The most accurate political scientist from the midterms is now predicting that Democrats will win back the Blue Wall (MI, WI, and PA) regardless of who is the nominee. Flipping just those states flips the presidency back to the Democrats.
My argument for Bernie’s electability begins with political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center and a professor at Christopher Newport University in Virginia. (Paul Rosenberg interviewed her last year for Salon.) Her model for the 2018 election accurately predicted the Democratic Party’s House-capturing 41-seat wave with greater precision than the other forecasters, including Nate Silver. (She forecasted a net 42-seat pick-up.)
Essentially, Bitecofer says the candidate isn’t nearly as important as voter turnout and the strength of “negative partisanship.” Simply put, national elections aren’t decided by issues, legislative records or many of the old school measures of electoral success. In the post-2016 era, elections are won or lost based on energy — the determination of voters to punish (or “own”) the other side. Turnout and the will to inflict pain on the enemy at the ballot box is how elections are decided now. I don’t love the sentiment, but I don’t disagree that it exists.
In this respect, Bitecofer’s 2020 model says the Democratic Party, including its presidential nominee, is poised to defeat the Trump-Republican machine in November, including pickups in the House, and perhaps even a Democratic majority in the Senate. (The Senate map is favorable to the Democrats anyway, given that they only have to defend a handful of seats compared with a couple dozen seats for the Republicans to retain.)
I think a lot of Biden supporters here are falling for the discredited Chuck Todd theory of politics. That most swing voters are 50/50 centrists who are fiscally and socially moderate. In reality, these swing voters are all over the place and are motivated more by the insider/outsider divide and the authentic/inauthentic divide. This is why there could be so many Obama-Trump and Bernie-Trump voters in the first place
Bitecofer told Politico that the old models too heavily rely upon the “swing voters” theory — the idea that elections are won or lost based on those insufferably fickle undecideds, around 15 percent of likely voters. She calls this the “Chuck Todd theory of American politics.” In 2016, for instance, Hillary Clinton built her campaign around those old models, the old assumptions, while the Red Hat cult was gathering energy on its own (with outside help, of course).
Now if you happen to like Biden more than Bernie, by all means vote for him. If you happen to like Amy, Pete, or Bloomberg better than Biden, I encourage you to vote for Joe so we can avoid a contested convention. Ditto if you like Warren, vote for Bernie. But either of these 78 year olds could probably beat Trump. The real question we should be asking is the question we should be most concerned about: who is the better President?
For me, it’s Bernie since he will be more transformative and his maximalist position means we are negotiating from a position of strength, rather than negotiating ourselves into a mythical middle like the Obama-Biden administration did only to be pushed to the right by maximalist conservatives. It’s Bernie since he recognizes you beat McConnell and build a movement capable of throwing out politicians who defy the will of the people, rather than negotiate with McConnell and hope he doesn’t pull the football at the last minute like he always did during the Obama-Biden years.
Biden supporters could argue he is a steadier hand on foreign policy, a reassuring face during a time of uncertainty, and someone with unparalleled policy making experience. That is a great reason to vote for him. What they cannot argue is that he is more electable or more progressive than Bernie Sanders.
I could still argue he’s more electable, but experience has always been my real reason for supporting Biden. Let others vote for whom they want. I’m not nearly as set as you are on avoiding a real convention.
I’m curious as to why you do not think it would be a disaster. I think a contested convention could only result in nullifying the first preference of the voters, and really dislike the coordinate effort among superdelegates to organize a Never Sanders movement. Of course, if 2-3 candidates come into a convention with an equal number of delegates its a different story. I see Sanders being the clear leader after Super Tuesday, winning all of CA delegates outright, and staking a strong claim to being the presumptive nominee. Under that scenario, a contested convention would rightly be viewed as nullifiyng the wishes of the majority of voters in the primary process.
There’s a very real possibility a contested or brokered convention will end up nominating the person with the plurality. After all that person would have a head start and a strong argument. You keep raising the “super” delegate bogeyman (a term I try to avoid since it seems to suggest superpowers or extra votes where in reality they make up less than 20% of the convention and only get one vote a piece like everyone else), but by the time they get involved every pledged delegate becomes a free agent too. I’m skeptical Sanders wins every CA delegate, but if he does he is definitely well on his way to being the majority winner anyway (though that has democratic deficit issues of its own). It’s all about coalition building, which Sanders would be well advised to start doing and if others end up doing that instead then someone else gets the nomination. I would be shocked, shocked I say, to discover that there is politics going on in this establishment!:) It’s on the party leaders and the candidates to set the example of unity coming out of convention, but I definitely think it’s doable.
I also want to be clear I prefer an outcome where Biden wins big tomorrow and suddenly is the presumptive nominee to one where Warren (whom I like better) wins as the compromise between Biden and Bernie supporters at the convention. A possibility she seems to be gearing up for. I think Biden in the former circumstance is a lot more electable and amenable to the entire party than Warren in the latter.
Oh and I am well aware a vocal subset of the Sanders base will think it’s rigged even if he loses to Biden fair and square (as he ultimately lost to Hillary fair and square). It’s very unfortunate, but also a sign that this is a base best to court rather than ostracize.
Now if they split Super Tuesday it becomes a much harder sell to say the convention has to go to the plurality winner and then Warren is nicely set up as a kingmaker. This is the outcome she wants, and if primary voters are legitimately split than the convention gains a legitimacy it would not otherwise have. I hope that makes sense.
Funny, since even though I prefer Biden if he comes up with a plurality, but short of the majority, Warren might be better positioned to mollify the Sanders supporters while still being acceptable to Bidenites. The other way for that to manifest is for her to be his running mate (though Sanders-Warren has always struck me as ideologically and geographically lopsided).
Biden-Warren needed to happen a week ago for it to work, unfortunately. For all we know she refused.
While I personally would be willing to switch my vote to support Biden-Warren, I think a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters will be upset with that outcome now. I think you really underestimate how many Sanders supporters dislike her now. It really mirrors the Trump situation where he kept threatening to bolt to hold the RNC and Never Trump efforts at bay. Just as the GOP ultimately won with Trump, the DNC is more likely to win with Bernie. In my view. Or at least win if Biden beats Bernie the honest way.
As a certified Bernard Brother, I don’t think adding Warren to a Biden ticket would do it for many strong supporters. If she sticks with the progressive side she will be widely embraced. If it looks like she is “selling out” to join the establishment, she will likely be treated as such. The years of evidence that VPs don’t really matter electorally will likely be shown to be true.
Projections are looking like tomorrow could be a tie, which sets up the likelihood of someone having to win at the convention. This could be so ugly.
Lifelong Democrats (yeah, mostly Boomers and older) have said again and again in poll after poll that they are fine with voting blue no matter who. Younger progressives have consistently said that just any blue won’t do. I admit I’ve done some trolling here about why that means people should vote for Bernie.
I’m not sure Democrats fully understand how this could go down while trying to make Biden the “unity” guy. Stiffarming the left and young people (again) is not going to be rewarded in November.
I don’t think any stiffarming should happen, and I don’t think it will happen, even in a contested primary. We should not be stiffarming young people, nor should we be stiffarming boomers.
It seems to me that the starting point for any claim for “unity candidate” must be a position somewhere between the extremes of whatever dichotomy we choose to consider. In my view, that rules out both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as this contemplated “unity candidate”.
That leaves us with Elizabeth Warren and Mike Bloomberg. It seems to me that the choice is obvious.
I voted for Elizabeth Warren. I think she is best able to unify both our party and America. I think she is best able to defeat not just Donald Trump but Trumpism itself. I think she is best able to govern after being elected.
We will have to see!
In other words Trump held the RNC hostage and now Sanders is doing likewise to the DNC. I for one don’t want to cave to that.
Looks like the Dems did a much better job blocking the insurgency. Tonight is an even bigger indictment of GOP leaders failing to stop Trump.
The GOP allows winner-take-all delegate allocations per state, which IMO is a lot more undemocratic than the involvement of ex officio delegates.
I agree. I’d favor WTA only if it’s combined with ranked choice. I simply was saying there was no rally around a front runner like there was with Biden on Monday. The only difference between the two parties is better leadership in the Democratic Party. I say this as a Sanders supporter, but the GOP should have had the courage to coalesce around a winner who wasn’t Trump.