Why the strategy of attacking Bernie in a debate won't work

[Yavin4]

So, I'm seeing pundit after pundit admonish the other Democrats for not attacking Bernie last night, and that Bernie was the real winner in the debate because he's the front runner and that he's building a solid delegate lead. That last part my be true, but going after Bernie won't shake his support. Nothing can be said that will peel off his supporters. Do these pundits really think that a Bernie supporter is going to fall off because Bernie won't detail how much M4A will cost? Or that you call Bernie a "Socialist"?

Bernie's support is fixed some where between 25-35% which means 65-75% of the Dems are up for grabs. Unlike Trump, his support is not gaining momentum. He's not over 50% any where. The real race is to be Bernie's alternate, and this is why Senator Warren's strategy last night was spot on. Instead of trying to peel off Bernie supporters which the pundits wanted, she made the strongest case possible for being the best Bernie alternative by taking out the candidate who is speding a fortune to be in that position, Mike Bloomberg. Warren's case is simple. I can be tough in a debate. I can bridge moderates and progressives. The big key for her is to win the African American vote.

Now, after Super Tuesday, Bernie may assume an insourmountable lead in delegates. Porportional distribution of delegates gives him that edge. However, he won't have a majority of the delegates. The second place finisher in delegates may be able to horse trade with other candidates to overtake Bernie's lead and may even get a majority of the delegates.

The only way to stop Bernie is to position yourself as the best alternative to Bernie, not attacking him in a debate.

[Kurt V.]

1. Warren showed she is much better at punching right than left.

[Cal Carpenter]

5. Well put n/t

[PatrickforO]

2. Interesting points.

It was a good debate, and a very good showing by Warren. My whole family thought she and Buttigieg were the clear winners.

We'll see if these prognostications are accurate as the primary season unfolds.

Now, I don't object to Bernie on the same basis as some here do. I just don't want to see us running a septuagenarian white male against another septuagenarian white male. I'd much rather have Warren, and failing that, someone young like Buttigieg. I don't think the septuagenarian white male strategy is very strong - I know we're going against disgusting racists on the right, but we're never, ever going to get those people to vote blue, so let's put someone in front who has a bold message and a diverse background.

To my mind, Warren fits both of the above criteria, and Buttigieg the latter (being openly gay). We've got to have some guts here. I think Warren could beat Trump, and likewise Buttigieg and Klobuchar. I think Biden's support is very soft. And Bloomberg? Ick.

As to Bernie, my concern here is that Russia may well have trolls pretend to be Bernie supporters in order to divide us. I think some of that happened in '16, so we've got to watch for it now.

[krissey]

3. He is two points behind Buttigieg. Not a solid delegate lead. Not a lead.

[Yavin4]

4. After Super Tuesday, he will have a delegate lead and will continue to hold it

unless other Dems drop out.

[Garrett78]

7. Do you foresee Buttigieg drastically improving his support among POC? Frontrunner status...

...isn't all about the delegate count. It's about forecasting. There's a reason why 538, Harry Enten and others say no other candidate is in nearly as strong of a position (and it sure as hell isn't because they're pro-Sanders). And there's a reason why they say Buttigieg and Klobuchar have almost no chance.

[krissey]

10. What I see is Sanders was suppose to take Iowa a landslide and ended up two behind in delegates.

Sanders was suppose to take NH with a landslide and ended up tied.

The votes are soft. I will wait until it happens before declaring Sanders a winner because right now he is in second place.

[Garrett78]

11. No reasonable person thought he'd win those states in a landslide. Not in a crowded field.

That's a phony narrative.

[krissey]

12. Nu uh. Sanders himself thought he would and was very disappointed he did not.

[Garrett78]

13. Candidates generally express optimism, unless they have reason to downplay expectations.

But, again, nobody seriously expected Sanders to win in a landslide. In a very crowded field, there would be no reason to expect that.

As for Sanders being "very disappointed," he sure didn't seem to be upset, but maybe you've spoken with him.

[Garrett78]

6. Proportional distribution doesn't give Sanders an edge; it makes getting a majority more unlikely.

It's the difference between winning, say, 185 of California's delegates and winning all 416.

If this goes to a 2-person race, people at DU will be mightily surprised when Sanders easily tops 35%. He's far, far more popular outside of the DU bubble.

[Yavin4]

8. "DU will be mightily surprised when Sanders easily tops 35%."

Okay, is there any polling data to support your assertion? I don't see Biden, Mayor Pete, or Amy's supporters going to Sanders if they drop out.

[Garrett78]

9. Yes.

There's his net favorability rating. There are plenty of polls showing that Sanders is the 2nd choice for a large number of supporters of other candidates. There's the fact that Sanders got well over 35% in 2016 and has made significant inroads with POC since then. There's the survey showing a clear plurality of Democrats think Sanders has the best chance against Trump.

The notion that "75% chose someone else" and "therefore, he wouldn't top 25% in a 2-person race" is bogus.

[davs797]

14. This!

[k2qb3]

15. Agree. Warren played it just right.

If my primary was later in the season I'd still have Warren as my preference.

Here in SC my vote has to be strategic, especially with Bloomberg in the race.

I have no doubt Bernie's numbers will go up as the field narrows.

[dansolo]

16. Warren's mistake was trying to be in the Bernie lane

She would be doing much better if she didn't tie the M4A albatross around her neck. She is smart enough that could have come up with an alternative plan somwhere between Bernie's plan and the shore up the ACA plan. She was never going to peel off Bernie's hard core support, and she was stuck trying to explain how it would even work (which she failed to do).