Posted on 03/03/2020 9:12:17 AM PST by Kaslin
The Democratic establishment seems more concerned with protecting themselves than with beating President Trump.
Heading out of the Nevada primary last week, the Democratic Party establishment was in a bit of a panic. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had gotten the most votes in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The establishment’s initial pick for the nomination, former Vice President Joe Biden, had been struggling for months on the campaign trail, sometimes seeming to be confused about who and where he was.
Megabillionaire Mike Bloomberg, who had entered the fray to save the party from Sanders and Biden, revealed himself to be a teensie tiny statue with clay feet after a humiliating debate performance. And the field remained very crowded, with most of the half-dozen or so non-Sanders candidates dividing up the very-liberal-but-not-socialist portion of the pie.
If the establishment really wanted to defeat Sanders, they had to figure out something big and figure it out quickly. It wasn’t that he would go to the convention with the most delegates, necessarily. But if he marched in there with a strong plurality, it would be difficult to wrest the nomination from him.
The establishment did their best. Biden had always been slated to win the South Carolina primary on Saturday, but he won by even a larger margin than many expected. He won 48 percent of the vote, compared to only 20 percent for Sanders. Billionaire Tom Steyer, who placed third, dropped out that night.
Young former mayor Pete Buttigieg — who had respectable showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, a sizable following, and plenty of money — dropped out on Sunday. And Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who had been building support and was headed into a home state primary, dropped out on Monday.
The pundits tended to think that this was a great sign for the Democratic Party establishment:
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, a man whose analytical skills do not include understanding where babies come from, wrote the paper’s analysis, “Moderate Democrats are doing what Republicans refused to do in 2016: Getting out of the way.” Incidentally, “moderate” is the media’s preferred term for the collection of candidates whose views are far to the left of the average American but who are nevertheless not Bernie Sanders.
It’s absolutely true that the Democratic establishment figured out that a smaller field would help them get their preferred candidate. Who knows what sorcery and secret deals were made to get two viable candidates to leave the field prematurely.
But perhaps it’s worth noting the minor detail that Republicans won the 2016 general election by not doing what these pundits suggest should have been done that year. Not only did they win a presidency that experts had predicted might not be won by a Republican for many years to come, they did not face the catastrophic House and Senate outcomes that the experts predicted would accompany a Donald Trump candidacy.
The failure to stop Trump from winning the Republican nomination at the very least contributed to the fact that Republican voters got two Supreme Court Justices, 191 other federal judges, tax cuts, tax reform, departure from the administrative state-emboldening Paris Climate Accord, departure from the Iran nuclear deal, an unprecedented rollback of federal regulations, and a more restrained foreign policy.
By being unable to stop a Trump candidacy, the Republican Party managed to tackle some very difficult divides between its establishment and the voters who enabled their power, including on policies that seemed to exclusively benefit corporations and the wealthy, immigration, trade deals, the U.S. relationship with China, regular entry into wars, failure to end wars, and whether to cower in the face of unfair media attacks. The result is a party that is more unified than it’s been in a while. It didn’t just survive the 2018 midterms, it gained Senate seats even as it experienced the expected House losses. The party even has majority approval for the first time since 2005.
Why would the lesson for Democrats be that they must stop this type of possibility?
It is absolutely true that Sanders is an outsider the establishment resents, just like the establishment opposed Trump. And it’s true that the D.C. establishment in both parties would prefer to hold power in a minority situation than to win elections.
Sanders is a threat to that establishment. He really does have a different foreign policy than Biden about interventionist wars.
I do not believe we will defeat Donald Trump with a candidate like Joe Biden who supported the Iraq War. pic.twitter.com/8tII7O3Mal
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 2, 2020
He disagrees with the establishment’s trade deals with China, and has for many years:
Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs.
It’s wrong to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic competitors.
When we are in the White House we will win that competition by fixing our trade policies.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 2, 2019
And he certainly has less cozy ties to the corporate class than many of the establishment.
Joe Biden has received contributions from more than 60 billionaires.
Does anybody think that we’re going to bring about the change that we need when you are indebted to 60 billionaires? pic.twitter.com/jGAwc6uTPA
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 3, 2020
He represents a sizable contingent in the party. Yes, Democrats might be able to help Biden live to fight another day, until he once again reveals his apparent senility to voters. But in so doing, they might be killing their one candidate with energy and excitement in an effort to nominate someone like Biden.
Biden’s campaign is seeing strong fundraising and polling numbers, that can’t be disputed. Yet one of their more vulnerable constituencies are college-aged voters. This other TikTok featuring the same “please don’t make me vote for Joe Biden” tune has 48k likes. pic.twitter.com/5TG454OSNn
— Brittany L. Shepherd (@blrshepherd) January 2, 2020
If one didn’t know better, this idea that the Democrats need to learn from Republicans’ election-winning and party-unifying “mistake” sounds like they are following a playbook to not only lose the election but keep their nice little sinecures and perches at the networks, think tanks, newspapers, and other establishment positions.
It’s absolutely true that the Democratic establishment figured out that a smaller field would help them get their preferred candidate. Who knows what sorcery and secret deals were made to get two viable candidates to leave the field prematurely.
But perhaps it’s worth noting the minor detail that Republicans won the 2016 general election by not doing what these pundits suggest should have been done that year. Not only did they win a presidency that experts had predicted might not be won by a Republican for many years to come, they did not face the catastrophic House and Senate outcomes that the experts predicted would accompany a Donald Trump candidacy.
The failure to stop Trump from winning the Republican nomination at the very least contributed to the fact that Republican voters got two Supreme Court Justices, 191 other federal judges, tax cuts, tax reform, departure from the administrative state-emboldening Paris Climate Accord, departure from the Iran nuclear deal, an unprecedented rollback of federal regulations, and a more restrained foreign policy.
By being unable to stop a Trump candidacy, the Republican Party managed to tackle some very difficult divides between its establishment and the voters who enabled their power, including on policies that seemed to exclusively benefit corporations and the wealthy, immigration, trade deals, the U.S. relationship with China, regular entry into wars, failure to end wars, and whether to cower in the face of unfair media attacks. The result is a party that is more unified than it’s been in a while. It didn’t just survive the 2018 midterms, it gained Senate seats even as it experienced the expected House losses. The party even has majority approval for the first time since 2005.
Why would the lesson for Democrats be that they must stop this type of possibility?
It is absolutely true that Sanders is an outsider the establishment resents, just like the establishment opposed Trump. And it’s true that the D.C. establishment in both parties would prefer to hold power in a minority situation than to win elections.
Sanders is a threat to that establishment. He really does have a different foreign policy than Biden about interventionist wars.
I do not believe we will defeat Donald Trump with a candidate like Joe Biden who supported the Iraq War. pic.twitter.com/8tII7O3Mal
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 2, 2020
He disagrees with the establishment’s trade deals with China, and has for many years:
Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs.
It’s wrong to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic competitors.
When we are in the White House we will win that competition by fixing our trade policies.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 2, 2019
And he certainly has less cozy ties to the corporate class than many of the establishment.
Joe Biden has received contributions from more than 60 billionaires.
Does anybody think that we’re going to bring about the change that we need when you are indebted to 60 billionaires? pic.twitter.com/jGAwc6uTPA
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 3, 2020
He represents a sizable contingent in the party. Yes, Democrats might be able to help Biden live to fight another day, until he once again reveals his apparent senility to voters. But in so doing, they might be killing their one candidate with energy and excitement in an effort to nominate someone like Biden.
Biden’s campaign is seeing strong fundraising and polling numbers, that can’t be disputed. Yet one of their more vulnerable constituencies are college-aged voters. This other TikTok featuring the same “please don’t make me vote for Joe Biden” tune has 48k likes. pic.twitter.com/5TG454OSNn
— Brittany L. Shepherd (@blrshepherd) January 2, 2020
If one didn’t know better, this idea that the Democrats need to learn from Republicans’ election-winning and party-unifying “mistake” sounds like they are following a playbook to not only lose the election but keep their nice little sinecures and perches at the networks, think tanks, newspapers, and other establishment positions.
They are really working overtime not to make the same mistake Republicans did in 2016.
That mistake? Winning the election.
The 2016 GOP primary did not have a Communist leading it it.
“The 2016 GOP primary did not have a Communist leading it it.”
—
If the Dems were smart they would have already united behind Sanders.
Either Biden or Sanders will surely lose against Trump. But in going with Sanders, they would at least thrown a big bone to their base. Biden provides them with nothing they don’t already have.
All one has to do is look at the quality of the candidates that are running gear in 2020 on the Democrat side versus the quality of the 17 gentleman that we’re running on the Republican side in 2016 and you can see all you need to know about the parties
I can imagine at least five or six of the 17 they were running on the Republican side actually being president being pretty decent at it
where I cannot in my mind every picture any of these Democrats ever ascending to President of the United States and performing the duties of the office
Oh yeah, they got the bottom of the barrell re: candidates. Probably the closest they came to anything even remotely near serious was Klobuchar - and even that’s a stretch.
When Biden is your best hope, you know you’re in trouble.
Unlike what happened in the GOP, where the bulk of the core voters supported Trump and got what they wanted, the Dems are deliberately ALIENATING their core voters who want Bernie.
It won’t end well for them.
Plus, Biden has already won the South Carolina 2020 Senate race.
Plan "B" if Biden fails is to go ahead with their original plan "A", COMMUNISM for all (Except the ruling elite)
| Poll | Date | Sample |
Sanders
|
Biden
|
Bloomberg
|
Warren
|
Buttigieg
|
Klobuchar
|
Steyer
|
Gabbard
|
Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 2/20 - 3/3 | -- | 26.8 | 23.8 | 15.3 | 14.8 | 9.0 | 4.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | Sanders +3.0 |
| Morning Consult | 3/2 - 3/3 | 961 LV | 28 | 36 | 19 | 14 | -- | -- | -- | -- | Biden +8 |
| Morning Consult | 3/1 - 3/1 | 2656 LV | 29 | 26 | 17 | 11 | 10 | 3 | -- | -- | Sanders +3 |
| Reuters/Ipsos | 2/28 - 3/2 | 469 RV | 29 | 18 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Sanders +11 |
| Yahoo News/YouGov | 2/26 - 2/27 | 811 RV | 27 | 21 | 14 | 18 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Sanders +6 |
| Morning Consult | 2/26 - 2/27 | 5334 LV | 33 | 21 | 17 | 11 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 2 | Sanders +12 |
| IBD/TIPP | 2/20 - 2/29 | 325 RV | 23 | 20 | 13 | 17 | 7 | 6 | -- | -- | Sanders +3 |
| FOX News | 2/23 - 2/26 | 507 LV | 31 | 18 | 16 | 10 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 1 | Sanders +13 |
| Economist/YouGov | 2/23 - 2/25 | 584 RV | 30 | 20 | 11 | 16 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 4 | Sanders +10 |
| The Hill/HarrisX | 2/23 - 2/24 | 470 RV | 28 | 17 | 19 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 2 | Sanders +9 |
| Reuters/Ipsos | 2/19 - 2/25 | 1808 RV | 29 | 17 | 16 | 12 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 1 | Sanders +12 |
Sanders is an outsider?
| Poll | Date | Sample |
Sanders
|
Biden
|
Bloomberg
|
Warren
|
Buttigieg
|
Klobuchar
|
Gabbard
|
Steyer
|
Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 2/28 - 3/2 | -- | 29.5 | 28.0 | 18.0 | 14.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 2.0 | Sanders +1.5 | |
| Data for Progress (D) | 2/28 - 3/2 | 300 LV | 28 | 30 | 20 | 15 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -- | Biden +2 |
| Emerson | 2/29 - 3/1 | 450 LV | 31 | 26 | 16 | 14 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | Sanders +5 |
| CBS News/YouGov | 2/27 - 2/29 | 635 LV | 30 | 26 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 1 | Sanders +4 |
| Data for Progress (D) | 2/23 - 2/27 | 513 LV | 30 | 21 | 21 | 13 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | Sanders +9 |
| NBC News/Marist | 2/23 - 2/27 | 556 LV | 34 | 19 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | Sanders +15 |
| CNN | 2/22 - 2/26 | 387 LV | 29 | 20 | 18 | 15 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 1 | Sanders +9 |
| Univision/U. of Houston | 2/21 - 2/26 | 527 LV | 26 | 20 | 20 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Sanders +6 |
| Dallas Morning News | 2/17 - 2/26 | 586 LV | 29 | 19 | 21 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 1 | Sanders +8 |
| UMass Lowell | 2/12 - 2/18 | 600 LV | 23 | 20 | 18 | 14 | 7 | 9 | 4 | -- | Sanders +3 |
| University of Houston | 2/6 - 2/18 | 1352 LV | 20 | 20 | 12 | 17 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 | Tie |
| Poll | Date | Sample |
Sanders
|
Biden
|
Warren
|
Bloomberg
|
Buttigieg
|
Klobuchar
|
Steyer
|
Gabbard
|
Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 2/28 - 3/2 | -- | 35.0 | 23.0 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 1.5 | Sanders +12.0 | |
| Data for Progress (D) | 2/28 - 3/2 | 516 LV | 32 | 25 | 16 | 17 | 5 | 3 | -- | 2 | Sanders +7 |
| Emerson | 2/29 - 3/1 | 545 LV | 38 | 21 | 16 | 11 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | Sanders +17 |
| CBS News/YouGov | 2/27 - 2/29 | 1411 LV | 31 | 19 | 18 | 12 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 1 | Sanders +12 |
| USA Today/Suffolk | 2/26 - 2/29 | 500 LV | 35 | 14 | 12 | 16 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 3 | Sanders +19 |
| Stanford/YouGov | 2/26 - 2/28 | 1020 RV | 28 | 19 | 18 | 13 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 3 | Sanders +9 |
| CNN | 2/22 - 2/26 | 488 LV | 35 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 1 | Sanders +21 |
| Berkeley IGS | 2/20 - 2/25 | 3002 LV | 34 | 8 | 17 | 12 | 11 | 6 | 2 | -- | Sanders +17 |
| KQED/NPR | 2/20 - 2/23 | 1069 LV | 37 | 12 | 20 | 6 | 11 | 5 | 3 | 2 | Sanders +17 |
| Monmouth | 2/16 - 2/19 | 408 LV | 24 | 17 | 10 | 13 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | Sanders +7 |
| UMass Lowell | 2/12 - 2/20 | 450 LV | 24 | 13 | 16 | 12 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 4 | Sanders +8 |
I think that the Demonrats got spooked by all of the sob stories that the bought-and-paid-for RINOs told them about lost campaign donations and kickbacks that they will never get thanks to President Trump.
>>And it’s true that the D.C. establishment in both parties would prefer to hold power in a minority situation than to win elections.<<
Money quote! It’s all about power and with the power comes money. Lots and lots of money. Socialism is alive and well in the Fake Congress. We have our money taken from us and they take it for all the “hard work” they do.
The GOP would have suffered a dumpster-fire disaster in 2016 if it made a bunch of backroom deals to clear the way for establishment favorite Jeb Bush to win the nomination.
Trump (the Gatling Gun of politics) was the only one capable of defeating the Clinton Crime Family.
Biden is like the shoot yourself in the foot with a gun of politics, LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.