The slow-motion Democratic train wreck

[brooklynite]

Financial Times

Its onset has been visible for some time; such is the nature of slow-motion wrecks. Unfortunately we cannot press the fast-forward button. Wednesday night’s debate in Las Vegas was the Democratic party’s nastiest so far — with Michael Bloomberg its clear loser. At some point, nevertheless, the Democratic race is likely to boil down to a fight between him and Bernie Sanders. There are few ways that a zero-sum contest between a self-funded old billionaire and a stubborn old socialist could end in a friendly armistice. There are many in which the collision could play out. Almost none, barring the least likely — a sweeping victory by one over the other — entails a happy ending for Democrats.

The similarities between Mr Sanders’s campaign and Donald Trump’s in 2016 are apt. Each has militant supporters who are happy to indulge in social media harassment and character assassination. Barely half of Mr Sanders’ supporters would vote for Mr Bloomberg if he became the nominee, according to a recent poll. That share would almost certainly rise as the spectre of a Trump second term loomed. But Mr Trump would only need to capture a slice of the “Bernie Bro” constituency — the politically incorrect element of the US senator’s base — to tip the election his way. That is what happened in 2016. An estimated tenth of Mr Sanders’ supporters voted against Hillary Clinton.

Mr Sanders is trying to do a Trump-like hostile takeover of the Democratic party. He enjoys similar tactical advantages. Like Mr Trump, Mr Sanders has benefited from a packed field of conventional candidates who have spent most of their firepower attacking each other. Wednesday’s debate was the most combustible example of that so far. Like Mr Trump at the same point in 2016, Mr Sanders is spurned by his party’s establishment. Nowadays that is taken as a virtue. A single Iowa legislator endorsed the senator from Vermont before the state’s caucus this month against double-digit endorsements for most of the others, including Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Mr Sanders nevertheless won the most votes.

Finally, like the US president, Mr Sanders believes he is heading a movement, not a campaign. People who lead causes do not drop out. They fight to the bitter end. Billionaires do not drop out, either. Anyone who thinks Mr Bloomberg will fold if he underperforms — his first real test is on Super Tuesday in early March, when about a third of US states will vote — is not paying attention. The former New York mayor has sunk $400m of his wealth into this race so far. That is roughly a tenth of his probable annual return from his $54bn personal fortune. He could do the same 10 times over without touching his capital. One terrible debate will not change that even if he has to spend millions of dollars cleaning it up.

[joost5]

1. "An estimated tenth of Mr Sanders' supporters voted against Hillary Clinton."

This is exactly what will happen if we don't nominate a moderate to lead the ticket. I love Bernie but nothing will get done if we don't flip the Senate blue.

[ehrnst]

2. Mediabias fact check rating for Financial Times

Overall, we rate the Financial Times Least Biased based on balanced reporting and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check.

[MarcA]

8. All the chart shows is that FT is Center biased. n/t

[ehrnst]

9. "Least biased" That indicates a lack of bias for the left or right, not that it holds a

"Center" political position.

Is that clearer?

[MarcA]

15. If that is the case did they post an article balancing this one? n/t

[ehrnst]

16. What do you mean "balancing" this one?

Posing an opposite view?

You mean like Trump supporters demanded an article finding corruption in the Clinton Foundation when there was an article about corruption in Trump's foundation?

Or a demand to "balance" an editorial on the Trump administration that wasn't flattering to him with one that is?



My understanding is that "both-siderism" in an attempt to publish as many negative pieces on HRC as Trump was a bad thing in .2016.

That said, I don't have a subscription to FT, so I can't search articles. You'll need to ask the author of the OP, because they clearly have access to the content.

[TwilightZone]

28. It's a lack of bias, not equal and opposing biases.

That's what "least biased" means.

[jalan48]

3. The real train wreck will be a brokered convention where Super Delegates decide the outcome.

[ehrnst]

10. Ironic, isn't it?

With the potential of a contested convention on the horizon for Democrats, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday staked out a notably different position on delegates during the ninth Democratic debate.

Asked if the candidate with the most pledged delegates should be the Democratic nominee — even if that candidate did not have a majority of pledged delegates — Sanders said, “the will of the people should prevail, yes. The person who has the most votes should become the nominee.”

It is the opposite of what Sanders and his campaign said in 2016, even after Hillary Clinton had secured the majority of pledged delegates.

“The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party,” Sanders said on May 1, 2016. “And if those superdelegates conclude that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and anybody else, yes, I would very much welcome their support.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. Yeahbut ...

Do superdelegates consider ratfucking effects? I've become skeptical of polls, even as they influence voters determined to thump trump.

[ehrnst]

12. I remember Samantha Bee posting that the GOP would

"give their right nut for superdelegates right now" after Trump won the nomination.

[jalan48]

23. Yep. Kinda like the electoral college. We win the

popular vote and lose the election. Oh well, those are the rules so no hard feelings.

[ehrnst]

24. ....

No hard feelings?

[Blue_Tires]

34. +1

[PubliusEnigma]

26. Hopefully, the Super Delegates assure that a true Democrat receives the nomination.

[jalan48]

27. Yep. I'm sure that will make all the difference.

[PubliusEnigma]

29. The difference will be in winning MI, WI, and PA. None of which Bernie Sanders is capable of.

But he'll win bigly in CA and NY, right?

I guess that will give us some small comfort during Trump's second term.

[jalan48]

30. And if it doesn't work out Sanders can be blamed for the loss. It's a win win

[PubliusEnigma]

31. That already happened in 2016.

Bernie lost and decided the ship was going down with him.

Did everybody learn the lesson that the Bernie Busters taught us then???

There was supposed to be a lesson, right?

[jalan48]

32. Meh. Real Democrats wouldn't want those Socialist votes anyway

[Farmer-Rick]

4. Well it is a Capitalist Financial Times.

The Financial Times (FT) owned by the Japanese Nikkei, Inc. is in favor of everything financial. It's perspective is what's good for the current filthy rich is good for the world. They like capitalism, and try not be too judgmental about socialism but they do lean in favor of capitalism and the filthy rich's interests.

So, of course they don't like Bernie. I wouldn't trust them to fairly rate a liberal socialist as I wouldn't trust the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall street Journal to fairly rate a liberal socialist.

[ehrnst]

14. Ah... because "capitalist" they "don't like Bernie"

The Financial Times (FT) owned by the Japanese Nikkei, Inc. is in favor of everything financial

"in favor of everything financial?" You mean that reporting on financial issues is "sinister?"

They like capitalism, and try not be too judgmental about socialism but they do lean in favor of capitalism and the filthy rich's interests.

Hon, if that's sinister, then Sanders becoming rich selling his books on those icons of capitalism, Amazon and WalMart, is "in favor of financial." And the fact that a chunk of his wealth is due to annuities and mutual funds held by Jane and he has profited financially from a nuclear waste dump that he created with legislation certainly indicates Sanders "leans in favor of capitalism," don't you think?



MediaBias is a good source for determining if a source is weighted to the Left or Right.

Just because a source isn't weighted Left, doesn't mean that it's weighted Right...

[MarcA]

17. Agreed.

Anyone being honest knows FT is a biased site in favor of the big money elite and is no
friend of Progressive policies.

[ehrnst]

21. "anyone being honest"

throwing insults is certainly easier than actually having a rebuttal when being shown some painful truths, I suppose.

[Rustynaerduwell]

5. This is how I feel

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

?start=54" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Sneederbunk]

18. But it did not fail.

[oasis]

25. I liked that. Thank you.

[Fran2020]

6. The FINANCIAL TIMES is against Bernie because Bernie will take on Wall St elites!

Bernie is taking on powerful corporations and big banks, and they push back. But Bernie has a MOVEMENT!

[Squinch]

7. In what way is Bernie taking on Wall Street elites? In 30 years, what concrete

measures has he accomplished that takes on Wall Street elites.

Can you point to any legislation?

Exactly how has he "taken them on"?

[Tipperary]

19. Boom.

Thank you for that.

[ehrnst]

13. What has Bernie actually done to "take on" powerful corporations and big banks?

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? - No that was Warren...

Dodd Frank Act? - No that was Barney Frank...

Stop Wall St. Looting Act? - No, that was Warren, too

But tell me what I've missed.

[ehrnst]

20. Bernie also has mutual funds and annuities as a sizeable chunk of his personal wealth.

They're in Jane's name, of course, but still, that's very much invested in Wall Street.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/where-bernie-sanders-money-comes-from.html

[totodeinhere]

22. I disagree. I think that Bloomberg will fade and it will come down to Sanders vs Biden.

After Mike's disastrous performance in Las Vegas that's where I see this going.

[Laelth]

33. k&r for the truth (no matter how depressing the truth may be). n/t

-Laelth

[Blue_Tires]

35. For the record, I didn't want St. Bern in the race to begin with

he never should have been allowed to run as a Dem, but Perez allowed the St. Bern's cult to twist his arm, and we allowed the media to twist all our collective arms into believing that a woman/person of color wasn't "electable" for those great masses of midwest white folks...