You now, the more I think about it, the more it seems like this could potentially be a real issue for Sanders regarding delegates specifically. Why would the delegates need to have any allegiance to someone who doesn’t even benefit their Party? I mean, why would the delegates in, let’s say CA, the Deep South or even OH be swayed by a victory in NH? Or a close race in IA? What would that mean to them regarding how the national Party succeeds or not?
At the end of the day (and the race), Sanders gets to go back to VT as an Independent Senator who caucases with the Dems and the delegates get to work with the national Party.
EDIT TO ADD:
Politics is also about allegiance. I realize that sounds incredibly crass but it’s also a factor in what can possibly be achieved.
Bernie has publicly committed to 4 additional debates. Hillary says she wants additional debates, but so far has not agreed to Bernie’s offer. Hey, Hillary, how about taking yes for an answer?
You’re talking about what’s objectively just and fair. I’m talking about managing perceptions and taking back control of the narrative. I’m talking about winning. And what’s fair and what wins are, at best, only loosely correlated in a political campaign. And that’s the basic problem I see in nearly everything one of Bernie’s supporters tweets or posts in a comment section.
Constantly talking about what’s fair, and constantly complaining about being on the the wrong side of what’s fair–even when, and indeed, especially when it’s true–is the lament of losers. It gives off the stench of defeat to everyone who’s Bernie-curious, reeks of a fully internalized expectation of imminent defeat to the otherwise persuadable who are giving him a look. Claiming victimhood only plays in Republican primaries and there only when combined with aggressive, gleeful victimization of others. In Democratic primaries and general elections, it is is political poison.
And worst of all, whenever you try to point this kind of thing out to his online supporters, suggest that complaining about fairness is the opposite of helping, they become defensive and respond like you’re attacking them and heir candidate, which is the exact kind of response that’s the problem.
Ok – I misunderstood that. Thank you for the correction. However, if either of them should refuse future debates, I won’t buy any of their excuses. The only reason would be self-interest – and this was my main point.
The very names strike anger* in the hearts of Bernie’s most ardent supporters. Thanks Obama.
I don’t understand that reaction really.
You know me, okay. I think Bernie is a good diagnostician. He repeats the problem over and over. (don’t hate me but I think he’s a lot like Trump in that respect, just different targets) But his prescriptions for the problems are radical and markets don’t like radical.
imo - there’s nothing wrong with our economy that can’t be fixed with a couple of tweaks. If Obama was a Republican they’d put him on Mt. Rushmore
I’ll respectfully disagree with you on this for a couple of reasons.
If the roles were reversed, I’d expect HRC to do exactly the same thing and most of the (very little) coverage I’ve seen over the squabble basically boils down to the simple analysis that ya wanna debate when yer down and you don’t want to debate when yer up. In other words, people generally recognize that nobody’s intentions are ‘pure’ when it comes to things like debates.
The longer this debate over debates goes on, the more the media will pick up on a Clinton-is-panicking meme. I don’t think Clinton is panicking, but we have an easy talking point when the next random poll showing Sanders up within the margin of error comes out. Watching election coverage on MSNBC yesterday, one of the sponsors of the proposed debate, they spent far more time discussing poll results and who is “nervous” and generally only mentioned the debate as an afterthought.
I think this issue is generally a wash for the candidates but the longer it plays out the louder the questions of “why is Hillary so desperate to debate?” will become. A lot of the commenters here seem to think Sanders should be on defense on this issue. To me, it presents a perfect opportunity for offense and that’s what we’re seeing from his campaign. I also think the Clinton campaign played this well, acting reasonable and accommodating. If they start pounding Sanders on this without agreeing to later debates, then they’ll look a little desperate.
Yeah, I think he is taking too much criticism for you know…actually reading pertinent books in the field. I disagree with Nate on a few things, but I believe he gets it for the most part.
The "analysis’ the poster was basically referencing, I read as well ( I think it was on Slate). And it was basically a bad thinly veiled hit piece on Silver. The argument really came down to…“Nate should never comment on anything if it doesn’t come directly from his own data models. Only those of us blessed to be pundits can ramble on about other things”
And, I strongly suspect,the article is extremely premature. He was basically calling Nate a complete failure in predicting elections and nominees this time around…before the first vote has even been cast.
It’s not a issue of my kicking you out. Don’t give me that whole “the Party left me” thing. It’s an issue of whether you think the Party can work towards your goals.
There is reason for Bernie to be concerned. I am not an expert but I do listen to people who are nerds on the subject, and according to them, Bernie has to win Iowa and New Hampshire because he doesn’t really have a path after that whereas Hillary could lose Iowa or New Hampshire and still come back in South Carolina and other primaries where Bernie’s chances are far slimmer.
I like Bernie but I honestly don’t believe he can win and I don’t believe the party thinks so either and the stakes are too high to take a chance. We need to retain the WH and save SCOTUS from being taken over by more conservatives. I am hoping that Bernie’s message will help move us more to the left but it can’t be done overnight. That’s how politics works
Bernie ends up agreeing to the New Hampshire debate with no commitment from Hillary to participate in additional debates after New Hampshire, other than the two already-scheduled debates?
Hillary ends up agreeing to additional debates after New Hampshire in order to lock down this added debate in New Hampshire?
Funny – but I think she’s done far better than him in the debates so far. I didn’t even start off rooting for her – I dreaded her. So I think she doing well with this exposure and should jump at the chance to have more. I guess its all in the eye of the beholder, but honestly – the more I see of Bernie, the less I think he would be able to win the general. Don’t get me wrong – I like him and I’d surely vote for him if he is our nominee – but I really strongly believe he is not the strongest candidate given the astoundingly vicious creep we will be up against. He is too much of a mensch.
But longer term, Hillary has shut him and all of his supporters up forever on the DWS is limiting debates to help Hillary meme. You’re right she has to manage the “Hillary is panicking” meme that the horserace callers are itching to start. This can easily turn against her if she doesn’t. But it’s a huge mistake for Bernie to say that. The “Hillary is in a panic” meme will only catch fire if the MSM thinks its their idea. They won’t report it that way if one of the campaigns does. That automatically moves them into their “on the one hand, on the other hand, whichever side is right this controversy isn’t going away anytime soon” default narrative.
What you’re describing could be called “national”, but to the extent that it’s “momentum” it only exists independently in a vacuum that is secondary and inconsequential compared to the momentum generated in our rolling presidential primary process that hops from state to state . Once the primary process starts, “national momentum” is largely elastic and defined by the outcomes of the primaries.
I guess I could dig through my college textbooks for you when I return home from work, but I really shouldn’t have to. The effect of momentum from having a rolling presidential primary process is well documented. Furthermore, it should be evident to you that the logic you’re deploying is flawed to the hilt. You can’t cite “delegate math” for primary contests that haven’t happened yet.
And my analysis of Nate Silver’s reference was a guess, which is why I said “probably”, not that it was a hard fact.
I agree, she’s done great in the debates, and most observers credit her with “winning” the first two. But I also think (and many observers seem to agree) that Bernie has done better in the debates as the debates have continued, with many scoring him as tying, or narrowly winning, the recent one (after which his poll numbers rose, by the way).
Hillary wants another debate before New Hampshire for obvious reasons – she’s trailing there and thus has something to gain and little to lose.
But if her polling continues to show solid leads in the contests that come after New Hampshire (such as in SC and NV and in many of the Super Tuesday races) then she may have little incentive to agree to additional debates at that point, as they would present more risk than benefit. If she and her team were 100% confident that additional debates would only help them because Hillary would be sure to “win” them, they’d already have agreed to Bernie’s offer. The fact that they haven’t suggests they recognize these additional debates could go either way. Meanwhile, Team Bernie knows that more debates could help him or hurt him, but as the underdog, trying to catch up, it’s to his benefit to take that risk.
Both sides are well aware of this dynamic, which is why Team Hillary is only committing to this one new debate in New Hampshire, and Team Bernie is trying to use the leverage of her desire for this debate to get her to commit to additional debates during the spring. Simply put, that is what this jockeying is all about.
Bernie’s best argument is that Democrats thinking “the stakes are too high and we can’t afford to take a chance” is how we lost in 2000 and 2004 and how we won in 2008. It’s how we got candidates in those races who were too afraid of losing to show the voters the their true selves, an Al Gore picking Lieberman as his running mate, afraid to talk about global warming or embrace Bill Clinton. It’s how we got Kerry not kicking the shit out of the Swift Liars right from the start rather than Dean who (insert easy counterfactual here). And it’s how Hillary lost the primary.
That’s the argument that goes right to the heart of Hillary’s support and goes straight to the political jugular, all without being in any way out of bounds or personal or in any way improper. It ought to be a core argument for him.
But the thing is, I don’t hear him or see him making it. And it makes me wonder, sometimes, if Bernie is really truly in it to win. I don’t question whether he’s ready to win if he wins, just whether he’s really, truly, in his heart in it to win.
Sanders Agrees To Unsanctioned Debate If Clinton Will Agree To Three Additional Ones
January 27, 2016
Contact: Michael Briggs (802) 233-8653
"… If Secretary Clinton wants more debates, that’s great. We propose three additional debates. One in March, April and May and none on Friday, Saturday or holiday weekends. And all of the three democratic candidates must be invited. If the Clinton campaign will commit to this schedule, we would ask the DNC to arrange a debate in New Hampshire on Feb.4."
