't build coalitions are just full of it and eager to believe media talking points. These are the same people who believe Hillary lost because of russians spending a handful of millions in fb ads. Not because of how pathetic the administration prior to Trump was in terms of delivering on key issues that won them the elections.
A quick look at minorities who are facing persecution under Trump, be it with the muslim travel ban or latinos who are facing mass deportation or lgbtq troops serving the military, will tell you that they all overwhelming support Sanders. If you want to have a serious discussion about building coalitions but aren't willing to look at these communities and who they support then you aren't really interested in making their lives better.

 

[Pexbo]

I'm calling it now: If this virus gets out of hand in the US like it's expected to and it damages Trump's election hopes due to his response and the economy tanking, then he will 100% look to cancel elections in November citing the virus as the reason.

If elections are cancelled in November and he continues to do badly in the polls, you are going to have a very very hard time getting the Republicans to agree to a new election date.

 

[Suedesi]

Identity, culture, and likeabilty are all factors, but so are ideas, which have propelled Sanders two consecutive near misses for the Presidency. All he had to do is tweak his message a bit to bring more people into the fold and he would've won. He instead did nothing and presumed not having to deal with Hilary or superdelegates would be enough, which as we're finding out, isn't the case.

Absolutely. I'd argue, he needed to tweak not just the message, but also the delivery. "Billionaires" in that Crooklyn accent sounds tiresome after the 50th time - it's a one-note song of rage at this point.

The whole Castro thing was unnecessary and he could have finessed it better. The socialist label could have been more palatable as "social democrat". It's cosmetic stuff that makes a difference in perception to voters.

 

[Sir Matt]

I'm calling it now: If this virus gets out of hand in the US like it's expected to and it damages Trump's election hopes due to his response and the economy tanking, then he will 100% look to cancel elections in November citing the virus as the reason.

If elections are cancelled in November and he continues to do badly in the polls, you are going to have a very very hard time getting the Republicans to agree to a new election date.

Changing the election date would require an amendment to existing laws, which would never happen with Democrats holding the House.

 

[Raoul]

I'm calling it now: If this virus gets out of hand in the US like it's expected to and it damages Trump's election hopes due to his response and the economy tanking, then he will 100% look to cancel elections in November citing the virus as the reason.

If elections are cancelled in November and he continues to do badly in the polls, you are going to have a very very hard time getting the Republicans to agree to a new election date.

Any attempts to cancel them will be viewed as an act of obstruction imo, which would severely damage whoever suggests it.

 

[Raoul]

Absolutely. I'd argue, he needed to tweak not just the message, but also the delivery. "Billionaires" in that Crooklyn accent sounds tiresome after the 50th time - it's a one-note song of rage at this point.

The whole Castro thing was unnecessary and he could have finessed it better. The socialist label could have been more palatable as "social democrat". It's cosmetic stuff that makes a difference in perception to voters.

Agreed. Railing against the wealthy may resonate with a small subsection of his base, but it’s not going to sit well across the broader electorate who grew up with a mindset that they could become financially successful if they worked hard. However flawed that mindset is, it’s still a prominent way a lot of people use to frame their futures.

 

[Pexbo]

Changing the election date would require an amendment to existing laws, which would never happen with Democrats holding the House.

Any attempts to cancel them will be viewed as an act of obstruction imo, which would severely damage whoever suggests it.

If there are still legitimate concerns over the virus, they won't have much resistance from Democrats over changing the date as elections would be an absolute disaster in spreading the virus. If the speculation is right and it's likely to reduce over the summer and come back with a vengeance in the winter then November elections could be prime time for it to start spreading again.