4:06pm 88% counted now, and Biden will finish second ahead of Buttigieg. I’ve done an article for The Conversation that emphasises the differences between the county delegate count (huge win for Sanders) and the initial popular vote (far less impressive for Sanders).
9:50am Monday Still only 60% reporting. If Nevada was close like Iowa, there’d be another stink about the slow results.
4:30pm 43% now reporting, and Sanders has 47% of county delegates, but only 34.5% of the initial alignment vote. He has 40.3% of the vote after realignment.
4:08pm CNN has more up-to-date figures on initial and final votes. Using CNN’s results, I calculate that Sanders has 35% of the initial vote and 40.5% of the vote after realignment with 34% in. Those figures are not as impressive for Sanders as his share of county delegates (47%).
Once again, we’ve had a dreadfully slow caucus count. Hopefully there’ll be more clarity tomorrow.
2:10pm And it’s suddenly jumped to 22.5% reporting, with Sanders at 34% on first alignment, 40% on final alignment and 47% of county delegates.
2:07pm With 11% reporting, the Sanders margin is smaller on the first alignment votes. Sanders has 34% on this measure, Biden 19%, Buttigieg 16% and Warren 12%. On popular votes after realignment, Sanders has 40%, Biden 23%, Buttigieg 17% and Warren 10%. On county delegates, 47% Sanders, 24% Biden and 14% Buttigieg.
Sanders is being assisted in the final alignment votes by being the only candidate who exceeds the 15% threshold in the vast majority of precincts.
12:20pm With 4% reporting, the Associated Press has CALLED Nevada for Bernie Sanders.
11:18am Once again (as in New Hampshire), the AP count, used by the NY Times, is well behind the count used by the TV networks including CNN. With 10% reporting, the CNN results give Sanders a large lead in initial votes, but there are no percentages.
11:05am As with Iowa, the counting in Nevada is SLOOOOW!! Just 3.4% of precincts have reported their initial alignment.
9:52am With less than 3% reporting, Sanders has 44% of the initial vote, 54% of the final vote and 55% of county delegates. The initial vote is slightly ahead of the other two measures in precincts reporting. Still a long way to go, but it’s looking like a big win for Sanders.
8:41am With 1% reporting, Sanders has 48% of the initial alignment, 53% of the vote after candidate realignment, and 52% of the county delegates. Biden is a distant second with 18%, 23% and 26% on these three measures respectively.
7:33am The caucuses actually began 33 minutes ago. First results are expected by 8:30am. Entrance polls give Sanders about 35%, with the next highest at 15%.
Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at the University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
The Nevada Democratic caucuses begin at 10am local time Saturday (5am Sunday AEDT). I am not sure when to expect results; they could come in the early morning, but may not come on Sunday at all, given the Iowa fiasco. Caucuses are managed by the party, not the state’s electoral authorities. It should be a relief that there are very few caucuses after Nevada.
Democratic delegates are allocated proportionally to all candidates who clear a 15% threshold, both within a state and Congressional District. In the RealClearPolitics Nevada poll average, Bernie Sanders has 29.0%, Joe Biden 16.0%, Pete Buttigieg 14.0%, Elizabeth Warren 14.0% and Amy Klobuchar 10.5%. Current national polls give Sanders 28.7%, Biden 17.3%, Mike Bloomberg 15.2%, Warren 12.7%, Buttigieg 10.0% and Klobuchar 6.7%.
With these polls, Sanders is the only candidate far enough above 15% to be assured of clearing that threshold virtually everywhere. If these national poll results are reflected on Super Tuesday March 3, when 14 states vote and 34% of all pledged delegates are awarded, Sanders’ share of delegates would far exceed his vote share.
There is one contest after Nevada before Super Tuesday: the South Carolina primary next Saturday. Biden needs a big win, but his lead over Sanders has plunged from 14 points in late January to just four points now.
Bloomberg had been gaining in the polls, at least before Wednesday’s widely criticised debate performance. However, in a direct match-up with Sanders, he got crushed by a 57-37 margin in an NBC/WSJ poll. While Bloomberg is winning the votes of those Democrats who believe only a billionaire can beat Donald Trump, most Democrats dislike giving the nomination to a billionaire.
If nobody comes near a majority of pledged delegates, there will be a contested Democratic convention in mid-July. Should this occur, it would be the first since 1952. If Bloomberg defeated Sanders at a contested convention, the Democratic party’s left would react badly to the perception of a billionaire stealing the nomination from their guy.
Assisted by the good US economy, Trump’s ratings are trending up. In the FiveThirtyEight aggregate, his net approval is -7.8% with polls of registered or likely voters. Trump still trails the leading Democrats in RealClearPolitics averages, with Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg leading by 4.5 points, and Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar leading by two points.
Sorry Newbie. Definitely infarction.
Trump would be about the same risk as Bernie of dying in the next four years. If someone is wandering around at that pace for months, it’s highly likely they will be around in four years.
Mr Newbie,
I brought up the fact that Bernie Sanders had had a serious heart attack but refused to release his medical records, not because it is an obsession of mine, but simply because it is, from what I have read in the American media, something that is demanded of candidates running for President. If I remember it correctly, producing a certificate of medical health, was done with a flourish by Donald Trump to prove his ‘fitness’ for high office. So I was just wondering why Bernie Sanders wouldn’t do it?
You might classify it as my being obsessive, I rather see it as questioning why a candidate doesn’t want to follow the lead of others?
As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, again, from memory, she was also hounded to prove, with medical records, that she was fit for the high office she was running for, after her accident.
That’s all it was.
I agree that all of the 70-something candidates (and Trump) are ‘too old’. We need some fresh blood. But Pete is not it – he’s a more-of-the-same candidate, as are most of the non-Bernie candidates still in this. Pete may as well be 79.
Most POTUS candidates don’t release all their medical records. A certificate of fitness is quite different. Almost all the older ones would have a CT Head which shows cerebral atrophy which would lead to opponents screaming something about a shrunken brain.
“Firefox the Greens have 1 seat in the Federal House of representatives. Don’t pretend the Greens are something more then they are.”
***
Millions of Australians vote for the Greens. You’re the one who’s pretending the Greens are less than they are.
Mr Newbie @ #200 Sunday, February 23rd, 2020 – 9:47 pm
As a member of the party, if you translate my Labor Party membership, hypothetically, to the US Democrats, I would vote for the Democrat.
OK C@t, thanks for explaining.
Yes, of course it’s a worry that Bernie has had a recent heart attack. But any of the 70-something candidates could keel over at any moment.
Mr Newbie @ #207 Sunday, February 23rd, 2020 – 9:54 pm
And you may say Mayor Pete acts like a 70-something, but he has a long way to go before he actually gets there. The others are already there, except for Amy Klobuchar.
You may say he’s boring, but have you actually looked at his policies in detail? As many have commented, not inspired by me in any way, they are actually pretty progressive, for America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primary_candidates
Just some light reading, if you are interested. 🙂
Firefox – actually, the Greens scored a tick under 1.5 million first preference votes last May (10.4% of the vote), so it’s probably a bit of a stretch to say “millions”. Of course, 10% of the vote is substantial enough, but it’s still just a minority, and the Greens are likely to stay in that vicinity for the foreseeable future, barring some sort of calamity that they can build on.
The average age of Fortune 500 CEOs is late fifties. These guys in their late seventies show presidential politics is way out of kilter, perhaps because of the huge money you need to run, about $200M.
The Australian Greens have had vastly greater electoral success than the US Greens. They have held the balance of power in numerous state and federal legislatures, have been part of minority governments, have held ministry positions at a state level, have controlled a number of local councils, and, for better or worse, have influenced vast quantities of legislation. They get regular airtime on practically all media outlets, have many long-serving elected representatives in their ranks, and likely will not be going away for a long time. They are the third most successful minor party Australia has ever had. (First place goes to Labor, second to the Country / National Party.)
The US Greens are a joke. They don’t get elected anywhere. Maybe one or two have gotten into a state legislature or local council here and there, but even that’s rare. Their candidates, even for the presidency, are nobodies, delusional perennials who are generally lucky to clear 1% of the vote, with their absolute high point being when Ralph Nader managed a whole 2.7% in the 2000 Election. Their one achievement throughout their existence has been to make it harder for Democratic candidates to get elected, but usually their share of the vote is so paltry they can’t even manage that. Once they managed to get an actual former Democratic congresswoman on the Presidential ticket – Cynthia McKinney – who wound up receiving 0.1% in 2008.
(It probably didn’t help that she seemed to be legitimately insane.) They achieve nothing, are totally ignored by the media, their opponents, and the majority of the left, and generally are just wasting their own time and money election after election.
Hugo, I’m well aware of how many votes we received and it is entirely correct to say that millions of Australians vote for us. Our vote is in the millions. I’ve had to inform the Laborites on this blog about the growing Greens vote so many times. It’s rather amusing how the right wing establishment constantly talk about what the Greens vote will do and are so frequently proven wrong. We’re the third force in Australian politics and are only getting stronger.
Anyway, enough about Australian politics, that’s for the other thread.
Firefox – not nearly as amusing as describing me as “right wing establishment”, but I agree that’s a debate for another time.
“So funny how the Labor establishment are trying to jump on the Bernie bandwagon lol.”
Firefox you are so wrong. Bernie is centre left. Universal healthcare, welfare, and affordable education are just mainstream positions for the Labor party in Australia. The Democrats are just another conservative party in America. That’s why I never believed the comparisons with Corbyn because its not so much Bernie is far left but more the DNC establishment is to the right. Suggesting the Greens have some kind of kinship with Bernie is crap.
“Suggesting the Greens have some kind of kinship with Bernie is crap.”
***
Mate the Greens and Sanders line up on pretty much everything.
Labor are opposed to many Sanders/Greens policies; the Green New Deal, treating refugees humanely, banning fracking, ending coal, holding the fossil fuel industry accountable, tackling inequality and corporate greed, legalising marijuana, etc… There are tonnes of things Labor and Sanders totally disagree on.
Labor is exactly like the Democratic establishment. You’ve only got to look at the endless attacks from the Laborites here on this blog about how terrible they think Sanders is. They’re repeating exactly the same attacks as the establishment Dems. Labor are a huge part of the problem in Australia.
If you’re supporting Bernie it means you’re supporting many Greens’ policies and also opposing many Labor policies.
‘Labor is exactly like the Democratic establishment.’
Thats crap. The establishment tag you play up trying to compare Labor with Democrats doesn’t hold weight. The Labor party in Australia has a much stronger relationship with the union movement then the Democrats have in America. If you read Newscorp you should know they bang on everyday how the Labor party in Australia should do away with the union movement. Democrats in America have much closer ties with corporate America which is part of the problem over there.
The other thing don’t mistake ‘attacks’ on Sanders with pragmatism. There are some on this blog who want Bernie to win but whether he can is another matter. The coporate media will go after him and the ‘socialist’ tag will played up as communism over there.
For the record I was hoping Elizabeth Warren would get the nomination. So much for me backing an ‘establishment’ canidate.
‘Millions of Australians vote for the Greens. You’re the one who’s pretending the Greens are less than they are.”
As mentioned they got under 1.5 million which is 10% of the vote. But my point still stands as you said the system in America compiles of two major parties that are entrenched unlike Australia. It does in Australia too as the parliament has been called the ‘two and half major party’ system. Greens took the place of the Australian Democrats suggesting the Greens are challenging the major party system is far fetched as they have only one seat in the House of Reps and no chance of governing in their own right. If the Greens are challenging the major party system then so is Katter Australia Party.
Apart from Bernie, all of the Democratic candidates have economic policies that could fit within the Liberal Party in Australia – perhaps a little to the left of where most of the Liberals are right now, but not much. Any Labor supporters who support a candidate other than Bernie is pretty confused IMO. They are doing it for aesthetic and cosmetic reasons. There is no substantive political reason for an ALP supporter to favour a non-Bernie candidate.
This disgusts me. Fake news to create fake views in young children:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-mp-craig-kelly-backs-advance-australia-s-climate-change-resources-in-classrooms-20200221-p54366.html
GetUp should be allowed to do the same though, as this group that Craig Kelly is pushing onto the kids is the Right’s answer to GetUp. Fair’s fair, after all, and GetUp should be allowed to use the same arguments in reverse.
Nicholas,
I’m not confused about who I support in the Democratic Primaries at all and I object to your high-handed manner in telling me who I should support and why. But you do have a high opinion about your opinions. Even when they are simply pie-in-the-sky fever dreams that bear no relation to reality.
It’s amazing how the Uber tedious Labor-Greens war still manages to stink out a US Primary thread.
“Thats crap. The establishment tag you play up trying to compare Labor with Democrats doesn’t hold weight. The Labor party in Australia has a much stronger relationship with the union movement then the Democrats have in America. If you read Newscorp you should know they bang on everyday how the Labor party in Australia should do away with the union movement. Democrats in America have much closer ties with corporate America which is part of the problem over there.”
***
Let me tell you, it holds weight with me and the millions of Australians who vote for the Greens. We see Labor as one side of the establishment coin, the other being the Lib/Nats. Having close ties with unions doesn’t make you anti-establishment. The Greens have very close ties with and are very supportive of unions too. What I did find amusing though is the establishment were banging on about how the unions in Nevada were all supposedly turning on Bernie over healthcare. Turned out it was just the out of touch union leadership – the rank and file union members were very supportive of Bernie.
I don’t make a habit of reading Newscorp’s far-right propaganda. There’s no party in Australia that they hate more than the Greens. But we’re used to being relentlessly attacked by the MSM, just like Bernie is. Comes with the territory.
That’s great that you support Warren. I really mean that. She’s my second preference and I would love to see her as Bernie’s VP. Like Bernie though, she supports policies that completely go against what Labor stands for, such as the Green New Deal.
Political Nightwatchman,
Your point doesn’t stand at all. You tried to make it seem like the electorate of Melbourne is the only position that the Greens hold. You can pretend that Adam Bandt is the only Green going around if you like but it doesn’t change reality. It’s nothing more than pure denialism.
So, with the dust now settling on the Nevada caucuses, here’s my two cents’ worth:
WINNERS:
Bernie Sanders – There’s no way around it, even for Bernie sceptics like me – Sanders won a smashing victory in the Silver State, with around 46% of the vote, and the over-whelming majority of delegates. He hasn’t quite sealed the deal yet, what with South Carolina and Super Tuesday next week followed by a significant number of other states through March, but he may well have by the end of next month. If the so-called “moderates” want to stop the Vermont Senator from claiming the nomination, time is fast running out to decide on their standard bearer, and if they don’t, it’s hard to see how anything else can stop Bernie now.
Joe Biden – It might seem strange to call a distant second place a good night for the former VP, but he really needed to steady the ship after two dismal results in Iowa and new Hampshire, and he did that to some extent. There’s a lot riding on his South Carolina firewall next Saturday, but for now he’s kept himself in the game.
Pete Buttigieg – Of all the plausible outsiders, Buttigieg returned the most decent enough result, and went some distance to showing that he has some appeal outside of liberal, white, northern states. He’s remains a rank outsider, but he still has some chance.
Mike Bloomberg – Bloomberg had a terrible debate last week, and if he’d been on the ballot in Nevada, the damage might have been significant, but with Nevada winnowing out the contenders from the also-rans, he still has a chance to compete next week.
LOSERS:
Elizabeth Warren – Like Biden, Warren needed a strong result in Nevada to get her campaign back on track. Alas, another 10% result isn’t going to cut it, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see her drop out after Super Tuesday (barring some unforeseen comeback). To my mind she seems like the candidate with most policy substance, and if I were a Democratic voter, she’d be my pick, but it seems not nearly enough of the actual voters agree with that view.
Amy Klobuchar – The Minnesota Senator failed to capitalise on her good showing in NH last week, and by all accounts, she’s not even bothering with SC, heading straight back to her home state in the hope of winning there on Super Tuesday. If she does, and picks up a few delegates in some of the other Super Tuesday states, she retains the faintest of chances, as the rest of March has primaries across her home turf of the Mid-West (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and North Dakota all vote next month). But that one chance is one in a million, I’d say.
Tom Steyer – The other billionaire bet the farm on Nevada and SC, and came up well short in the first one. He has one last shot next week, but we can probably assume that he’ll be gone in a couple of weeks.
There’s no doubt now that Sanders is the front-runner, a position he deserves after three from three in the opening contests. There are a few caveats, of course, and it’s worth noting that all three elections were in small states, and two of the three were caucuses, which play to his organisational strengths, and of course, there remains great concerns about his ability to compete with Trump in the general. But credit where credit is due, and if he does start to get ahead of the pack, the Party will need to rally around him.
To my mind, the only two candidates who can probably stop Sanders from claiming the nomination are Biden and Bloomberg, and both of them, of course, have their own liabilities. I’ve thought all along that the Democratic field was not of a particularly high standard, and I’ve often wondered how a well-established Governor of a big state, like Andrew Cuomo from New York, might look now (though Cuomo clearly has his Dad’s reluctance to get into the big ring). But of course, we can only go with who is in front of us.
I highly reccommend ABC’s planet America offerings for last week – both the main show and the fireside chat. You can see it on iview. Last episodes before the Nevada primary, but some very interesting insights on the lead-up to that, as well as the last democratic debate.
Highlight for me was Chas’s brutal assessment on Bloomberg – looking at his record as mayor, stop and frisk, his women problem – and the fact that he was inexplicably completely unprepared for the inevitable attacks he received by Warren in the debate.
the democrats are pro-unions, the republicans are anti-unions, the onion is pro-sanders. -a.v.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/23/the-onion-bernie-sanders-2020-satire-politics-democrats-116620
Nicholas
“Any Labor supporters who support a candidate other than Bernie is pretty confused IMO. They are doing it for aesthetic and cosmetic reasons”
As a Labor supporter who supports a candidate other than Bernie… no I’m not confused. But thanks for weighing in on my state of mind.
Many of us Labor supporters who support a candidate other than Bernie do so because BERNIE CANNOT BEAT TRUMP. This is the one thing you Bernie supporters don’t seem to be able to grasp. We might agree that Bernie has the better policies, but that’s irrelevant. BERNIE CANNOT WIN.
if you say so Kakuru. Amazing how wonderful your crystal ball must be.
Big a Adrian
“if you say so Kakuru. Amazing how wonderful your crystal ball must be.”
Like i said before, I don’t need a crystal ball. I can read a history book. Sanders 2020 is McGovern 1972 all over again.
You Bernie folk are in for a shock. America is not what you think it is.
Kakuru – I agree with you in large part. My concerns with Sanders are less about policy than they are about electability, and most neutral observers appear to agree that Sanders is the most vulnerable of the potential Democratic nominees – the guy is 78 and recovering from a heart attack, and pushing policies that lie outside the accepted mainstream in the US. This is not to say that I disagree with these policies in the main, though I do hold concerns about just how he intends to fund them, or for that matter, how he intends to work them through Congress into law. My concerns are more about how they might be weaponised by the Republicans. Donald Trump has many faults, but what he is excellent at is crystallising a concern about an opponent into a single tweet, with an insult that sticks. Think how effective “crooked Hilary” was as a slur – even if it was largely without foundation, it created enough doubts in people’s minds for her to lose, even though she was far and away the more qualified candidate. My fear is that Bernie will give Trump far more to work with than any other candidate (expect to hear variations on the theme of “crazy old Bernie”).
All that said, there is no candidate from central casting waiting in the wings, and all of Sanders’ competitors come with their own problems. Biden? Too old. Buttigieg? Too young, and will force you to go to the bathroom with perverts. Warren? Too schoolmarmy. Bloomberg? Not even a Democrat, and trying to buy the Presidency.
Sanders still has a way to go before he can claim the nomination, and it remains to be seen how he will go with black voters (most of the South votes over the next week, so we’ll soon have a clearer answer to that question), and also how he recovers if he stumbles in the upcoming contests. There are also still a lot more delegates to be won than those already awarded, and if one or more other candidates start to clean up on Super Tuesday and other March-voting states, we may yet be heading for the fabled brokered convention. But history suggests that Sanders is pretty well-placed right now, and if he does go on and win the nomination, then it’s incumbent on all Democrats and others on the Left to support his candidacy. The most important thing remains getting rid of Trump, and while I will continue to have my doubts about Sanders as a candidate, and indeed about his effectiveness as a President, I’ll still support him.
Hugoaugogo:
Not really quibbling with your takeaways (except that I think Tom Steyer’s poor showing is actually bad news for Bloomberg, because it shows there are real limits of how far saturation advertising can take you), but the numbers you quote for Sanders and Warren aren’t votes, they’re County Convention Delegates.
In terms of votes, Sanders seems to have ~33% on first preference and ~39% after “realignment”; for Warren it’s ~13% and ~12% respectively.
Incidentally, it’s a bit amusing that Yang seems to have beaten Gabbard in Nevada despite having dropped out!
I assume by this you mean “Too female”.
Caf – Thanks for that clarification. Caucus results can be hard to distill to a simple answer!
If Sanders has indeed won just 33% of what we would call “first preference” votes, then the question marks about his ceiling remain, and will be more salient in the majority of states using the simple primary voting system.
I should stress that my characterisations of the Democratic candidates refer to the slurs that Trump would likely use. So yes, calling Warren “schoolmarmy” would indeed be a sexist insult against her, but nevertheless may still be effective. Likewise the Buttigieg dig about bathrooms would be barely veiled homophobia.
Hugoaugogo
I also largely agree with your takeaways. As I read I found myself nodding in agreement. (Although note that technically Sanders isn’t a Democrat.)
If Sanders does become the Dem candidate, I will support him. I may even vote for him. But I can see a great many Americans being queasy about voting for a “socialist”. Trump’s invective will be brutal, and a lot of it will stick.
Kakuru @ #234 Monday, February 24th, 2020 – 10:53 am
I don’t understand all this fear of Trump. From everything I’ve seen of him he’s a complete moron that can barely put a sentence together and has a cupboard overflowing with so-far untapped skeletons. Once the Democrats get past the primaries, produce a serious nominee and get down to the business of attacking the real enemy they should be able to make mincemeat of the pussy-grabbing rapist, remembering that whatever less than half of Americans might think of their beloved King Donald the First counts for absolute nuts if the Democrats can muster enough enthusiasm within their support base to actually turn out on November 3).
sanders is a populist with a big following, they need a populist with a big following to take on trump. whatever name: progressive populism, prairie populism, agrarian populism, bullmoose, &c., its had a long history in rural usa, it was important in 2018 & its far from finished. -a.v.
https://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/22279/2020-election-progressive-populism-peoples-action-win-rural-america-report
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/20/how-did-democrats-win-louisiana-with-classic-progressive-populism
https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2018/12/american-politics-progressive-populism-ballot-measures/578977/
Bellwether – picture the sanders v trump debates. -a.v.
Bellwether – I agree with you that Trump is little more than a snake oil salesman, a bullshit artist con-man with less substance that the Wizard of Oz. But he is nevertheless an very effective negative campaigner, and we on the Left under-estimate him at our peril.
alfredvension
“sanders is a populist with a big following, ”
No, he’s a populist with a relatively small following. Don’t be fooled by the crowds at those Bernie rallies. People made the same mistake with Corbyn. (You see where I’m going with this….?)
Kakuru @ #239 Monday, February 24th, 2020 – 11:56 am
Well I don’t, not at all. You seem to be wandering off up a cul-de-sac.
alfred venison @ #237 Monday, February 24th, 2020 – 11:48 am
Yes, I can hardly wait.
Bellwether
“Well I don’t, not at all. You seem to be wandering off up a cul-de-sac.”
Okay, I’ll drop the subtlety and spell it out:
Socialist messiah Corbyn drew huge crowds. But he was a dud leader up against Johnson, and lost in a landslide.
Socialist messiah Sanders draws huge crowds. He will also be a dud leader, up against Trump. He’ll lose in a landslide.
Kakuru @ #242 Monday, February 24th, 2020 – 12:22 pm
Kakuru @ #242 Monday, February 24th, 2020 – 12:22 pm
Thanks for spelling it out but I simply don’t agree. Can you not accept that?
Bellwether – I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse with this or not, but I would have thought that Kakuru’s point was pretty obvious – Like Sanders, Corbyn commanded the wildly passionate following of a relatively small group of people, and he was unable to turn that rather concentrated adulation into wider popularity sufficient to actually win elections. At root, that is the flaw in the Sanders positions that his fans will never concede, and it also proved to be fundamental problem with Corbyn. A big part of this problem is that people who are passionate about politics (which is pretty much everyone here) thinks that normal people are too, whereas in actual fact, the vast majority of people take little or no interest in the minutiae of politics, and they vote largely on the “the vibe” on the thing. Do I stick with the devil I know? Is it time for a change? Is it safe to change? Do I personally like that candidate? These are all relatively shallow considerations, but don’t kid yourself that it’s not how most people vote. Now, Sanders is probably a more personally likeable character than Corbyn ever was, but his program is potentially hazardous in the heat and clamour of an election campaign, and so the worthy aim of something like universal health insurance can get blown away by the noise of a fear campaign that the government is coming for “your” health plan. We saw here in Australia that even the most shambolic of governments can succeed against an opposition plan for change. Does Sanders have it in him to fight back against all of that? Maybe. We may soon find out.
“You Bernie folk are in for a shock.”
I’m only in for a shock if I’m adamant Bernie will win – which I’m not. The only one of us who could possibly be shocked is you.
I only know that he is the candidate I want to win, not that I am sure he will win. Big difference.
I will note though that Bernie has been underestimated at every step. I’m not sure if you yourself were involved, but there was a huge pile-on on Nicholas who was bravely predicting, long back, that Bernie would win the Democratic nomination. Now it appears he will be be proven right. Note how the Bernie bashers are seemlessly moving their narrative from “no way he can win the democrat nomination” to focus now on “no way he can win the presidency”. If Bernie ends up winning, then the next iteration of the narrative will be “no way he can do anything with a hostile congress”. Interestingly enough, Cat has already started on this one.
I remember a similar sort of narrative 4 years ago. It went from “no way will he win the repug nomination” to “no way will he beat Hillary”, which then became “no way he will see out his term before he is impeached/arrested/overthrown.”
Point is, people who are in the habit of saying “no way” to the prospects of a politician who is continually underestimated, invariably just end up looking silly.
Big A Adrian – you raise some fair points here. However, another thing suggested about Trump was that he would be an ineffective President, and to a large extent that’s true. Even with control of Congress for his first two years, the only legislative achievement is a massive tax cut, which frankly is what any Republican President would have done. Probably his biggest success is confirming a slew of judges, and that would be the greatest concern if he managed to secure a second term. My fear with Sanders, though, is that he won’t win enough of the swing states to win the Presidency, and worse than that, will provide a drag on the Democratic ticket so as to make it less likely that Dems will win back the Senate (admittedly probably something of a long shot anyway).
But time will tell, and if he does end up being the nominee, I will be willing him to win.
Hugoaugogo @ #244 Monday, February 24th, 2020 – 12:31 pm
I’m very glad to see you couch your argument by using words like ‘maybe’, I may not agree wholeheartedly with your point of view but at least you have put it forward in a rational way. Kakuru, on the other hand, states his beliefs with absolute surety, as though they are absolute set-in-concrete facts. That hugely irritates me, after all who can definitively know about outcomes in a scenario like this? It’s patently obvious the answer is no-one.
Thanks Hugoaugogo. Your very articulate response to Bellwether tops anything I would have written. Especially this point (which deserves repeating):
“Like Sanders, Corbyn commanded the wildly passionate following of a relatively small group of people, and he was unable to turn that rather concentrated adulation into wider popularity sufficient to actually win elections.”
Nailed it.
Bellwether
“Kakuru, on the other hand, states his beliefs with absolute surety, as though they are absolute set-in-concrete facts. ”
This is a stylistic difference between myself and hugoaugogo, not really substantive.
Kakuru
I’m going to be dogmatic here and say it’s not style, it’s dogma. Although I would be happy with ‘stylistic dogma’ I guess. I’m sure you are not for turning, but others may find this very reasonable article interesting all the same (and there are others for those who wish to Google):
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/why-bernie-sanders-no-jeremy-corbyn/603550/