Mayor Pete is no lady
6 Likes
No, you just can’t bolt from someone viable. So if you pick a candidate and they got 15%, you’re done, you’re locked in, kick back and have some popcorn. If you pick a candidate and they get under 15% you can go to anyone, including other non-15% candidates.
1 Like
Steyer is all in on NV, Rachel was saying a couple months ago he spent double everyone else combined there, including Bloomberg.
Right, and at some point that’s going to become by design. This race is absurdly interesting and complex, and if the stakes weren’t so high, it’d be really enjoyable and entertaining to dissect.
Basically Bernie crushes everyone heads up, but with different portions of the voters. Like if he runs against Biden, he doesn’t get a big share of African-American voters, but if he runs against Buttigieg he does. So the way in which the race consolidates and the timing with which it consolidates is really interesting…
But ultimately it sounds like the best case scenario for Bernie is getting it heads up quickly, and the worst case scenario is going three ways with like Biden and Pete or Biden and Klobuchar, as each is able to peel off a different group of voters from him and create a three way race that keeps him around 40% or lower in total pledged delegates.
I think if it stays 4-6 ways, they won’t be able to screw him at the convention cause he’ll just flat out win too many states. Like if he wins 40 states, they aren’t taking it from him even if he only has 35% of the delegates.
I think based on the polling, the one thing you don’t want to see is a strong Warren showing in Nevada or South Carolina, or on Super Tuesday if she makes it. She’s the only one who has a shot at him head-to-head. She likely beats him if she doesn’t make more unforced errors, but she’s a favorite to make multiple unforced errors.
So I think the best thing for Bernie is to get head-to-head with either Bloomberg, Buttigieg or Klobuchar. Getting head to head with Biden is fine, but not quite as good. But if he does that after Super Tuesday, he takes like 50-55% of the remaining delegates and ends up with about 46-48% of total delegates, if not more… It’s possible he starts getting some 60-40 wins once it becomes inevitable, or that his opponent concedes when their path to 50% is dead.
I think my dream scenario for the best chance of a Bernie presidency is Bernie gets head to head with Bloomberg, Warren endorses Bernie and he announces her as VP during the primary and they jointly campaign against Bloomberg. Slightly less chance of winning the primary than against Buttigieg, but way way way better for party unity.
GAME CHANGING NEW STRATEGY FOR BLOOMBERG!!!
2 Likes
Are you suggesting that we’d lose a seat in Massachusetts? Or that the new Senator wouldn’t be progressive enough?
Well, you need somebody highly qualified and progressive to be the VP, Bernie is too old to risk it… Not many better options in terms of a safe seat. The best reason I could think of not to make Liz VP would be to try to angle to make her Senate majority leader.
1 Like
There is zero benefit in Bernie naming Warren VP.
She can be Secretary of the Treasury or whatever.
Who’s a better VP? And I think she’s more valuable as a senator than Sec of Treasury.
1 Like
Joe Biden, and I’m only half joking.
Edit: hmmmmmmm 
https://twitter.com/people4bernie/status/1228439067072688128?s=21
2 Likes
Seems good. I enjoyed Bill spitting fire in the first couple debates.
1 Like
If you expect to need him then sure those things are important. Way Way way more important is a vp that helps win the election. Someone that bolsters a constituency in a swing state(s). Pence was a good pick in that respect - - unqualified, sure, but shored up evangelical support enough to matter.
Anyway, my point is VP is a tactical choice, not strategic.
I think Steyer is actually good, #hottakes
1 Like
As a VP pick, candidate, or person?
He’d be a terrible VP but he’s probably my #3 behind Warren which is LOL. Can’t trust a billionaire but he does seem pretty dope. That is 100% based off the debate though.
1 Like
Gotta say that I agree.
I’m naturally suspicious of billionaires with no political experience entering politics for obvious reasons but he says the right things. I have it Sanders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Warren >>>> Steyer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else
I’m not saying that Bernie is necessarily a weaker candidate against Trump than the so-called establishment candidates, but republican operatives certainly seem to think this is the case:
Cliffs: They’re literally encouraging republicans to register as democrats in South Carolina to vote for Bernie to help improve Trump’s chances in the general.
Anyone other than Stacy Abrahms as VP is a tragic mistake and missed opportunity.
I think Warren is a good pick. There are a fair number of HRC->Warren people who despise Bernie.
1 Like
I’m not sure their thinking is as linear as “trump beats Bernie so support Bernie”
I assume they’re (correctly) looking at Bernie as a challenge to the Dem establishment. If they view their “enemy” as the Dem establishment, I think it makes complete sense to push Bernie in the hopes of dismantling that DemE. I assume they think attacking the DemE might continue to rile up their voters, which it probably will, and the only way to counter that is to bring someone to the fight that isn’t DemE.
1 Like
Though I am a big fan I don’t think she’s the best match. I like that she’s younger and female but I think she can do more good outside of a VP position. I don’t have a better option though. Warren could be it to grab white female voters (e.g. Hillary stans that still think Bernie is sexist) but I still think a VP role is less impactful than other areas for her.