That’s only the case if you don’t see her continued candidacy as complementary rather than competitive with Sanders. If she continues to campaign and get the word out about progressive policies, while continuing to get some delegates (that will end up in Sanders’ tally if you’re right about her having no path to victory). And she can remain on the debate stage and continue to lay out plans for the how to complement Sanders’ what & why.
Fact is, she could drop out and endorse Bernie. But then she gets pushed to the periphery. If she stays in, she would need to get at least 15% in the remaining states so that her delegates can distribute to Sanders. I also think you underestimate the number of people who will vote in the primaries for Warren but not for Sanders.
In conclusion, I would have to think about it some more, but I think there’s a way for her to be more of a help to Sanders by staying in the race than a hindrance.
Not as sick as we are, I’m sure. There’s something to be said for how most other countries only allot a limited time for these kind of elections. This whole primary slog has been going on since early last year, FFS and the election is still 8 months away.
But I expect a public option in the US to be carefully crafted to not upset the big private insurers.
This is always a danger. Any plan requires careful crafting and governmental goodwill. It isn’t a good use of time to have a discussion comparing two systems if there is a prior assumption that one will be done properly and the other intentionally screwed up.
This is very hard under modern rules, rules which were put in place to prevent exactly this (after delegate-free HHH was given the nomination in 1968). There isn’t a small secret cabal that can hand her the nomination, eventually she needs >50% of the delegates. The rules for how pledged delegates can vote if their candidate drops or after the first round are complicated, and vary by state.
That said, I agree that her best path to the nomination is for one of the leading candidates to drop out and somehow eventually get their delegates.
I’d love for her run to complement Sanders efforts, but I’m highly skeptical that’s what shes doing. It is a race to be the winner, and it’s not really a team sport (unless she is drawing support that would otherwise go to Joe, but I think it’s the other way around). She’s done a great job in sparring in debates and I hope she continues directing critique at Joe.
I will ponder that as well - hope it’s possible! But I’m not at all going to be surprised if she tacks to center.
Biden isn’t great, but he certainly isn’t the worst (Mike Bloomberg… some aspects of Tulsi Gabbard). A Biden/Warren ticket would make ME happier, but to energize the electorate you need something like Biden/Abrams. Or maybe Biden/Obama (Michelle Obama! BOOM! landslide win). Joe/Amy wouldn’t be bad and might get you WI, MI and PA back in the blue column? Abrams puts GA (maybe FL? TX?) in play and I would think PA and MI as well.
I like Sanders but the data does not seem to show a huge surge of younger folks voting for his revolution in the primaries. Bless him for dragging the Overton Window back towards decency and equity and so on, but they are going to make him into some kind of Commie/Protocols of Zion/nazis on the moon type threat to 'merikuh.
I think there was only one state (Colorado) where the Sanders+Warren vote was over fifty percent, and in most cases, their total was in the thirties. So the idea that a non-centrist could comfortably win seems a lot shakier than it was a month ago.
That’s not necessarily how final voting would go. Second-choice polls didn’t line up as Warren–>Sanders 100% and Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Steyer–>Biden 100%. In particular, 2nd choice voting from Bloomberg is a real tossup, because of the distorting effect of the money involved. Once one gets over the dazzle of the advertisement, a primary voter could go in a number of directions.
Another thing to take with a grain of salt is the states with open primaries. Who gives a shit which Dem candidate Trump voters prefer?
That seems like in-the-bubble thinking to me. If you write off a third(?) of the Dem voters, you’re writing off most of the independents and all the Republicans, and say hello to Trump, part 2.
True that people didn’t vote for Hillary because they weren’t excited about it. But they also didn’t think Trump could possibly win. Now is a different situation. I will crawl over broken glass to vote against Donald Trump. It doesn’t matter who the democratic nominee is I’m voting no matter what. Perhaps it’s negative enthusiasm, but it’s still enthusiasm none the less!
I agree with the basic premise but I am not sure what you really mean about the distorting effects of money. I agree Bloomberg voters might go any number of ways including simply staying home. I also think (based only on anecdotal evidence) that Sanders supporters overestimate how many Warren votes would transfer to Sanders. There is plenty of overlap for sure but I know a lot of people (in a very skewed demographic) that like Warren’s progressive positions but not necessarily Sanders antiestablishment rhetoric. If 2/3 of Warren supporters go to Sanders and 1/3 to Biden that is an advantage for Sanders but not as big a bump as a lot of people on the internet figure by simply adding Warren’s column to Sanders.
What I mean is, don’t underestimate the effect of marketing in the short term. Bloomberg’s spend was massive and short. He carpet-bombed early primary states with advertisement. That kind of immersion causes disorientation. That’s one of the reasons it doesn’t persist - once the target gets some separation from the influence of advertising, they not only “snap out of it” they often experience backlash against it. Basically, once the people who voted for Bloomberg snap out of it, they could support any of the remaining candidates.
And part of my point is that the same hypothetical distribution of Warren supporters that you posited could easily apply to any of the candidates who dropped out and endorsed Biden.
I voted for Sanders, but I have to concede that the premise underlying his plan for beating Trump (that his candidacy would energize new, mostly-younger voters who normally stay home on Election Day) hasn’t yet played out the way we’d hoped. Even Sanders admitted the lack of young voters was a major letdown.
Fortunately Sanders himself is not this shortsighted as he’s now running ads featuring himself and Obama and is otherwise seeminly making a play for moderates.
I realize things aren’t over yet and there’s some slim hope, but it sure feels like:
Older Democrat voters are too stupid and afraid of change to support progressive candidates. They even had a couple to choose from this time and soundly rejected both. They seem to be possessed by a sociopathic indifference for anyone who will survive long enough to deal with the consequences of their heel-dragging.
Younger Democrat voters are too stupid to actually vote. They could easily turn out in massive numbers and wrest control from the out-of-touch elders they claim to be suffering under, but apparently can’t be bothered. Then when the uninspiring status quo candidate wins they won’t even minimize the damage by bothering to vote for him, either.
Republicans will continue to turn out in regular numbers and vote every goddamn time, no matter how bad things get and no matter how transparently evil their candidate is. They’re no less stupid, but fear and hate will reliably get them off their asses and superstition and cognitive dissonance make them immune to reason.
The wealthy who have all but bought both parties and the mainstream media will do everything in their power to make sure that no meaningful change (ranked choice voting, campaign finance reform, etc.) can possibly upset this pattern. The rich will grow richer and the world will suffer and burn in a new dark age as humanity sits passively by, too stupid and greedy to make use of any of the numerous opportunities to avoid its fate.
Can we collectively just not be as horrible and shortsighted as possible this one time? Please??
Since a huge part of Biden’s victory was due to support from the black community, I have to believe his support isn’t all about “stupid voters” and is due at least in part to some appeal I simply don’t have the background or experience to appreciate.
If Sanders has any chance at all of turning this around he’s going to need to figure out what that appeal is, and fast.
