2020 Democratic presidential primary thread, pt 3: life is very long

Man, that NYT story

KEEP IT DOWN CLEMENZA

and it seems kinda sexist to ascribe her support to "horny" guys i guess, idk.

that's fair and my comment was kind of flip shorthand for a certain type of rightwinger. i think there was in fact a number of people who legitimately thought she was Good.

re certain type of rightwinger-- often overlaps with the aging white guy demo who shares memes featuring Trump as a badass golden stallion god which i will never ever stop laughing about

Sleepy Joe..

don't really get what's "anti-imperialist" or even isolationist, about supporting Narendra Modi

I don't get what's "anti-imperialist" or even isolationist, about supporting Joe Biden either!

An obvious fraud from day one, but there's been a bunch of them

Call me a centrist put Joe Biden > Narendra Modi imo

Biden has awoken from his nap and is on the case.

Everyone knows that we're facing a real crisis from the coronavirus. But do you know how we got here and what we need to do next? Ron Klain, former White House Ebola Response Coordinator, breaks it down for us: pic.twitter.com/XRkIw2EzM4

— Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) March 21, 2020

Call me a centrist put Joe Biden > Narendra Modi imo

Absolutely! And I apologize to anyone I might have implied felt differently!

Just to set context here, you are asking this about a country

should as in "ought," not "do you expect would happen"

Countdown to Trump claiming it's illegal for Biden to set up a shadow administration.

"are you saying I can't...I can't....uh....are you saying it's illegal for me to CAMPAIGN?"

"I'm not saying that, lots of people though, they're saying it. Lots of people."

You all really should read the article in NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020.html

Posting that article on this thread is borderline trolling

Eh. I could think of another thread where it would be worse...

Yup

You all really should read the article in NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020.html

― Frederik B, Saturday, 21 March 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Try and wake yourself up, then poke sleepy Joe.

I posted an excerpt this morning.

this is so embarrassing

.@JoeBiden popped into @djdnice Instagram party tonight to show a little love. The party is now over 100k strong 💪🏾🙌🏾 Congrats D! pic.twitter.com/PnIszQPrOV

— Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) March 22, 2020

joe biden does not exist

not more embarrassing than kissing stranger's babies and cramming various handheld foods into your mouth during campaign stops at local shops

Absolutely no: this is the equivalent of an intern wearing a cardboard mask with a photo of your face on it pretending to kiss a baby that is part of a corporation’s national advertising campaign, and waving the various handheld foods near the mouth bit of the photo of your face, before putting them down and walking backwards out of the room.

I posted an excerpt this morning.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 22 March 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Joe starts this and now everybody is sleeping!

This is good on going-on. Very little value in looking back.

https://newrepublic.com/amp/article/156982/bernie?

Can't wait for the Biden ad that features bulldozers and mass graves.

Donald Trump has failed the American people. pic.twitter.com/HsNl9M4h4r

— Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) March 21, 2020

Osita nails throughout that piece why I didn't particularly care to read the rest of the NYT one: for all the 20/20 hindsight, I don't think there's a strategic pivot they could have made that would have made much more of a dent than they did.

I think there was room for a pivot to acting as though he was the frontronner and doing outreach for endorsements. Whether there was really time for that post-Nevada is another matter. Post-Iowa would have been a better time but possibly complicated by the confusion with the results delaying momentum there.

Centrist media was softening on him a bit and coming to terms with the possibility, and I think he could have toned down the outsider packaging its just whether there was enough time to do it. In any race there's a significant number of people who will vote for the winner and he could have moved more into that presumptive kind of role.

It may be that this was just beyond his ability to pull off convincingly. I'm not really sure who could manage that successfully. Ro Khanna springs to mind but difficult to see who else

I wonder what would have happened if they had gone really negative on biden. hard to go negative as a frontrunner however

I think there was room for a pivot to acting as though he was the frontronner and doing outreach for endorsements. Whether there was really time for that post-Nevada is another matter. Post-Iowa would have been a better time but possibly complicated by the confusion with the results delaying momentum there.

Who of note would ever get his endorsement outside of the people who already had? And that's even without Bloomberg (lol) buying up a ton of them.

complicated by the confusion with the results delaying momentum there

I don't know if a normally-reported Iowa would have made a difference--lots of people in both parties have won Iowa and not gone on to the nomination--but that was one giant mess, and Sanders didn't get the big moment that, say, Obama got in 2008. (Or maybe Buttigieg didn't get it--who knows?) Seems like a million years ago.

Eh, he was widely perceived as the frontrunner after Nevada in any case, was leading the 538 prediction list, was inspiring an MSNBC freakout.

Sanders also didn't really win in Iowa...

I agree the Osita article is more helpful, btw. But also a bit more harsh, like the way it implies the constant focus on M4A was a mistake. He sounds a bit like he thinks Warren would have done better...

I didn't get that from it?

article never mentioned her, I think

personally after a loss I find it more useful to err on the side of harshness

No it never mentions her. But the campaign he describes sounds quite a bit like what she tried to do.

She clearly didn't do better, though? So what would it mean for someone to think that she 'could have'?

If Bernie hadn't run, if the left had supported her instead, etc

That is a weird take imo.

Someone could have done better (the question is who that might be in future).

The idea that Warren could have done is fanciful

what are we arguing about today

How so? Bernie got his shot, failed. Quite spectacularly so. Are we supposed to say 'then nobody can'? Or are we supposed to work to get another one in position for a shot next time?

And the Warren campaign did second best out of the left campaigns. Yang and Gabbard far behind.

I mean, you can argue it is wrong. It probably is, just because of sexism. But it would be completely normal to say 'okay, Bernie couldn't do it, who's next in line?' and then move towards Warren

Like, there is zero evidence that she had more pull with any of the communities that Sanders struggled with and plenty of evidence that she had substantially less with minority voters. What basis is there for thinking that e.g. Clyburn might have backed her? If we're inventing parallel universes, I'm sure she would have done even better if neither Biden nor Sanders ran.xps

I think she got more endorsements than Bernie, no? So if we're saying an endorsement made the difference, isn't that a very good argument for Warren?

this is a confusing argument

Fred just stop ffs

Yes, 538 gave Warren 103 endorsement points, and Sanders 74. So she is clearly better than him at getting endorsements, if that is important