Red Mosquito

nice work bernie!

stip wrote:nice work bernie!

Squeaking out close wins won't cut it though, he needs to have big wins to grab more delegates

He won't produce a big win yet, if he can at all. But stuff like this does a few things:

1. It provides the justification for staying in the primary, and since this started (and the primary purpose of the campaign remains) as a way to help build/strengthen an organized truly liberal left within the democratic party. The more voters he potentially engages, the more people he potentially brings into the process, the more movement infrastructure he builds the stronger a position his successor will be in 2020.

2. His being in the race pressures Clinton to at least pay lip service to more progressive/anti-corporate/pro income equaltiy forces. He has absolutely shaped this debate.

3. Based on a quick scan (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Sanders' strength seems to be with younger voters (which often means newer votes) and independents. His presence potentially expands the size of the democratic coalition. Either these voters then gravitate towards clinton (many won't, but some will) if she is forced to adopt similar policies to Bernie or

4. As we get closer people start to realize that Sanders may be the better general election candidate due to his ability to expand the size of the coalition. Clinton's strength among voters who will be voting democratic anyway, and in states that the party has no chance of winning, will start to look like weaker tea. If you have a record of this and there is some new major outbreak of Clinton scandal (even if it is the same tired story given new legs) you may start to see the pledged delegates open to the possibility of considering Sanders. If you end up in a position where Sanders can pull ahead of her in the end in terms of pledged delegates superdelegates may have second thoughts about contravening the will of the democratic electorate.

5. The delegate count is what ultimately matters, but the win is the symbolic point, and this helps him continue to fund raise to influence the race.

6. If Bernie's support manages to endure and there remains these enormous divides between how the voters are distributed (independents and youth vote going overwhelmingly to Sanders) Clinton is more likely to choose a VP that will reach out to that coalition.

7. I am assuming that Clinton's support has largely peaked. Everyone knows who she is and has an opinion about her (and outside of the party faithfull it isn't good). It is still possible, if Bernie can stay competitive for just a little while longer, that larger swaths of the democratic electorate break for him. Look at how he closed the polling gap in MI.

Again, if I'm betting the odds on bernie are still long. Clinton remains far more likely than not to get the nomination (despite, I think, being the weaker gen election candidate by a fair bit). But nights like last night keep the pathway open.

if nothing else it means he's gonna get another 20 bucks from me

I know this has been discussed a little in this thread already, but you don't think the word "socialist" would hurt him in a general election?

4/5 wrote:I know this has been discussed a little in this thread already, but you don't think the word "socialist" would hurt him in a general election?

Perhaps. I think that now the Cold War's over, though, that word has lost some of its shock value. And to Millennials, who have few, if any, memories of the Cold War, there may not be any shock value at all.

While I'm relatively conservative, at least by RM standards, I have not self identified as a Republican in years. Their nomination seems to be coming down between Trump & Cruz. If that's the case then I can honestly say I didn't leave the party as much as it left me.

4/5 wrote:I know this has been discussed a little in this thread already, but you don't think the word "socialist" would hurt him in a general election?

I think people are lot more likely to be attracted to the anti wall street, anti oligarchy message than the socialist one. it all depends on how you talk about, and thus far Sanders has been smart.

Americans are fine with socialism (in the sense that it'll be used here) if you couch it in language about ending unearned privilege and opportunity and restoring the possibility of the American dream. Even groups like the Tea Party think in these general terms.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:I know this has been discussed a little in this thread already, but you don't think the word "socialist" would hurt him in a general election?

Perhaps. I think that now the Cold War's over, though, that word has lost some of its shock value. And to Millennials, who have few, if any, memories of the Cold War, there may not be any shock value at all.

Yeah, it's definitely a generational trigger. It's also been so overused as an accusation by Republicans over the years that even a lot of the people it might have affected have got to have alarm fatigue by now.

Biff Pocoroba wrote:While I'm relatively conservative, at least by RM standards, I have not self identified as a Republican in years. Their nomination seems to be coming down between Trump & Cruz. If that's the case then I can honestly say I didn't leave the party as much as it left me.

Studies have been done on this, and in the last 15-20 years (I forget the exact timeline, I'd have to look it up), the democratic party is about one standard deviation more liberal than it used to be--less that the party itself has gotten more liberal insofar as it has gradually seen an exodus of its conservative members. The republican party is six standard deviations more conservative. So you're absolutely correct.

this refers to the party in congress/government, not necessarily the average man on the street.

McParadigm wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:I know this has been discussed a little in this thread already, but you don't think the word "socialist" would hurt him in a general election?

Perhaps. I think that now the Cold War's over, though, that word has lost some of its shock value. And to Millennials, who have few, if any, memories of the Cold War, there may not be any shock value at all.

Yeah, it's definitely a generational trigger. It's also been so overused as an accusation by Republicans over the years that even a lot of the people it might have affected have got to have alarm fatigue by now.

Roosevelt also figured out how to crack that nut a long time ago, and I suspect Sanders is at least passingly familiar with that playbook

to learn more read chapter 5 of my book!

McParadigm wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:I know this has been discussed a little in this thread already, but you don't think the word "socialist" would hurt him in a general election?

Perhaps. I think that now the Cold War's over, though, that word has lost some of its shock value. And to Millennials, who have few, if any, memories of the Cold War, there may not be any shock value at all.

Yeah, it's definitely a generational trigger. It's also been so overused as an accusation by Republicans over the years that even a lot of the people it might have affected have got to have alarm fatigue by now.

I agree that it's largely generational, but middle aged and older people are (typically) much more likely to vote.

It certainly has been overused, but I'm not sure which way that would push people. I think it'd be equally as likely that this would be almost an affirmation of all the wolf crying they've done over Democrats for decades that "WE TOLD YOU DEMOCRATS WERE SECRETLY SOCIALISTS!!!"

Younger voters love him and the word doesn't matter, but I think a lot of Americans are still distrustful of redistribution of wealth type of language and that Republicans could frame him in such a way to scare a lot of moderates. But then again this election cycle is so different that who knows.

I'm more than willing to upgrade Sanders from "has no shot" to "has a snowball's chance in hell" after last night; i.e., he needs so, so many things to break his way that the odds seem astronomical, but it's not a "no way." I bet there are at least a few pundits that are drafting articles/think pieces dated July 28th, 2016 that refer to Michigan as the "first domino to fall." It truly was an historic night, even though it will probably be a negative in the delegate column--he outperformed polls by an absurd margin (9 of the most recent polls had Clinton up by an average 20% points).

I'm wondering: I've seen numbers that suggest that late-deciding voters are not very friendly to Trump (remember the returns from LA last Saturday; when just the early and absentee ballots had been counted, he was up like gangbusters, and then the lead slowly started to dwindle). Could it be that the same population of voters is very friendly to Bern? Maybe his supporters aren't being polled for some reason?

michigan was an open primary and most polls reflect party affiliation

If Clinton does get the nomination, I can only assume Sanders would ultimately back her and throw his support/voters towards Clinton?

Strat wrote:If Clinton does get the nomination, I can only assume Sanders would ultimately back her and throw his support/voters towards Clinton?

that's what he's supposed to do, but maybe he tries to run as an independent, which would be horrible.

Someone just tell me that Trump wont be president. Please.

Strat wrote:Someone just tell me that Trump wont be president. Please.

which ever candidate wins, they won't be the best looking president...