Slow down, boys and girls!
It’s a long marathon road ahead to the 1991 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination and here’s where we stand today :
Pete 23
Bernie 21
Liz 8
Amy 7
Joe 6
Oh, ye of little faith.
It’ll all work itself out and a nominee will emerge eventually.
I’m just chillin for now and resting my weary bones for round 2.
Please share widely!
Now back to selling parrots to John Cleese.
You’d never know that Warren is still in third place.
Warren and Biden are done and won’t be the nominees. Buttigieg and Klobuchar lack the money and minority support to go the distance against Bernie. This is going to be a Bernie vs. Bloomberg race, although I think Klobuchar would make a fantastic Vice President for Bernie to unite the party. The resident Bernie Bros in the teacher cafe seconded that. If it’s Bloomberg he will need to nominate a more liberal minority. Bloomberg-Booker has a good ring to it, or Bloomberg-Harris or Bloomberg-Abrams it even Bloomberg-Castro. That’s my Wednesday evening quarterbacking.
Bold talk when less than one half of one percent of the delegates are pledged.
Or, put another way, Senator Sanders won more NH delegates in 2016 than he has in 2020, but was not the nominee….
Patience, it is said, is a virtue…
Nobody knows anything.
Heh. I, too, watch Lawrence O’Donnell. 🙂
What primaries can you see them winning? Biden has a Hail Mary opportunity in SC, I do not see Warren having a similar one. If she keeps getting 3rd and 4th places finishes everywhere she will not be the nominee. She might win here, but otherwise I think she has a very tough time. Pete and Amy need to consolidate the others supporters and find a quick way to win over voters of color, I just do not see that happening either. Biden is now hemorrhaging black support to Bloomberg and Bernie nationally and Steyer in SC. So these are two campaigns on life support. That’s a reality based assessment.
If Warren stays a consistent third while those in first and second shuffle, then she’s good. Biden, at this point, remains the favorite in SC. If he wins and Warren stays third that means that either Sanders or Buttegieg lose… and it’s a catchup for both Warren and Biden. If Warren and Biden capture either first or second in SC, all bets are off.
It’s a delegate race even if it means coming in consistently second. My money is still on Warren winning here. I still see Biden as strongest in the South.
I’m not counting chickens until Super Tuesday.
If Biden loses SC I think he pulls out before Super Tuesday. I could see Warren sticking it through just to stay in the conversation and have enough delegates to be a kingmaker. There will be a lot of pressure from Sanders and his supporters for her to drop out, my personal hope is that she persists until Super Tuesday.
I keep thinking about the South and wonder if they warm to the heretofore top finishers.
This week, Mike Bloomberg picked up endorsements from Houston mayor Sylvester Turner and three Congressional Black Caucus leaders — Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA), Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY), and Del Stacy Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands).
Elizabeth Warren seems to be positioning herself as the unifying alternative who can bring together all factions of a split party coming into convention with no clear leader.
Right now, I think Mr. Bloomberg has the best shot of gaining the nomination and winning the general, with Ms. Warren a somewhat distant second. I think Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Warren are the only two who will lead enough down-ballot victories to swing the Senate and keep the House.
I like Amy Klobuchar, and I’m very impressed by her NH performance. I don’t see her winning either the nomination or the general — I think she’s too centrist and has too little support from minority communities.
I think Joe Biden is done, and I think a protracted spitting contest between the top three NH finishers will only help the Trumpists.
Everyone acting like Bloomberg is normal and fine and not a racist, misogynist authoritarian Republican is one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen.
How is a race with two Republican billionaires running against each other going to inspire Democratic turnout enough to flip the Senate?
If that is the race, the left is gone in November. POC turnout will be obliterated.
Bloomberg’s path to the nomination is accumulating enough 25-30% wins and getting a plurality of delegates. He has no natural constituency. He has no fervent unpaid supporters. Maybe he can pull off a victory in the general but coattails and turnout – no effing way.
@How is a race … going to inspire Democratic turnout enough to flip the Senate?:
By absolutely FLOODING the market with campaign funding for down-ballot Democrats. Funding for television, funding for GOTV, funding for staff.
As much as we despise it (and I do), we nevertheless live in a culture absolutely dominated by money — big money. Historically, the GOP has it and we don’t.
Some of us believe that four more years of Trumpist rule will destroy whatever is left of our democracy. Some of us believe that there is a difference between the Trumpists and the Democrats — no matter WHO the Democrats nominate.
I don’t like Mike Bloomberg. I also don’t like Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden. I won’t vote for Mike Bloomberg in the primary (I’ll be voting for Elizabeth Warren).
None of that matters. If Mike Bloomberg is the candidate most able to win the nomination, then Mike Bloomberg should be the nominee and win the election.
I think pouring campaign contributions to the down-ballot Democratic candidates is among the best ways to accomplish a blue tidal wave in November that I can imagine. Mr. Bloomberg has promised to do that whether or not he wins the nomination.
I think it would be foolish and suicidal for our party to walk away from that offer.
In Bloomberg’s last re-election, he spent $102M. His opponent spent ~$7M. Bloomberg won by 5 points. It was record low turnout. It was the lowest vote total (raw number) for a NYC mayor winner going back to 1917 (yes, I wrote that correctly).
Money can do a lot. There are limits. Buying enthusiasm may be one of those limits. Well-paid staff and committed volunteers aren’t the same.
As promised a year ago, I will support the Democratic nominee, even if it’s “Mickey Mouse”, as Joe Biden says.
You accept Bloomberg as a Democrat?
Let’s look back at some of his greatest hits.
– “I’d (you know the word) that in a second,”
– “I’d do that piece of meat…”
– “If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains they’d go to the library instead of to Bloomingdale’s”
– Called women: “fat broads” & “horse-faced lesbian.”
– “I know for a fact that any self-respecting woman who walks past a construction site and doesn’t get a whistle will turn around and walk past again and again until she does get one.”
– Testified that he wouldn’t call the rape allegation genuine unless there was “an unimpeachable third-party witness.”
– “If you looked like that, I would do you in a second.”
– “If I were a woman, I would wear high heels.”
– “What is the guy dumb and blind? What the hell is he marrying you for?”
– Told female employee to “Kill it!” when she informed him she was pregnant.
And those are just the ones on women. You should see what he thinks of minorities and Muslims.
The dude is Trump with better aesthetics. That’s it.
@The dude is Trump with better aesthetics:
Donald Trump didn’t and doesn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars to donate to down-ballot party candidates in a hotly-contested election, and wouldn’t do so if he did. Donald Trump didn’t and couldn’t run New York City. Donald Trump has been bilking investors and creditors his entire life. Donald Trump has been dodging fraud cases his entire life. Donald Trump chose Roy Cohn as his lawyer and mentor.
Mike Bloomberg is not going be kneeling before Vladimir Putin. He’s not going to be ordering his Attorney General to pull the plug on sentencing his friends. He’s not going to be betraying friends on a whim. He’s not going to be abusing the powers of his position to collect cash from his businesses and properties. Mike Bloomberg didn’t run a fraudulent diploma mill, he didn’t create and run a fraudulent pyramid scheme, he didn’t run multiple casinos into bankruptcy, and he didn’t have to dissolve a family “charity” because it was fraudulent.
I get that you don’t like Mike Bloomberg. Neither do I. Your assertion that there is no difference between Donald Trump and Mike Bloomberg is at best hyperbole.
He’s a racist misogynist authoritarian Republican trying to buy an election. It should be terrifying to everyone. He should be vigorously opposed, not enthusiastically or shruggingly accepted.
You say you don’t like him but you write about him as the likely nominee and how that would be a good thing for the party.
The Muslim surveilling stop and frisk Mayor? No, it’s really not much hyperbole to compare him to Trump.
He would just have less chaos and tweeting – which makes it potentially scarier. It would be ruthless efficiency.
You come down with Derangement Syndrome awfully quick for anyone you don’t see as perfect, don’t you?:(
First, I’d like better sourcing than a random Twitter feed from someone I have no idea who is. Speaking of Twitter I don’t expect Bloomberg to embarrass us all with every tweet.
Second, his issue profile: gun control, climate change, reproductive rights, path to universal and affordable healthcare, welcoming of immigrants, puts him squarely in the mainstream of our party. He’s always been more RINO than DINO.
Bloomberg may have had some dense moments, but he can’t hold a candle to Trump in the cruelty department.
I think a racist misogynist Republican who has supported fascistic policies is a lot more than “not perfect.”
Stop and frisk meant the abuse of black and brown men and women to the tune of 700,000 PER YEAR.
That is equivalent to every single person living in Boston being stopped and having their rights and bodies violated so that young people in communities of color were scared and made to feel like second class citizens. And muslim communities had that plus constant surveillance. He also believes the end of redlining was the reason for the 2008 crash. Bloomberg is every bit as racist as Trump.
Weird that my “derangement” is always based on people’s bad records and your, apparently clear-eyed, views are based on campaign statements. You probably believe his statements that he inherited and chose to cut back on stop and frisk even though the truth is that it expanded under his decade as mayor and was only cut back after major lawsuits and court orders forced it.
Here’s what Charles Blow of the the New York Times said the other day:
Let’s also not forget that his “signature issue” led him to giving $12M to Pat Toomey’s 2016 reelection. Toomey was reelected by a 1.5% margin, and now Dems have to claw back another Senate seat when they had a great opportunity in Pennsylvania.
He is racist, he is sexist, he is cruel, he is an authoritarian. The main differences between Bloomberg and Trump is that one is boorish and the other is ruthlessly efficient.
You need to take a few deep breaths. What did he ever do to you? He has apologized for stop and frisk (which BTW had some minority support at the time) and his record bears out the items I cited too. Stop throwing around fascist so liberally. Godwin called – he want’s his law back!
I have some sense of empathy and know what the communities terrorized by stop and frisk say, so yeah, I’m mad about this guy. You should be too. If direct personal impact is all that matters, then I shouldn’t even be mad about Trump. Afterall, he didn’t put me in a cage.
On that note, I’ll be sure to check with you that it’s all good when Trump apologizes for that policy. We can embrace him as a Dem then, too. That’s how it works, right? You can oversee massive harm for decades but as long as you say sorry when you’re asking for a new thing, all can be wiped away?
Stop and frisk is absolutely fascist. What else would you call a violent policy perpetuated by a police force to subjugate a particular community?
@stop and frisk:
I would call it an abomination that was portrayed as a masterful success at the time by pretty much the entire mainstream media. It played right along with the similarly discredited “Fix broken windows” meme.
I would call it a case study in how good science can overturn universal and universally wrong political wisdom. The violent crime rate in NYC DID plummet while stop-and-frisk and fix-broken-windows were being practiced. We now know that that reduction has nothing to do with policing and was instead a result of eliminating lead from vehicle emissions in the 1970s. We know that because the same pronounced reduction in violent crime happened in cities across America that made no changes in their police policy.
I also remind you that stop-and-frisk was the brainchild of William Bratton — Superintendent in Chief of the city of Boston from 1992 to 1993 and Boston Police Commissioner from 1993 to 1994,
His elevation to Superintendent in Chief was done by Mayor Ray Flynn, and subsequent promotion by Mayor Tom Menino — both viewed as “good Democrats” by their respective constituencies (as was Mr. Bloomberg, while he was a Democrat).
It is easy to have 20/20 hindsight. It is dangerous to be overly eager to use that to excoriate elected officials.
I’m sorry, did you just somehow make a connection between lead levels in vehicle emissions and crime rates? They may have changed at about the same time, but that sounds very post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
The link between lead levels in vehicle emissions and crime rates (20 years later) has been documented in the literature since at least the 2007 research done by economist Rick Nevin (emphasis mine):
This early work was confirmed by researchers like Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, and published by reporters like Kevin Drum in 2013.
In parallel with this statistical research, a growing number of biologists have shown the biochemical pathways that explain the mechanisms by which lead exposure in infancy and childhood causes dramatic changes in behavior (such as aggression and violence) in later life. That research suggests that the time lag is about 20 years — the same correlation found by statisticians.
So it is not just correlation, it is causation. The reality that ulcers are known to be caused by an easily-treated bacterial (Heliobactor pylori) infection was controversial when first discovered in 1982, yet was subsequently confirmed by study after study. In a similar manner, the causal link between lead emissions and violent crime is now widely accepted.
Stop-and-frisk had NOTHING to do with the decrease in violent crime in NYC.
I cannot and will not take you seriously as long as you equate Bloomberg with Trump.
Since Mr. Bloomberg is so clearly a “racist misogynist” Republican, then presumably it will be trivially easy to turn out voters who oppose racism and misogyny and thereby ensure that Mr. Bloomberg is not our nominee.
Of all the things you cite, I think his financial support for Mr. Toomey is the most damaging for him in 2020. I am cynical enough to suggest that Mr. Bloomberg’s $135M contributions to Democrats in 2020 already washes away the stain of the $11.5M he gave to Pat Toomey, and Mr. Bloomberg has strongly hinted that he will pour more cash into the coffers of Democrats.
Bigotry against Muslims was pandemic in America, including among Democrats, after 9/11. Similarly, stop-and-frisk was very popular among Americans, even Democrats, while it was going on. Both of those swords cut both ways.
His comments against redlining have an element of truth, in that the abuses that caused the 2008 crash were celebrated at the time as an “innovative” solution to the borrower solvency issues that make redlining profitable. I’m confident that his handsomely paid advisers and consultants will craft messaging that will moot that particular complaint. Joe Biden already has to do the same as a consequence of his enthusiastic advocacy of the 2005 bankruptcy bill — a bill that hurt the same community and had similar motivations and results.
In order to win in November, the Democratic nominee must simultaneously:
1. Motivate new and sporadic blue voters to show up and vote Democratic, enough to offset Donald Trump’s appeal to his deplorable racist and sexist base
2. Avoid demotivating blue boomers so much that they stay home (to avoid muting success at #1)
3. Avoid demotivating voters who seek a black nominee so much that they stay home. Since there are no longer any black candidates in contention, voters who will only turn out to support a black candidate are already lost.
4. Avoid demotivating voters who seek a female nominee so much that they stay home.
Mr. Sanders did not do that in 2016. In 2020, he is so far succeeding at #1, failing at #2, failing at #3, and failing at #4. Mr. Biden is failing at #1, succeeding at #2, allegedly succeeding at #3 (we have only notoriously unreliable polling to go on), and failing at #4.
The race is still very early. South Carolina is the first primary where we’ll get any hard data on black turnout and preference.
I don’t share your unbridled passion against Mr. Bloomberg, and in my view it is not supported by facts and reason.
“I think Mr. Bloomberg has the best shot of gaining the nomination and winning the general, with Ms. Warren a somewhat distant second.”
So, just to be clear, Tom. Does this mean you are now changing your support from Warren to Bloomberg?
@Does this mean [I am] changing my support … to Bloomberg:
Absolutely not. I have always supported the candidate I think is best for the office, and never the candidate I think will win.
I’m just describing reality as I see it.
Tom, thank you for that clarification.
So, you still support Warren but you think Bloomberg has the best chance of winning the nomination.
In the interest of transparency , I’m still “Riden with Biden”
I’ve always gone home with the one that brought me to the dance.
Precisely.
I think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are splitting the radical/progressive Democrats. I think Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Biden are splitting the centrist/moderate Democrats.
I think the rules create an opportunity for the split to go all the way into convention. Although we’ve not had a contested convention since 1968, we’ve also not had a hyper-polarized electorate like today since then.
I think Elizabeth Warren’s path to nomination is to remain the alternative that all sides of the split can turn to.
I also recognize that several other candidates can rightly claim the same role. I see Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden as being too polarizing to fit into that slot. I don’t think supporters of Bernie Sanders will sign up for a Joe Biden nomination and vice-versa.
I’m still voting for either Warren or Bernie, since that is where my heart is. I just am not arrogant enough to presume I speak for all voters. In reality based enough to know my first choice is cooed and my second choice is still a big risk for the general.
Sanders has his quarter of the party. In a 5-6 person race that’s a powerful base to have. As it gets whittled down, I suspect he will have a harder time expanding his coalition to include moderate Democratic voters. I think he would be wise to pick a centrist as a VP for his ticket and not a gadfly like Gabbard or a fellow progressive like Warren. Similarly, a centrist would be wise to pick a progressive.
Please vote for Warren. She’s a much better communicator and executor for progressivism IMO.
Touché. I encouraged you to vote for Klobuchar for the same reason. She’s more articulate than Biden and more accomplished than Buttigieg. Shes been a consistent pro-labor Democrat and not a plutocrat like Bloomberg. She’s the best choice among the moderates. She may yet have my vote too depending on how the race shapes up.
I think her appeal is limited to voters like me-liberal whites with high levels of education. I worry the same thing about Warren, whom I completely agree comes across as much smarter than Bernie with a clearer plan of action for what she will do as president. It’s hard not to conclude the women who did their homework are losing to the boys who are winging it.
We are watching the unfolding of a case study in sexism, especially in the media.
We have a media and a party that finds all sorts of excuses to celebrate shouting, podium-pounding, chest-thumping, and plain old ignorance while dismissing and poo-pooing preparedness, nuance, and calm discussion.
When Elizabeth Warren doesn’t literally fight for debate airtime, she’s “too passive” and “not assertive enough”. When she does, she’s “shrill”.
Our culture celebrates and elevates destructive and antisocial behavior that is all too often also associated with classically-defined “masculinity”. We suppress and dismiss constructive bridge-building and problem-solving that is all too often associated with classically-defined “femininity”.
In my view, Ms. Klobuchar is a better choice than Mr. Buttigieg or Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren is a better choice than Mr. Sanders.
So far as I can tell, the fundamental sexism and misogyny of American culture and media — including MSNBC and CNN — is, if anything, more entrenched in 2020 than it was in 2016. I cite as exhibit A the halftime show at the Superbowl, complete with little girls in white altar-dresses sharing the stage with poll dancers and simulated sex acts.
I think Amy Klobochar and Elizabeth Warren would each be a better president than any of the male Democratic candidates — including Mike Bloomberg — and of course would be superior to Donald Trump.
I do not have confidence that our media culture will allow that outcome.
Just on your point about the Super Bowl show – this year was a pretty remarkably empowering show. I think you missed some of the message.
Empowering? Really? If you buy that malarkey, you’ll also buy that Clarence Thomas is a crusader for civil rights.
MALARKEY : speech or writing designed to obscure, mislead or impress.
Tom, glad to see you bring Joe Biden’s definition of Trumpism back into use.
Google a bit about it. You’ll see that commentary calling it sexist and demeaning is pretty much all coming from conservative outlets. Those calling it empowering are often written by women.
When powerful women choose how to express themselves, that’s cool with me.
I don’t care where the commentary calling it sexist and demeaning comes from, nor do I care who says it was “empowering”. Yet another round of women as sex objects doing mating presentations (in the biological sense) for men — as always, the women naked and the men mostly clothed. As always, targeted at a mostly-male football audience and designed to sell advertising.
What I saw (I kept the sound off, as I do for all advertising) was a mostly-naked young woman conforming to ALL sexist body stereotypes bumping and grinding against a pole (in true strip-club fashion), accompanied at times by other mostly-naked women bumping, grinding, and several times performing simulated sex acts with men. Inserted into the middle of this was a collection of little girls — the juxtaposition was obvious and intentional, the venerable and vicious virgin/whore trope in full display. Doing a classic strip-club reveal in order to display a Puerto Rican flag degraded that flag — there was absolutely NOTHING “empowering” about that bit.
I’m all in favor of sexual agency for women. I’m all in favor of legalizing prostitution, so that women who choose to can openly profit from their bodies.
A society that genuinely abhors child sex abuse and child pornography will not juxtapose little girls in white altar dresses alongside sex workers practicing their trade in front of millions of television viewers (all pretending that it wasn’t what it so obviously WAS).
There are legions of Americans — some black — who DO call Clarence Thomas a crusader for civil rights. Similarly large numbers of Americans — some female — view Sarah Palin as a crusader for women’s rights and view John McCain and the GOP as leading the fight against sexism for nominating Ms. Palin.
There are large numbers of evangelical Christians who assert their belief that Donald Trump has been raised up by God to save America.
There’s all kinds of MALARKEY (I’m happy to use the word again in homage to Fred 🙂 ) in today’s America.
There’s also truth and fact. Some of us can tell the difference. Some of us cannot.
Watch the show for yourself. Tell me what YOU think is happening at 13:35-13:40. The display builds to an orgiastic climax at 13:55. The fireworks shoot up — a trope as old as trains going into tunnels and waves washing on the shore — the men collapse in post-coital bliss at 13:58, and with a few final twerks the two woman stand triumphant at the end, their satisfaction complete.
All of it — the entire production — designed to make money for the NFL and Pepsi.
Money for sex. How innovative. How empowering. Complete with flying Pepsi logo at the end.
How completely American.
Yikes, Tom.
Maybe checkout the movie J. Lo was in this year for some understanding.
What is there to understand?
Look, Jane Fonda is surely a powerful woman. Does her later life change what Barbarella so obviously was?
I daresay I don’t need lectures from you about “understanding”, especially when it comes to how patriarchy exploits women.
Post-NH polls still show Biden with a steady lead in SC. I somewhat doubt that Steyer actually crack double digits there, but you never know. Warren has been a consistent fifth in polls there, which is what she was in N.H. I agree with petr that she could get third in every remaining primary and go into the convention with a decent amount of delegates. I just don’t see it happening for her. If she gets fifth in NV and SC and with her money drying up, it’s hard to see how she prevails. Biden also needs a huge donor infusion which is entirely dependent on South Carolina for him.
The talking heads that tell me that Warren it toast are the same talking heads that told me, week after week, that Trump has plateaued and will never win the nomination…..and when they were wrong about that, they told me that Clinton was a lock.
Someone on Twitter also pointed out Bill Clinton lost a lot of states before Super Tuesday. Harkin took IA, Tsongas took N.H., and Brown won the earlier primaries before Super Tuesday restored Clinton’s momentum. Also Clinton getting second in N.H. and proclaiming him the comeback kid seems similar to Klobuchar’s surprise third place eclipsing Buttigieg and Bernie’s higher placing in the media coverage.