Rachel Bitecofer on Sanders backlash - good read

[CousinIT]

UNROLLED twitter thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1216707059179233280.html

ORIGINAL twitter thread:

Link to tweet

Sanders backlash, a thread.

Sanders supporters are wholly convinced that establishment Ds fear a Sanders nomination bc he's going to deliver for them radical change, change the "pro-corporatists" Ds fear. (Their words)

But the Ds fear a Sanders nomination bc they are wholly convinced that Sanders, and to a lesser (but not much) extent Warren, is a nominee that guarantees Donald Trump wins reelection in 2020.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/477721-democrats-voice-concerns-over-sanders

This believe is rooted in a few things, one of which is in decades of American campaign theory that moderate presidential candidates are a must have. Of course, we just saw an election which defied this principle in every way. Some people have tried to frame Trump '16 as a "moderate" but he ran on building a wall across the southern border, banning Muslims, and repealing Obamacare as his 3 most salient positions & ideology is not merely a policy thing, it also has a behavioral element: Trump is/was an extremist in this regard- to the right of even Barry Goldwater. He was also an unabashed populist and non-interventionist. Let's not forget that. Yet Trump won, and the reason why is that polarization & hyperpartisanship virtually guarantees these party nominees at least 45% of the national vote share. This is a HUGE change from the 70s and 80s. At least we know this is true for the GOP. Despite HUGE reservations, despite losing its intellectual founder class, despite 400+ member letters from the Republican national security community, and the message the party sent by having virtually all of its high ranking electeds boycott the '16 nominating convention, despite more than 30% of VA Republicans suggesting they'd support brokering the convention, despite a video telling America he liked to force himself on women, on Election Day Republicans and right-leaning Indies rallied big time behind Donald Trump, even the reluctant ones, with 89% of them casting their ballots for him, just like a normal election. The mainstream Ds see Sanders/Warren as risky because they see progressive policies as risky to run on. But it probably should be noted that thus far, polling suggests the polarization effect, at the very least, will work both ways and that a progressive nominee is, at the end of the day, quite likely to still get the votes of Democrats and left-leaning Indies. Certainly, we have not seen much evidence in polling to suggest otherwise. Does Biden outperform Sanders in the head-to-head polling we've seen? Marginally. But Sanders still beats Trump in most of these polls. And although a progressive nominee opens the Democrats up to some vulnerabilities that a Biden type doesn't, the one thing it does, indisputably is neutralize completely Trump's "populist" appeal. If the Ds are smart, they will come after Trump (and the GOP) on the economy with laser focus in 2020, w or without a downturn, and I'm not really sure that a Sanders-type nominee hurts in that regard. There is still a deep populist undercurrent in the electorate and the party would do well not to underestimate it. Which is easy for them to do bc the entire brain trust of the Democratic Party, its consultant class, its activist class, and the mainstream media that frames this stuff lives in an economic reality far removed from "real" America, where most people can't see a dentist or fix their car.

[Hortensis]

1. Absolutely correct. We fear an almost guaranteed loser.

Sanders' more than whiff of extremism already alarms swing voters and repels some who intend to vote Democrat, but not if it's him. The Republicans and Russia are both working to make him our candidate because his lifelong ideology, campaign promises, and background are a swiftboater's wet dream.

One thing they'll hit in the GE -- to undermine Democratic support by demoralizing -- will of course be his promises of great change that he can't fulfill. Sanders supporters don't seem to understand that CONGRESS LEGISLATES. Not the president. That's Sanders' fault, of course. He casts congress, including our Democratic caucuses, as the enemy he has to, but will!, overcome to make radical change. He cannot. In today's house there probably aren't even a dozen out of 235 who would support him against their colleagues more than half the time.

And that's why she's absolutely correct that we don't fear Sanders' ideology in office. The vast majority of our Democrats are strong liberal progressives, and they're not about to abandon their very real ideals and goals. Including those that form the hundreds of bills, some in particular making hugely important changes, the house has passed that wait for a liberal Democratic senate.

[ritapria]

2. New Voters ...New Voters ...New Voters

How do you win over Independents ? ... By nominating an Independent …..How do you bring out a massive turnout amongst young voters ? .. Nominate the candidate who is a hero to so many of them ...How do you win over working class voters that defected to Trump in 2016 ? ...Nominate the Candidate who has been in their corner for over 40 Years …. How do you win back the 1,450, 000 voters that defected to Jill Stein in 2016 ? ...Nominate a True Progressive …

[MrsCoffee]

3. By nominating an Independent?

No thanks. I prefer Democrats.

[judeling]

5. A somewhat pointless argument

Rachel argues and I think correctly that in a highly tribal era both sides have 45% no matter what. She has also argued that one sides enthusiasm is matched by the other. So if Trump gets his base going then the democrats get their base going. We saw this in 2018.

We also see the "Moderates" using 2018 to point out that this dynamic did not tip in favor of the "Progressives". While this is true it was not quite the whole story, as it was those types of candidates that were running in those districts we won.

The trick is not new voters as the race will push that in opposition to Trump anyway and they are not enough to bring us the Senate as they just aren't where we need them.

This race is not one against or for the message, it is all about the messenger. By November the message will be so distorted that that 10% where the election really hinges will have no idea of what is best.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. The difference is a progressive Dem nominee will increase youth turnout

If young voters turnout like they did in 2018, we will win.

[judeling]

13. We have not actually ever seen that

We have seen it in a nomination but not in a general. At least since 72.

There is just no data to say Ideology as opposed to Personality has anything to do with it.

[Demsrule86]

6. The mistake made in most of these sort of articles is the belief that the 2016 election

was a battle of the moderates and the left...it wasn't. Our candidate was damaged by both the right and the left which I will always view as a disgrace. And that hurt us no doubt. But what it was is a rebellion in the Mid West. The blue wall crumbled. Here in Ohio, I have heard often from neighbors that we see politicians once every four years...but nothing changes.

They took a chance that Trump (who is a God damned liar) would send help to their area which had not had the same sort of recovery that other states enjoy. The message from our side was 'the jobs aren't coming back back. While Trump said hey 'I am different and I can fix this...they took a chance on Trump because as one of my neighbors said, 'what have we got to lose'? None of my arguments swayed him. from this...and he doesn't even like Trump. But, Jobs gone, pensions gone...jobs shipping overseas and shitty pay were the deciding factor...and Pres. Obama pushing another shitty trade agreement...the TPP didn't help. It was viewed as a betrayal. After all Ohio had voted for Pres. Obama twice.

And you would think with Trump's shitty job,people would be lining up to vote against him and some are. He is weakened no doubt. But some are willing to give him more time. And that is very dangerous for us...and we nominate either Sanders or Warren, we will lose the general. There is great resentment about M4A taking away hard won really good union healthcare...and if you delay it ...it still goes away. They want it untouched period. So that is a mark against both Sanders and Warren. And She is now supporting Trump's NAFTA rewrite. which is the worst worst thing she she could do in this area...and her stated idea that improving working conditions overseas for those working in jobs that used to be American jobs as a way of leveling the playing field is a non-starter. Sure I get what she means...don't think it will work, but I get it. However, it is not seen as benefiting people working here in what is left in of once great manufacturing jobs. People here toil under some grim working conditions and really low pay. They want their working conditions improved. So Warren's idea is a non-starter. As I said ,they want THEIR lives improved not those who they view as taking their jobs.

So it seems that we refuse to learn the lesson of 16 in terms of blue wall states...and if we don't Trump will win an EC victory and have four more years to destroy this country. It is a mistake to think 2016 was an aberration and won't be repeated in 2020 if we nominate a candidate who doesn't understand the Mid West.

[NewJeffCT]

7. disagree 100%

about focusing on the economy.

The election is completely about Trump being unfit to be president. Focus on his racism and misogyny.

The Trump economy (thanks to Obama) is: low unemployment, wages ticking up and the stock market increasing. Deficit spending is not something you can base your campaign around and income inequality isn't going to get media air time.

Sanders (and, Buttigieg and Warren) haven't been under the national media microscope like Biden has been and Clinton has been.

[TidalWave46]

8. Fear is being used as little more than a campaign tactic by Sanders.

It's the people calling others "establishment" and comparing their competitors plans to terrorist attacks who are projecting the fear. They make up boogeymen and stay scared of them all while projecting that it is others who are scared. It's a true personality flaw.

[FM123]

9. The repugs made their decision in advance, that ride or die, it was going to be trump

Despite HUGE reservations, despite losing its intellectual founder class, despite 400+ member letters from the Republican national security community, and the message the party sent by having virtually all of its high ranking electeds boycott the '16 nominating convention, despite more than 30% of VA Republicans suggesting they'd support brokering the convention, despite a video telling America he liked to force himself on women, on Election Day Republicans and right-leaning Indies rallied big time behind Donald Trump, even the reluctant ones, with 89% of them casting their ballots for him, just like a normal election.

We Dems have to beat them at their own game and make a decision in advance that on election day we vote blue no matter what no matter who.

[oasis]

10. We don' need no stinkin' corporations.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. +1000!!! To hell with Fear-based Defeatism!!! What should have been bolded:

But it probably should be noted that thus far, polling suggests the polarization effect, at the very least, will work both ways and that a progressive nominee is, at the end of the day, quite likely to still get the votes of Democrats and left-leaning Indies.

For those not familiar with Rachel Bitcofer, it was her model that accurately predicted, to the seat, the exact seats that the Dems took in the 2018 Blue Wave, predicting a majority larger than any other forecaster.

Fear-based defeatists who ignore Bitcofer are risking an almost certain loss in November.