The flaw in Bernie's assertion that the moderate candidates consolidated against him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

He never expanded his base and thought he would win the nomination in a fractured field with 30% or so of the vote. That would have been a recipe for disaster.

[frazzled]

1. The voters voted?

Shocking plot!

My strategy since last fall always was to wait and see which candidate (who was not Bernie, and later Bloomberg) would gain traction in the early states and Super Tuesday, and then get behind them. I always knew that with this many candidates, it was going to have to come down to a purely strategic vote.

I’m not that smart, so I’m guessing a huge number of other voters have been thinking (plotting?) like me.

[BidenBacker]

4. Trouble is

Biden came with a whisker of getting knocked outta this thing. Then what?

There's something seriously wrong with a primary system that damn near eliminated somebody who is now the overwhelming favorite to get the nomination and likely to beat the Imbecile-in-Chief.

Dems need to give a lot of thought to revamping their primaries so as not to even remotely permit this possibility in the future. Not sure exactly what they can do but we can't rely on a hero like Clyburn to save the day every 4 years.

[frazzled]

5. He was a strong front runner for a long time

Meaning a lot of people wanted to vote for him in theory. Then came impeachment, where his name and his son’s name were bandied about so much that people shied away, for fear that this would just be an election-year issue we don’t need, despite knowing it had no basis.

And there were a few admittedly weak debates, where he failed to stand out. He subsequently had some strong ones. There was a seemingly weekly jockeying for who would become the front-running anti-Bernie—the one who 70+% of voters weren’t supporting.

So then there were the first contests, two small, white states, where small numbers of voters were participating. And Nevada. And then South Carolina, the most populous and diverse test for voter preference. And people started to get behind him.

It’s not mysterious, and it’s not even that surprising given the massive field that began. It was a process, and I don’t see anything that should or could be changed. Except that I think the rules should change to require that to qualify to run, a candidate must have been a Democrat for at least 4 consecutive years before applying to run.

[BidenBacker]

10. Not sure there isn't something we can't do to improve the process

Joe was damn near outta money and a whole lotta factors had to come together at the very last second that I'm not sure we can count on happening again.

Regardless, thankfully for the Democrats in 2020 the cream eventually rose to the top.

For Republicans in 2016, it was more like shit floats.

[brush]

6. Yes, Iowa and NH should not have such importance.

[renate]

8. I can't believe that in 2020 the first two states are 90% white and are given so much importance

It's absolutely ridiculous. I know that those two states have their own internal rules about how they get to go first, so that's not the DNC's fault, but I don't understand how they're allowed to get away with it. I mean, I could declare myself Queen of America, but that doesn't mean anybody has to curtsey to me. The official attitude of the DNC ought to be of explicitly and purposefully ignoring them other than to record their number of delagates.

[NCProgressive]

7. We have to get rid of caucuses

and eliminate the IA/NH stupidity.

[Vivienne235729]

9. I think it was media hype after NV that skewed reality from polls. SC was always going to be Biden

The AA voting block of SC never really veered from their expected result. I think it was our perception that Biden is out for the count from a sensationalized media. I think that states like SC, VA, TX, need to move up to the same time as IA and NH to give diverse populations a voice early on too. It would give us a better indicator than just what 2 tiny little homogeneous states think. I think THAT'S the problem w our primary process.

[BidenBacker]

11. Seems kinda ridiculous

That candidates spend a year or more in freaking Iowa. I mean, Field of Dreams is one of my all-time favorite movies being a big baseball fan and all but what the hell is so special about them?

There are many Tuesdays where there are 5 or 8 or even 12 states all voting on the same day. Why couldn't we just start out with say 4 states that are located all over the country on the very first primary day and let them all vote so that we're not analyzing the shit outta one little state?

No disrespect to Iowans but they're farmers not rocket surgeons.

[Vivienne235729]

19. I totally agree.

A more diverse population giving their input. It would change the process a bit since lily white IA and NH shouldn't be able to dictate the 'momentum' of the primaries. IA shouldn't have that much voice.

[BidenBacker]

13. Hey

How's about if we just took the first 4 states and combined them all on the first day of the primaries? At least then we'd have a lily-white state in the upper Midwest, a white state in New England, a predominantly black state in the South and a heavily Hispanic state in the Southwest. Lots of different data to analyze then to get a better picture right off the bat.

I'd be jiggy with that. A helluva lot better than what we got now. And if Iowa balked about not going it alone then we'd tell them "fine, we'll just give it to Nebraska or Kansas or Missouri because they all got a bunch of white farmers. Oh, and lose that cockamamie caucus of yours, too."

[Turin_C3PO]

14. I hope you know

that the amount of farmers in those states are a very low percentage of the population. They’re modern places, just like the rest of America.

[BidenBacker]

17. Yeah

Just some over-the-top stereotyping for a little humor.

But I still like my idea of getting some geographical as well as racial and economic diversity combined right off the bat. Seems kinda dumb that candidates spend a year or more in one little state and then they come so fast and furious they can't show up in many others. They can spend a few months in each of the first 4 states...don't need to move to Iowa for an entire year.

[Turin_C3PO]

18. I figured you were joking

but you never know lol. Yes, I agree that the importance of Iowa is fairly ridiculous.

[showblue22]

21. Have SC go first.

[BidenBacker]

27. South Carolina

If at first you don't secede...try, try again.

Yeah, I know that was pretty bad.

[lapfog_1]

26. with Biden out, we would have consolidated on one of the other remaining center left

Amy. Pete. Even (god forbid) Mike.

Or maybe Liz...

Whoever won the black vote.

And if no one... I don't know.

[BidenBacker]

29. Amy & Pete

were down around 0% among AAs. Bloomberg had his own problems.

Hooboy, would that ever have been messy. Don't even wanna think about it. Just thankful we dodged a bullet.

[karynnj]

15. Shhh! You are giving away the secret plan we all had - magically agreed upon and spread

telepathically to everyone.

I wish that Sanders would realize that what he really is saying is that the majority of people were willing to vote for "an establishment chosen" candidate over him. Amy and Pete leaving did not mean that voters HAD to vote for Biden. In fact, they could have chosen to vote for him or either Warren or Bloomberg or not voted at all. (They could even have cast protest votes for anyone - on the ballot or write in.

It is the voters who made his strategy fail.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I have nothing against George McGovern but he won the nomination with 25.3% of the vote.

Hubert Humphrey actually had a slightly higher percentage at 25.5% but slightly less delegates. That's no way to nominate a presidential candidate.

[brush]

2. Correct, he also expected droves of new young voters, more black voters...

and that people will elect a socialist. The candidate and his brain trust need to fire themselves.

[Cha]

3. Thank you.. this needed to be pointed out.

[pampango]

12. He campaigned on progressive policies that proved to be popular with voters but

electability, and perhaps personality, were bigger issues than policies. He apparently thought that the popularity of progressive ideas would be enough to win the nomination. It is certainly looking like he was wrong. Was he wrong to campaign on those issues? I don't think so. At least their popularity has been proven. That bodes well for the future under Biden or any future liberal president.

[Hav]

16. I'm not sure what they expected

I understand a plan of getting a clear majority of delegates from California with maybe only 35% of the vote with many moderates in the race and several of them not being viable.
But realistically, how long did his campaign believe that 4-5 moderates would remain in the race with the winner among them getting maybe 25% and one half of them rotating to fight for viability. It might have ended in a plurality for BS but if that was your game plan, you clearly didn't have a substantial movement.

[aikoaiko]

20. Well he did move the needle from 15% to 30-35%

And now he needs to push through.

[hack89]

22. He won't get that chance

This year he is done and he is too old for another shot in the future.

[aikoaiko]

23. youre probably correct

[LAS14]

25. Well, didn't they consolidate against him? It was a wonderful thing to see!! nt

[RandySF]

28. Let me try to explain

Biden has more votes than Bernie. Class dismissed.