Bernie's revolution fizzled on first contact with actual voters. It didn't have to be that way

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

kos for Daily Kos

From the beginning, Bernie Sanders’ campaign was predicated on taking 30% of the delegates into the convention, then demanding the nomination. “Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention,” The Atlantic reported in April 2019. “They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen.” (My emphasis.)

So they built a campaign that demanded little of Sanders: no change in message, no effort to broaden the coalition. Like his utter lack of interest in legislating, his campaign had zero interest in building actual majority support. Everything else flowed from there, from his failure to grow Black support (the very same voters who defeated him in 2016) to his tolerance of toxic surrogates and online supporters. It’s easy to make enemies of your detractors if you don’t have to worry about winning their support. But what’s amazing about Super Tuesday results isn’t just that Sanders lost, it’s that he did so by actually shrinking his base compared to 2016. Youth turnout was abysmal. His raw vote totals are significantly down. And where we did see record turnout, it was predominantly in the states that Biden won!

Link to tweet

?s=20

Of those, Sanders won only Colorado. If there’s anyone expanding the electorate, it’s Biden. Ironic, I know. I would’ve never guessed it, but the numbers don’t lie.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/5/1924386/-Bernie-s-revolution-fizzled-on-first-contact-with-actual-voters-It-didn-t-have-to-be-that-way

Not a good strategy if that's true.

[TwilightZone]

1. If that's true, it was a ridiculous strategy, borne of unwarranted overconfidence.

And bordering on malpractice on the part of his staff.

[empedocles]

2. That strategy almost worked

[TwilightZone]

4. We don't really know.

Biden was always going to do well in SC and was trending upward the last couple days prior, and there are indications that forecasts at places like 538 were putting way too much emphasis on momentum and results from early states, something Nate has acknowledged. Sanders might have still gotten away with it had the others not withdrawn as soon as it was obvious they couldn't win.

Copying Trump's strategy from 2016, which is essentially what they did, was flirting with disaster if the other candidates consolidated their support, which of course is exactly what happened. Dems learned from GOP 2016. Counting on 30% being enough was wishful thinking of the highest degree.

[Cha]

7. I was a little worried about Biden in SC after

trump and graham pleaded with their cult to implement "operation chaos".

[TwilightZone]

8. I wasn't too concerned.

Attempts have been made in the past and they always fizzled out. In recent memory, the only time I can recall a large crossover was WV in 2016 and everyone knew it was going to happen way before it did because of Manchin.

[Cha]

11. I had no clue trumphans wouldn't go all

out for the treasonous assface in the WH. They know he doesn't want to face Biden in the GE.

[TwilightZone]

15. Eh, a lot of them are all blather and not much else.

I think Trump and Graham knew that, too, and weren't expecting much. I think the very public nature of it was mainly intended to introduce confusion and division into the process if it was a close race. Instead, it ended up being a complete non-factor.

[griffi94]

18. Hi Cha

I think a lot of the chaos voters remember 2008. I knew quit a few Republicans
that voted for Obama in the primary thinking he'd be easier to beat.
After he was president, when I would hear them bitching about Obama's
birth certificate or being Muslim, I'd remind them that they voted for him in
the primary. Oh how that would piss them off.

[Cha]

21. lol.. be careful what you wish for..

I saw one tweet from a MAGAT.. proudly saying he voted for Sanders in the SC primary.

Link to tweet

[griffi94]

22. I wonder if that guy feels like an idiot now lol.

Obviously, his fellow Trumpers didn't answer the call.
Group think people don't usually like standing alone.
I hope his friends are giving him shit about it.

[paleotn]

24. The face of an angry moron.

[slumcamper]

27. 1 tweet means jack-diddly. They talk loud. Sport gun-erections. They are weak. n/t

[Cha]

9. I wonder if Team Sanders had an inkling

that Pete and Amy would drop out and consolidate support before Super Tuesday?

( was gratefully surreally shocked!

[TwilightZone]

12. From what I've read, it doesn't sound like it.

I can't find the article at the moment, but the speed with which everything happened was reported to be a huge shock to Sanders and his campaign, as it was with most people.

If the strategy was a repeat of GOP 2016 - get 30% and pick off candidates one by one - they would have known (or should have) that consolidation was the huge weakness in the strategy, so that would have been a constant fear. I'm sure they were hoping it would be held off until it was too late. It almost was.

I still give Pete and Amy (and Mike, for that matter) huge props. A dream you spent years working on just died and you get right back up on stage and heartily endorse someone who 24 hours prior was a political rival. It's remarkable.

[Cha]

20. It was absolutely Remarkable.. Big Props!

I love Pete & Amy.. and Mike for doing this for our country and Planet.

I hope if Biden wins Pete has a integral part of his Admin.. and Amy, too.. if she doesn't want to stay the Senator from MN.

[LiberalFighter]

35. Did they even think Pete and Amy would be around that long?

[Cha]

36. Good point.. Pete won Iowa.. & Amy had her strong

debate performance.

[Cha]

6. And, look who he hired for top staff..

[ehrnst]

28. Yes, there's that.

[Cha]

34. There was only one

way this could go.

[Triloon]

3. Actual voters.

Maybe it was just an oversight in the title of your OP, but I'm compelled to point out that the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado are all actual voters.

[NYMinute]

14. Iowa and Nevada were bullying wins in caucuses

NH is a neighboring state where Sanders got 50% fewer votes than in 2016.

He barely won Colorado - a state Biden had no office in and never campaigned in.

[Triloon]

17. But you wont concede that they were actual voters?

Maybe they weren't even real democrats, hm?

[NYMinute]

19. I don't consider caucuses actual elections

Only the most partisan faithful show up and bully other people to change their votes. That is not democracy.

[ehrnst]

31. You mean like so many here have said about Democratic voters in South Carolina...

because "only a few winners of the Dem primary in SC have ever gone on to win the general" so it's not really important...

In fact Hakeem Jeffries felt it necessary to confront that and other rude comments:

[ehrnst]

29. Yes, and it's worth remembering that Democratic voters in states that are red

are still actual voters as well, who matter just as much as the much whiter populations of Iowa and NH.

Despite much frantic dismissal to the contrary.

[Cha]

5. "Numbers Don't Lie".. and this is in spite of

some polls being closed as one tweeter commented.

[showblue22]

10. Voters spoke loud and clear

Biden only had 1 office in all of California and it looks like it might almost break even in delegates. Biden even scored delegates in Vermont.

[napi21]

13. The reason I really dislike the way he's campaigning is because it's the same way DT does it!

Gain that 30-35% and pander, cajole, do whatever it takes to keep that base! It's like a candidate who believes that way isn't really the Prez of all Americans. He's the Prez of HIS BASE! It worked barely for DT in 2016 but I don't think it will work this time. It's also unlikely to work for BS.

[NYMinute]

16. It worked for Trump because the two "bases" both wanted Hillary to lose

One base to give Trump the nomination and another to give Sanders a second shot in 2020.

*** Note: This post is about the 2016 General election ***

[bucolic_frolic]

23. The numbers to pay for his policies didn't add up

or were based on overly optimistic assumptions. And his candidacy reminds voters of the unease of the whole 2016 campaign - primaries, Trump, doubts about HRC. Bernie is running the same playbook in an older more raspy voice.

[Beartracks]

25. I liked Bill Maher's joke about Sanders' youthful support not showing up.

It was something like, "On twitter the trending hashtag was #ohthatwastoday?"

[ehrnst]

26. A real movement is going to show up at the polls. Otherwise, it's just a protest.

Not that a protest is a bad thing - it just shouldn't be confused with a movement or a campaign.

And "Demanding the nomination" doesn't rise to the level of a protest...

[Yavin4]

30. Sanders put his ego above actually helping the people he wanted to represent

If you're in this to see that all people have access to healthcare, then he should have made sure that his movement would continue and succeed without him. And, that meant handing over the reins to Elizabeth Warren.

[ehrnst]

32. +100000.

It's about him, not "us."

[cstanleytech]

33. To be blunt.......Bernie screwed this up all on his own.

Why? Because truthfully he had the opportunity starting from 2016 to build a solid base to run for the Democratic nomination had he remained in the party but he chose to leave it instead.
Then when he comes back to try again he angers a lot of people in the party with that statement about the democratic establishment so really he really screwed things up which is to bad as overall I do like some of his ideas.
Can he still win though? Sure but he has a lot of self inflicted wounds to try and heal.

[Cha]

38. +1

[zak247]

37. Progressives like Bernie have to gain a breadth of tolerance and understanding

Bernie is an ideologue, old-time socialist and not a true democrat.
He’s burdened by rigid political dogma, though the heart of much of his doctrines is applicable to true democratic social reforms. He has to realize it will take time since half the country doesn’t buy his democratic socialism.

Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has now said she will support Biden if he wins the nomination. A sign she is learning.

Progressives have to gain a breadth of tolerance and understanding not just political dogma and rigid ideas of politics that don’t get people inclined to their philosophy elected.