Red Mosquito

theplatypus wrote:

Biff Pocoroba wrote:What a dumpster fire of a shit show this election will be. I'm a never Trump-er so I'm voting for Biden but wow I wish the Dems could have come up with someone better.

Yeah it's insane how bad the Democrats fumbled this

I don't think it's insane, that would imply that it doesn't make sense. There's a logic to it. But it's disappointing.

I guess I don’t understand the “fumbled this” argument. Who fumbled it? If you’re talking about the consolidation around Biden 2 days before Super Tuesday, I would argue it had already become a 2 man race, and did anyone ever think the party would choose Bernie? The party urged Biden not to run in 2016, didn’t seem thrilled about him this time at first. There were 20 or so candidates to choose from, from socialists to billionaires and 3 women senators. Voter turnout was higher this year than 4 years ago, and aside from the first two contests, Biden did better than any of us expected. The party isn’t the reason he won MA & MN, when he wasn’t expected to on ST. And from there on, his vote count was impressive. Michigan was the most impressive of all. So yea, I wish we had someone else too, but the evidence shows we are in the minority (in terms of the broader left).

And by broader left I mean people who will vote for a democrat or other left wing candidates. It’s fine if you don’t vote but for someone to advance they need voters.

Rob wrote:I guess I don’t understand the “fumbled this” argument. Who fumbled it? If you’re talking about the consolidation around Biden 2 days before Super Tuesday, I would argue it had already become a 2 man race, and did anyone ever think the party would choose Bernie? The party urged Biden not to run in 2016, didn’t seem thrilled about him this time at first. There were 20 or so candidates to choose from, from socialists to billionaires and 3 women senators. Voter turnout was higher this year than 4 years ago, and aside from the first two contests, Biden did better than any of us expected. The party isn’t the reason he won MA & MN, when he wasn’t expected to on ST. And from there on, his vote count was impressive. Michigan was the most impressive of all. So yea, I wish we had someone else too, but the evidence shows we are in the minority (in terms of the broader left).

It probably depends on who you think "Democrats" refers to--I can read it as "Democratic voters" and still say that, yes, casting votes for Joe Biden instead of *any* the other choices feels like a pretty big fumble to me. Even if he wins the race will be tighter than it needs to be and ignoring the progressive wing of the party will come at the party's own peril. Individual voters aren't really to blame if the Biden campaign can't win the general election, but it's at least a missed opportunity for a more strategic choice.

But I also think there's a valid reading for the party apparatus "fumbling" it, insofar as they were unable to coalesce around a centrist candidate early enough to stop Bernie when they still had multiple options and ended up with Biden based on the logistics of the primary season. I do not think it was clearly a two-man race after SC, a state Biden was *always* going to win, but it was after the winner of the Iowa caucus dropped out after just the fourth contest (quite literally unprecedented, even if his numbers with black voters were historically bad). That was something the party did--Biden had no path to victory in a crowded field, but neither did any of the other centrists, and it's pretty clear that at least Pete, and probably others, were told/pressured/incentivized to leave the race. You could argue that this was the tactical thing to do because Bernie was unelectable or whatever (I obviously disagree but it's a coherent argument), but there's not a ton of support for the idea that Biden just happened, that he wooed voters on the basis of his famous charisma or that his rise to the nomination wasn't driven by a series of orchestrated moves (and gaffes by his competition). And given that Biden seems almost uniquely vulnerable to every argument in Trump's re-election strategy--as a symbol of Washington corruption, as a globalist liberal who voted for NAFTA, as maybe the only national politician less capable of coherent sentences than the current president--it's quite easy for me to read this as a fumble by the party machinery. It always didn't have to Biden, but at a certain point their (in)actions meant that it did. That's also why I say that it's not "insane" to me (this is the party that ran Hillary, of all people, and then refused to go stump in the Midwest). It seems less than ideal, but it's explicable and it fits with a more or less discrete set of values.

This is perhaps a roundabout way of saying that I don't think appeals to Biden's vote count are a testament to his superior political ability, his ineluctable rise through the ranks. There's definitely something to be said about an electorate that, in the midst of a health crisis, chooses the centrist over the progressive--there's no denying that the post-COVID elections swung for Biden in a way that is disappointing to those of us on the left. But I don't think you can look at his victory in Michigan absent the massive media coronation of him as the nominee post-ST, and therefore the party's consolidation behind him in advance of ST as a tactic to stop the Bernie campaign.

I don’t know how else to see it other than being a 2 person race after SC. Not a single candidate other than Biden & Bernie registered support among minority voters, including the minority candidates. It would make no sense to coalesce around a moderate who might pull 25% of a primary vote in a very white state like Iowa or NH, then drop like a rock when the calendar opened up to more diverse states. We watched that happen in real time, and no one was surprised, because we all knew they had this issue. It may be rare for the Iowa winner to drop out as soon as Pete did, but it’s not uncommon to have a clear view of who is viable (at least in the primary) after 4 contests. Two years and millions of dollars got Pete & Amy a modest amount of support in the two states they spent a lot of time in - states that don’t really represent the broader demographics. Do you really think they wanted to continue but the party forced them out, or that they knew they had no shot and maybe wanted a concession or two (or a job) from the party?

And besides, are you arguing that the party really should have coalesced around a more viable centrist candidate sooner? That their inaction helped get us Biden? I think there’s some truth to this, but I fail to see how that wouldn’t have infuriated the left even more. I think the party stayed out of it more than in the past, which is what voters claimed they wanted. And Biden won anyway. His vote tally may not be a testament to his superior political ability, but it does show you where the voters are. I mean, if you say he had help from a media coronation, well, is that media going somewhere? What help did he get that won’t exist in the future?

I’ve said this many times before - it is very easy to make the case against Biden. It’s a lot harder to make the case for someone else, including Trump.

This is also something different from the dynamics at play in 2016. Biden seems to do better with people who hate both candidates.

I feel like you're shifting the goalposts here a bit. I am certainly not arguing that Pete would have won the nomination. What I'm arguing is: the party stayed out of it until they had to choose between Biden and Bernie, they chose Biden (*by* getting the other candidates out of the race, as the logical play absent a guarantee that Biden would be the guy--i.e. coordination by the party--would be to stay in as long as you can and accrue enough delegates to force a concession from *whoever* the winner is), and now they're stuck with him. That's a fumble, insofar as Biden is vulnerable against Trump, specifically ill-suited to being a two-term president in the 2020s, and unlikely to build any governing mandate. It's not really a lesser degree of thumb on the proverbial scale if the only difference is when you're tipping it, so whether an earlier intervention would have pissed off the left even more or not (I say no) is kind of irrelevant.

I'll also note that when I say the media coronation, I specifically have in mind the wave of coordinated endorsements on the eve of ST, which absolutely helped build a consensus that Biden was the guy. That didn't happen on its own, and CNN didn't just make it up because they're biased against the left or hate Bernie or whatever. So, you know, that's not "the media" so much as it is the work of the party and its apparatus, and therefore whether or not left-wing or progressive ideas are in the minority among Dem voters (who, I'll note, endorsed M4A in these same primary elections, even the one in Texas!) is not a question that can be answered by Joe Biden's vote total given the circumstances.

Rob wrote:The party isn’t the reason he won MA & MN, when he wasn’t expected to on ST.

The shorter version of my post is to say that the above statement isn't anywhere near self-evident. Why did he win in states he didn't campaign in, twenty-four hours after most of his competition dropped out and endorsed him in a string of live events? Pretty safe to say the party had something to do with that.

Mickey wrote: What I'm arguing is: the party stayed out of it until they had to choose between Biden and Bernie, they chose Biden (*by* getting the other candidates out of the race, as the logical play absent a guarantee that Biden would be the guy--i.e. coordination by the party--would be to stay in as long as you can and accrue enough delegates to force a concession from *whoever* the winner is), and now they're stuck with him. That's a fumble, insofar as Biden is vulnerable against Trump, specifically ill-suited to being a two-term president in the 2020s, and unlikely to build any governing mandate. It's not really a lesser degree of thumb on the proverbial scale if the only difference is when you're tipping it, so whether an earlier intervention would have pissed off the left even more or not (I say no) is kind of irrelevant.

I think everyone would agree that the party didn't want Bernie Sanders to be their nominee. This includes Mayor Pete & Amy Klobuchar (and perhaps, Liz Warren as well). I am a little confused by the wording of what I've bolded, so I may be arguing something you are too, but the candidates who dropped out the day after SC are the party. My original question here was - "who fumbled this?" All I'm really saying here - which you seem to agree with - is that the party waited until the vote occurred in 4 contests, revealing two viable candidates. This is what people say they wanted, and I am happy the party stepped back (at least compared to last time).

I guess I don't know what people think they could have done differently at that point. Give me an actual example. If I'm a party member and don't want the guy who rails against the party everyday, what exactly do you do after SC? Continue to let Amy & Pete siphon the white people (mostly women, who are 60% of Dem voters) away from Biden, giving Bernie an edge? And do we assume Pete & Amy weren't completely onboard? I don't think we should. They were running out of money, knew they wouldn't win, and don't seem the type to buck the party. It makes more sense to me to see this as "OK, Biden is the one guy who can compete nationally against Bernie in a primary, we have no choice but to go with him now." It's not a ringing endorsement, but it's not really a fumble either. I know you aren't swayed by the vote total, but it is worth noting again that the month of March is when a majority of the votes are cast, and Biden did better than both Bernie & Hillary 2016, and Bernie 2020. Whether that's a credit to Joe Biden or "Place-holder Democrat", I don't know, but he is the place holder Dem. And it beat all the people we all liked. What is the argument against Biden that gives us a clear picture of a real alternative reality that could've taken place this year (and includes real reasons for why Trump is stronger against Biden than others).

Edit to add this:

Mickey wrote:There's definitely something to be said about an electorate that, in the midst of a health crisis, chooses the centrist over the progressive--there's no denying that the post-COVID elections swung for Biden in a way that is disappointing to those of us on the left.

I would have thought this would have helped Bernie. I agree the party & media were on Biden's side, but Biden rising as Covid gripped us is just another piece of evidence in Biden's favor.

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote: What I'm arguing is: the party stayed out of it until they had to choose between Biden and Bernie, they chose Biden (*by* getting the other candidates out of the race, as the logical play absent a guarantee that Biden would be the guy--i.e. coordination by the party--would be to stay in as long as you can and accrue enough delegates to force a concession from *whoever* the winner is), and now they're stuck with him. That's a fumble, insofar as Biden is vulnerable against Trump, specifically ill-suited to being a two-term president in the 2020s, and unlikely to build any governing mandate. It's not really a lesser degree of thumb on the proverbial scale if the only difference is when you're tipping it, so whether an earlier intervention would have pissed off the left even more or not (I say no) is kind of irrelevant.

I think everyone would agree that the party didn't want Bernie Sanders to be their nominee. This includes Mayor Pete & Amy Klobuchar (and perhaps, Liz Warren as well). I am a little confused by the wording of what I've bolded, so I may be arguing something you are too, but the candidates who dropped out the day after SC are the party. My original question here was - "who fumbled this?" All I'm really saying here - which you seem to agree with - is that the party waited until the vote occurred in 4 contests, revealing two viable candidates. This is what people say they wanted, and I am happy the party stepped back (at least compared to last time).

Yeah, I don't disagree with that at all--Biden was propelled to victory on ST by the party (though I would add that while Kamala is definitely the party, this was also clearly orchestrated by people who were not themselves the candidates).

I guess I don't know what people think they could have done differently at that point. Give me an actual example. If I'm a party member and don't want the guy who rails against the party everyday, what exactly do you do after SC? Continue to let Amy & Pete siphon the white people (mostly women, who are 60% of Dem voters) away from Biden, giving Bernie an edge? And do we assume Pete & Amy weren't completely onboard? I don't think we should. They were running out of money, knew they wouldn't win, and don't seem the type to buck the party. It makes more sense to me to see this as "OK, Biden is the one guy who can compete nationally against Bernie in a primary, we have no choice but to go with him now." It's not a ringing endorsement, but it's not really a fumble either.

But this is what I mean by shifting the goalposts--I'm not sure that you (or rather, I) need to show that there was a better anti-Bernie candidate on the stage in December than Joe Biden in order to say that the party bungled this whole ordeal, given that everyone knew Bernie was going to run again. Pete sucks, Amy sucks, Liz Warren has awful political instincts, etc., and I don't think any of them were in a better *real* position to win the nomination on the eve of ST. But if you're the DNC, you eat shit massively in 2016, you have four years to plan and you know you're going to get challenged by the left and the right, and the best you can get is Joe Biden, how is that *not* a fumble? The party behaved rationally in the pursuit of its interests at that point--this was my original claim, that it's not "insane"--but I don't think we should restrict our analysis/the period for evaluating the success/failure of the 2020 Dem Primary to that narrow of a window.

I'll also note, again, that Pete's drop-out post ST was essentially unprecedented. The Iowa caucus winner did drop out once before prior to ST, in 1992, but he was from Iowa and he also didn't place in New Hampshire. No one as well-positioned as Pete Buttigieg has ever exited the primary season that early, and while he wasn't poised to be a favorite on ST, he was definitely in the running to grab a chunk of delegates. Nor would I overinflated Pete's non-white numbers while downplaying Biden's youth numbers--they're both vulnerable to losing big chunks of the electorate (and Biden was *also* running out of money). So I reject the idea that the first four contests revealed Biden to be the only viable centrist candidate, though I do think he offered the party the only viable *narrative* that would deflect from Bernie as frontrunner.

I know you aren't swayed by the vote total, but it is worth noting again that the month of March is when a majority of the votes are cast, and Biden did better than both Bernie & Hillary 2016, and Bernie 2020. Whether that's a credit to Joe Biden or "Place-holder Democrat", I don't know, but he is the place holder Dem. And it beat all the people we all liked. What is the argument against Biden that gives us a clear picture of a real alternative reality that could've taken place this year (and includes real reasons for why Trump is stronger against Biden than others).

This is what I don't understand though--Biden's March vote totals were after Super Tuesday. How does that affect the thrust of the argument that the ST-eve endorsements used a massive media push to deliver the nomination to a candidate who would most likely *not* be able to secure it on his own? The argument against Biden is that absent this roll-out of endorsements, Bernie would have won--or at the very least, you can't suggest otherwise by pointing to vote totals that come after that Monday night.

Mickey wrote:There's definitely something to be said about an electorate that, in the midst of a health crisis, chooses the centrist over the progressive--there's no denying that the post-COVID elections swung for Biden in a way that is disappointing to those of us on the left.

I would have thought this would have helped Bernie. I agree the party & media were on Biden's side, but Biden rising as Covid gripped us is just another piece of evidence in Biden's favor.

I agree with this entirely--the post-COVID shift to Biden does tell us something about the electorate. I guess if I had to sum up my argument, though, it would be that it doesn't tell us something *absent* that party push for Biden. It doesn't necessarily suggest that people really, truly like Joe Biden so much as it signals an unwillingness to back an insurgent candidate during a historic crisis. I think this is really important to keep in mind on the left--that crisis is not going to radicalize anyone in itself is something we cannot forget--but I'm equally wary of reading the crisis response as an endorsement of Biden himself.

Mickey wrote: It probably depends on who you think "Democrats" refers to--I can read it as "Democratic voters" and still say that, yes, casting votes for Joe Biden instead of *any* the other choices feels like a pretty big fumble to me.

Yeah bingo. I meant the Democrats as a whole, not just party leadership.

Mickey wrote:[
But this is what I mean by shifting the goalposts--I'm not sure that you (or rather, I) need to show that there was a better anti-Bernie candidate on the stage in December than Joe Biden in order to say that the party bungled this whole ordeal, given that everyone knew Bernie was going to run again. Pete sucks, Amy sucks, Liz Warren has awful political instincts, etc., and I don't think any of them were in a better *real* position to win the nomination on the eve of ST. But if you're the DNC, you eat shit massively in 2016, you have four years to plan and you know you're going to get challenged by the left and the right, and the best you can get is Joe Biden, how is that *not* a fumble? The party behaved rationally in the pursuit of its interests at that point--this was my original claim, that it's not "insane"--but I don't think we should restrict our analysis/the period for evaluating the success/failure of the 2020 Dem Primary to that narrow of a window.

Is this shifting the goalposts or taking a wide look at the field? You don't need to show anything, but you are making the claim that they fumbled this. If you had 4 years to plan, do you find an alternative? 29 people "ran" and 25 had an actual campaign. The party had a thought out plan in 2016, and it failed. I'd argue it had one in 2008 too, which also ended up derailed. This time they let it play out. The plan was no plan, which is what the people asked for.

I'll also note, again, that Pete's drop-out post ST was essentially unprecedented. The Iowa caucus winner did drop out once before prior to ST, in 1992, but he was from Iowa and he also didn't place in New Hampshire. No one as well-positioned as Pete Buttigieg has ever exited the primary season that early, and while he wasn't poised to be a favorite on ST, he was definitely in the running to grab a chunk of delegates. Nor would I overinflated Pete's non-white numbers while downplaying Biden's youth numbers--they're both vulnerable to losing big chunks of the electorate (and Biden was *also* running out of money). So I reject the idea that the first four contests revealed Biden to be the only viable centrist candidate, though I do think he offered the party the only viable *narrative* that would deflect from Bernie as frontrunner.

Something is unprecedented until it happens, and this was always gonna happen. Mayor Pete had an issue with minorities AND did just as poorly among young voters, maybe even worse than Biden. If you were in charge of the party and the choice was Biden or Pete, and it's March 1, that an easy choice. Narratives matter, Pete & Amy didn't really have a clear one.

Biden's March vote totals were after Super Tuesday. How does that affect the thrust of the argument that the ST-eve endorsements used a massive media push to deliver the nomination to a candidate who would most likely *not* be able to secure it on his own? The argument against Biden is that absent this roll-out of endorsements, Bernie would have won--or at the very least, you can't suggest otherwise by pointing to vote totals that come after that Monday night.

His totals include ST. You can argue that he couldn't win on his own, but there's no evidence Bernie could either. Maybe I am wrong here, but I don't think the media was that pro-Biden until this very moment after SC. When you consider that his vote totals were significantly higher than what we saw 4 years ago, I don't think that can be explained just by some party/media maneuvers. I think it has more to do with the tweet I posted above - people who hate both candidates like Biden better. Better than Hillary & Trump. Which makes sense - no one feels threatened by the guy. That's not what the LEFT wants to vote for, but they didn't turn up for the left candidate.

the post-COVID shift to Biden does tell us something about the electorate. I guess if I had to sum up my argument, though, it would be that it doesn't tell us something *absent* that party push for Biden. It doesn't necessarily suggest that people really, truly like Joe Biden so much as it signals an unwillingness to back an insurgent candidate during a historic crisis. I think this is really important to keep in mind on the left--that crisis is not going to radicalize anyone in itself is something we cannot forget--but I'm equally wary of reading the crisis response as an endorsement of Biden himself.

Yes, here we are in agreement. I'm still going to vote for Bernie in my primary. I am sure there are some older people who love Biden, but meh, he's not that inspiring. I just think that right now we have (had) 3 choices - Trump, Insurgent left, and Generic Dem. Bernie lost, generic Dem is probably more popular than Trump. I see anecdotal evidence in my neighborhood, and real evidence in the vote. The left has 4 more years of work to do. I think it's accomplished a lot these last 4 years, so I look forward to 2024 when Biden will either step down or...

theplatypus wrote:

Mickey wrote: It probably depends on who you think "Democrats" refers to--I can read it as "Democratic voters" and still say that, yes, casting votes for Joe Biden instead of *any* the other choices feels like a pretty big fumble to me.

Yeah bingo. I meant the Democrats as a whole, not just party leadership.

I get this sentiment, I do. I just think that 10 years from now, on RM-6, we'll all know that the big political fumble of our times was Trump. This primary was wide open, we had a HUGE variety of candidates, from Steyer & Bloomberg to Sanders & Williamson, and many in between. Biden won.

I'll also note that with 36 votes in on a board that doesn't like Biden, he is up 56-19 against Trump. I still believe people massively underestimated how awful a candidate Hillary was and are over-correcting.

well at least the GOP continues to successfully execute it's disenfranchisement strategy

Rob wrote:I'll also note that with 36 votes in on a board that doesn't like Biden, he is up 56-19 against Trump. I still believe people massively underestimated how awful a candidate Hillary was and are over-correcting.

This. There are definitely people over-learning the lessons of 2016 to turn Trump into a political juggernaut. Sometimes the simple story is correct; he was the nominee of the opposition party after eight years of a Democratic president, faced an extremely divisive Democratic candidate who made some massive strategical mistakes, and won in a squeaker in the states where it counted. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you're stockpiling champagne for a Biden victory party.

96583UP wrote:well at least the GOP continues to successfully execute it's disenfranchisement strategy

The most neutral thing I can say about the modern GOP that still captures its collapse is this: Joe Biden gave them twenty millions dollars in free campaign advertising. He did it out loud, on camera. And within 24 hours, they’d had to pivot from talking about that to defending Trump because he accused a talk show host of murder without evidence.

The virus is so all encompassing at this point that they can both start dropping n****r on their Twitter feeds and it wouldn't even register.

Mickey wrote:There's definitely something to be said about an electorate that, in the midst of a health crisis, chooses the centrist over the progressive--there's no denying that the post-COVID elections swung for Biden in a way that is disappointing to those of us on the left.

Reality in general must be pretty rough for you lefties.

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:There's definitely something to be said about an electorate that, in the midst of a health crisis, chooses the centrist over the progressive--there's no denying that the post-COVID elections swung for Biden in a way that is disappointing to those of us on the left.

Reality in general must be pretty rough for you lefties.

Well, the movement of history is dialectical so.

The last page was very interesting. Thank you, Mickey & Rob.