Pete and Amy's combined totals, in a state tailor-made for Bernie, prove Sanders has zero chance

[Celerity]

He cannot get to 1990 on the first ballot, and the Superdelegates will never commit electoral suicide on the 2nd and subsequent votes, if more ballots are needed.

He will get so so few people overall from the drop outs and/or competitors. The Biden to Sanders defection profectons spun up from early polls that came as the simple result of name recognition is a fantasy. The same for Warren to Sanders defectors.

Do you really think that enough Warren, Biden, Pete, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg supporters and/or delegates will cross over to give Bernie 50% +1?

Nope.

The big worry then becomes how his inevitable defeat is handled, and how many of his primary voters go rogue and migrate to Trump or a 3rd party or simply stay home.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R

[7wo7rees]

58. Only because you say so Celerity. Please see my post down thread

On Eugene Debs. Please.

[stonecutter357]

60. I did not say anything NT ... just a kick and recommended .

[Tiggeroshii]

2. The dynamics have changed considerably since 2016

NH is obviously no longer his demographics. Let's talk when we get to super tuesday. Amy and Pete have yet to meet the levels of support from of POC that Sanders has.

[underpants]

4. Super Tuesday will be probably the deciding factor

[Tiggeroshii]

10. Agreed.

[Orrex]

53. But do you suppose that your candidate will agree?

Or, assuming that Super Tuesday is decided against him, do you suppose instead that he'll continue his at-that-point-futile candidacy, nominally with the intention of "steering the conversation" but in reality simply working against those still viable in the race?

[Tiggeroshii]

54. Don't worry about it.

[Orrex]

61. Yeah, we'll see

Last time around, Sanders fought to hog the spotlight long after his candidacy was dead, instead of acting like a grown-up and urging his supporters to back Clinton.

One common theme I've noticed about Sanders' supporters over the years is this: the glib, off-hand dismissal of any suggestion that Sanders is less than a perfect candidate. Sanders himself doesn't do this, to his credit, but there's a clear tone of untouchable hubris among certain of his followers.

We'll see.

[uponit7771]

11. "NH is obviously no longer his demographics" He's a neighbor candidate !! NH is tailor made for BS

[UniteFightBack]

21. Thank you I will sleep better because of your post my dear Celerity. nt

[Celerity]

26. +100000

[JonLP24]

25. Bloomberg would do the worst against Trump

They both support stop and frisk.

His non DU supporters are far from toxic compared to the Bernie haters and never had a problem with them.

[Horizens]

32. By that criteria

bernie's in bed with the NRA.

[Celerity]

34. the general election electorate is not composed of enough dem soc radicals to push Sanders over

the top.

Especially after 1 or 2 billion USD of red-baiting COMMMMMIE!!! adverts are dropped on Bernie and all of our candidates collective heads.

We would be lucky to hold the House.

Bernie brought it all on himself by foolishly and falsely claiming to be a democratic socialist when he is merely a bog standard social democrat. FDR, whom Sanders claims to be channelling, would roll over in his grave at the ideological framing.


What FDR Understood About Socialism That Today’s Democrats Don’t

He ruled at the height of government activism, but saw ideology as something to fear, not embrace.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622

President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at Franklin Field on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania in characteristic style: beaming, from the back seat of an open car. He had earned this smile. It was June 27, 1936, and he had just been re-nominated by acclamation in the smoke-filled Philadelphia Convention Center a few blocks away. It was, arguably, the high-water-mark of his career. Thanks to the monumental initiatives of Roosevelt’s first term, it was also a moment of transcendent significance in the nation’s history, though none of the 100,000 people sweating in the yellow-brick football stadium realized it. This was the pinnacle of American socialism, by that or any other name.

In the four years just past, Roosevelt had transformed the purpose of the United States government, making it a constant companion in the lives of Americans. The Social Security Act of the previous year was merely the crowning achievement. Roosevelt’s initiatives, meant to curb the misery brought on by the Great Depression, directly funded millions of government jobs, employing everyone from photographers to brush-clearing conservation workers. To pay for this, he raised the income tax—which hadn’t even existed two decades earlier—to 75 percent on the highest incomes. The rich were subsidizing the poor, and that was A-OK with FDR.

The giant crowd bristled with excitement to hear their hero defend these policies. What followed was his so-called “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, which historians rank among the greatest of his career, a tall order from the man whose oratorical roster included “nothing to fear but fear itself,” and “a day that will live in infamy.” But while those speeches perfectly captured individual moments, Roosevelt’s “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech came far closer to revealing his inner theories and motivations: Never before or after would he lay out his vision in greater clarity.

That vision included one truly insistent message: He was not a socialist.

Though he never used the term socialism in his speech, Roosevelt’s anger at those who accused him of ideological motivations, of applying an economic theory that was anathema to the United States, exploded from the lectern. In line after line, the fiery president defended his actions as pragmatic responses to the real, glaring needs of a changing society. The rich who criticized him, who cloaked their greed in an affinity for capitalism, were dangerously missing his point. He knew the ideological threats of communism and of fascism were real, and were overtaking democracy in European countries. An etched-in-stone commitment to the status quo would be an invitation to extremists everywhere. By fulfilling the government’s obligation to assist its people, he was instilling confidence in the American system. He was vindicating the Founding Fathers.

snip



“Is the New Deal Socialism?” by Norman Thomas

Norman Thomas was the most prominent spokesperson for the Socialist Party of America in the 1930s and 1940s. He ran six times for president on the SP ballot line. Recently, an article by Seth Ackerman of Jacobin magazine argued that Thomas acknowledged that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs had socialist aspects and this, essentially, is why Bernie Sanders isn’t wrong to invoke the New Deal legacy when he uses the term “democratic socialism.” Nevertheless, the pamphlet from 1936 that we partially reproduce here makes it clear that Thomas didn’t think that the New Deal equaled socialism and that Roosevelt was no socialist.



https://newpol.org/is-the-new-deal-socialism-by-norman-thomas/

Mr. Roosevelt and his followers assume that prosperity is coming back because of the New Deal. Al Smith and the rest of Roosevelt’s assorted critics assume that it is in spite of the New Deal and perhaps because of the Supreme Court. Mr. Hoover plaintively protests that the catastrophic depression of January – February, 1933, was due merely to the shudders of the body politic anticipating the economic horrors of the New Deal.

As a Socialist, I view the Smith – Roosevelt controversy with complete impartiality. I am little concerned to point out the inconsistencies in Al Smith’s record, or to remind him that in 1924 and 1928, when I happened to be the Socialist candidate for high office against him, more than one of his close political friends came to me to urge me as a Socialist not to attack him too severely since he really stood for so many of the things that Socialists and other progressive workers wanted.

But I am concerned to point out how false is the charge that Roosevelt and the New Deal represent socialism. What is at state is not prestige or sentimental devotion to a particular name. What is at state is a clear understanding of the issues on which the peace and prosperity of generations — perhaps centuries — depend. A nation which misunderstands socialism as completely as Al Smith misunderstands it is a nation which weakens its defense against the coming of war and fascism.

But, some of you will say, isn’t it true, as Alfred E. Smith and a host of others before him have charged, that Roosevelt carried out most of the demands of the Socialist platform? This charge is by no means peculiar to Mr. Smith. I am told that a Republican speaker alleged that Norman Thomas rather than Franklin D. Roosevelt has been President of the United States. I deny the allegation and defy the allegator, and I suspect I have Mr. Roosevelt’s support in this denial. Matthew Woll, leader of the forces of reaction in the American Federation of Labor, is among the latest to make the same sort of charge.

Roosevelt Not Socialist

Emphatically, Mr. Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher.

snip

[judeling]

22. Absolutely

That is what this is all about.
I am sure that Amy will be able to.

I think one of the best things that could happen is for Bernie and Amy to go head to head for most of the rest of the nomination contest.

They obviously like each other and would take a lot of the venom out of Debate. That would lead to a lot more unity.

[obamanut2012]

62. lolz NH absolutely is his demographic

WTF.

[Zolorp]

3. Yep

Now I need to settle on one.

[7wo7rees]

5. Well all right then.... what's next?

Another purge at DU?

Screw all of this.

Divide and conquer.

Howard Zinn - A Peoples History

[FirstLight]

6. ok...so by your chosen candidate you have a predisposed bias...

Can you please show this to me...how you came to this conclusion?

and, to make it easier, can you do it without complex math?


don't get too cocky
I realize my candidate may not get the Nomination, but am also going to go for anyone who will usurp his highness drumpf...
we all have to do that to some extent
AND we have to try and hold our personal values



Amy's speech right now was really good... so taking that into context
realize we can't be attached, we need to win...that's all

[Celerity]

15. it is the simple maths I laid out in my OP, and I never said Pete would be the nominee

Bernie has no path to it.

[griffi94]

7. As a Warren supporter.

I haven't given much thought to my second choice but I know it's neither Bernie nor Biden.

[George II]

8. This is Sanders' backyard and his constituency and he's hard pressed to keep 1/3 of the delegates.

Some are forecasting 9 for him, 8 for Buttigieg, and 7 for Klobuchar.

At this point last campaign he was ahead with 36 delegates (Iowa had three more than this year), now he'll be at 21 and one behind.

Last campaign a virtual tie in Iowa (close second) and massive win in New Hampshire. This time a virtual tie in Iowa (again a close second delegate-wise) and barely ahead.

It's not looking good.

[aikoaiko]

9. I lived in NH for 7 years and it is not tailor made for Bernie.

There is a world of difference between VT hippies and NH libertarians. I use the little L for libertarian because even Democrats have strong libertarian streaks.

Bernie is earning it the old fashion way.

To illustrate, Warren is also from a neighboring state and the majority of the NH population is in the southern border with MA because of all the MA transplants.

But I do concede that Bernie and no other candidate may reach the criterion on the first vote.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Sanders had 60% of the vote in 2016. Less than 30% tonite.

[Bonobo]

17. It was a 2 person primary in 2016. Do the math.

There are what, 6 candidates this time?

Please....

[LiberalFighter]

19. I did do the math.

It shows that Sanders support is not as strong as in 2016.

[totodeinhere]

52. No because people had more choices to vote for this time.

Of course Bernie will get less votes this time.

[Celerity]

20. that is the entire point, Bernie has no path to 50% plus 1 this time

[Tipperary]

14. Yes indeed, I agree.

Let us hope his supporters will get behind whoever our nominee is.

[relayerbob]

16. So far, as much as 40% or more loss in total voters

Even as turnout is increased by 18%

[Bleacher Creature]

18. I really, really hope you're right. nt

[Celerity]

24. I urge all to bookmark this OP

Taking all the future-forward factors in, I feel extremely confident in my maths.

Bloomberg will be the hammer blow, if need be. He absolutely will garner enough votes to stop Sanders from getting to 1990.

[JonLP24]

29. I forgot to mention

DU started as anti Bush website and I loved this website then and it pales in comparison when it comes to Trump opposition compared to the Bush opposition here at DU. Bloomberg endorsed Bush at the 2004 Republican Convention.

[Celerity]

44. all that matters is our nominee defeating Trump and having the coattails to hold the House

and take back the Senate.

Bernie cannot do that, and we likely, IMHO, even put the House at risk via nominating him.

[melman]

43. Oh, I will

Looking forward to some hearty lols.

[Celerity]

45. as do I

[Ace Rothstein]

23. If Sanders has the most delegates going into the convention then he needs to be the nominee.

Otherwise we get eviscerated in November and the party is torn apart.

[gulliver]

63. Nope. The rules are that you need a majority of delegates.

[Fresh_Start]

27. you really should be adding in Biden there. he's also moderate nt

nt

[Laelth]

28. This thread is silly. n/t

-Laelth

[Lancero]

30. "But the backyard! The backyard!"

Seriously, if the 'but the backyard!' argument had as much merit as people give it, then shouldn't Klobuchar have done a lot better in Iowa? Afterall... That's Minnesotas backyard.

[AdamGG]

65. Look at the history of Massachusetts Presidential candidates in NH

John Kerry, Paul Tsongas, Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, JFK all won it.

In 2008, John McCain beat Mitt Romney there.

I have nothing against Elizabeth Warren; I'm from Mass. and voted for her twice. But, it's kind of whistling past the graveyard to not acknowledge that her showing in NH is a bad sign for her. At one point she was leading in the polls there and she finished in 4th place with 9% of the vote.

[James48]

31. Oh Jesus Christ!

Leave it alone already, won’t you?

Why tear down other candidates?

[krissey]

33. Yes. You are right on.

[bucolic_frolic]

35. Voters are focusing on ONE thing: defeating Trump

Candidates associated with socialism underperformed tonight. Voters want the strongest candidate they can get. Amy has momentum and a definite strategy. I think once experience is filtered in more primaries that other candidates will move up.

[Perseus]

51. Socialism?? Are we on that again?

There are no ‘Socialists’ in the Democratic Party, that is a republican talking point.

Please, let’s stop this insanity.

[AlexSFCA]

36. Pete is the new Obama

Obama was the new JFK. He is going to win Califonia and other western states. He may lose western states but will take west, east and midwest - good enough to win the nomination. The smartest and most charismatic candidate in the race. Biden is epic disappointment, but he is no Clinton or Obama, we knew that much.

[Indepatriot]

55. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Gore1FL]

37. At least if he runs against two people.

The "It takes 2 to beat Bernie" is not really the narrative you are looking for, is it?

[Indepatriot]

50. The desperate contortions of "logic" on this thread is stunning, actually...

When will these divisive malcontents coalesce around the front runner and stop tearing the party apart?

[AdamGG]

39. Why wouldn't Warren delegates switch to Bernie?

Their positions on the issues are very similar. Personally, I'm pulling for one of the more moderate candidates, like Amy or Pete, because I think they will do better against Dump, but I'm not sure that the logical conclusion from Iowa/NH is that Bernie is weak.

[Celerity]

40. Different demographics, and I think Amy would get a tonne

Go take a look at pro-Bernie sites, social media, etc

Besides the obvious Joe, Pete, and soon Bloomberg hatred, many hate Warren with a burning passion, unfortunately.

[fallout87]

41. Zero chance guys

Zero chance! lol

[Celerity]

42. explain to me how Bernie gets to 1990 on the first ballot, Pete & Bernie both walk w/ 9 NH delegates

after tonight.

Bernie is still 2 behind now after two very Bernie-friendly states, let alone rolling at a 50% + 1 rate

[Mme. Defarge]

46. Dear God,

that’s the best news I’ve heard the whole damn day.

[Indepatriot]

47. I love the smell of desperation in the morning....it smells like....VICTORY!

Congratulations to Bernie and his hardworking supporters! Another big step forward to becoming President Sanders! We are with you all the way to the White House!

[yaesu]

48. If we don't get a candidate that can beat tRump than nothing else matters

I'm am 100% sure Bernie can beat tRump.

[Perseus]

49. So Bernie's combined w everyone else shows the opposite?

Please...

[certainot]

56. all are fools who ignore rw radio as it continues to move the country 15 pts right

just because we let a few hundred lying assholes on 1500 radio stations decide who and what are 'acceptable' in american politics.

really fucking idiotic, the biggest political mistake in history

if the GOP paid $1000/hr to mischaracterize socialism, single payer, climate science, 1200 radio stations doing 15 hrs/day would be worth $5BIL/year FREE, fucking FREE to the republicans

this is really fucking stupid

every dem candidate and michael moore maybe ought to protest on mich state and univ of michigan for supporting 18 limbaugh stations!!! with sports broadcasting

[7wo7rees]

57. Has anyone here ever heard of Eugrne Debs? Anyone?

Eugene V. Debs and the Endurance of Socialism
Half man, half myth, Debs turned a radical creed into a deeply American one

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/18/eugene-v-debs-and-the-endurance-of-socialism

Snip..
Subscribe

A Critic at Large
Eugene V. Debs and the Endurance of Socialism
Half man, half myth, Debs turned a radical creed into a deeply American one.
Jill LeporeFebruary 11, 2019
Debs speaking to crowd.
Debs ran for President five times, captivating crowds by the tens of thousands.
Photograph from Fotosearch / Getty

Eugene Victor Debs left school at the age of fourteen, to scrape paint and grease off the cars of the Vandalia Railroad, in Indiana, for fifty cents a day. He got a raise when he was promoted to fireman, which meant working in the locomotive next to the engineer, shovelling coal into a firebox—as much as two tons an hour, sixteen hours a day, six days a week. Firemen, caked in coal dust, blinded by wind and smoke, had to make sure that the engine didn’t explode, an eventuality they weren’t always able to forestall. If they were lucky, and lived long enough, firemen usually became engineers, which was safer than being a switchman or a brakeman, jobs that involved working on the tracks next to a moving train, or racing across its top, in any weather, at the risk of toppling off and getting run over. All these men reported to the conductors, who had the top job, and, on trains owned by George Mortimer Pullman, one of the richest men in the United States, all of them—the engineers, the firemen, the brakemen, the switchmen, and even the scrapers—outranked the porters. Pullman porters were almost always black men, and ex-slaves, and, at the start, were paid nothing except the tips they could earn by bowing before the fancy passengers who could afford the sleeping car, and who liked very much to be served with a shuffle and a grin, Dixie style.


Every man who worked on the American railroad in the last decades of the nineteenth century became, of necessity, a scholar of the relations between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots, the masters and the slaves, the riders and the ridden upon. No student of this subject is more important to American history than Debs, half man, half myth, who founded the American Railway Union, turned that into the Social Democratic Party, and ran for President of the United States five times, including once from prison.


That June, at the annual meeting of the American Railway Union, Debs founded the Social Democracy of America party. When it splintered, within the year, Victor Berger and Debs joined what became the Social Democratic Party, and then, in 1901, the Socialist Party of America. For Debs, socialism meant public ownership of the means of production. “Arouse from your slavery, join the Social Democratic Party and vote with us to take possession of the mines of the country and operate them in the interest of the people,” he urged miners in Illinois and Kansas in 1899. But Debs’s socialism, which was so starry-eyed that his critics called it “impossibilism,” was decidedly American, and had less to do with Karl Marx and Communism than with Walt Whitman and Protestantism. “What is Socialism?” he asked. “Merely Christianity in action. It recognizes the equality in men.”




The myth of Debs’s Christlike suffering and socialist three states, travelling on a custom train called the Red Special. As one story has it, a woman waiting for Debs at a station in Illinois asked, “Is that Debs?” to which another woman replied, “Oh, no, that ain’t Debs—when Debs comes out you’ll think it’s Jesus Christ.”

“This is our year,” Debs said in 1912, and it was, in the sense that nearly a million Americans voted for him for President. But 1912 was also socialism’s year in the sense that both the Democratic and the Republican parties embraced progressive reforms long advocated by socialists (and, for that matter, populists): women’s suffrage, trust-busting, economic reform, maximum-hour and minimum-wage laws, the abolition of child labor, and the direct election of U.S. senators. As Debs could likely perceive a couple of years later, when the Great War broke out in Europe, 1912 was to be socialism’s high-water mark in the United States. “You may hasten Socialism,” he said, “you may retard it, but you cannot stop it.” Except that socialism had already done most of what it would do in the United States in those decades: it had reformed the two major parties.


Just if you truly care. Read about Eugene Debs, please.

[TexasTowelie]

59. Ran for president four times as a socialist.

Lost all four times. The best he ever did was get 6% of the vote and he received no Electoral College votes if my memory serves me correctly. Jailed for violating the Espionage Act during World War I.

[7wo7rees]

64. Yep. Shades of Assange..... and Sanders...... ok. Got it. m/t