No that is not what is going on at all. He is trying to leverage the DNC aka Hillary into a commitment to do additional debates besides NH. This is smart as he knows he will loose some states and he will be in a weaker position to make these demands.
Perhaps Iâm mistaken, but I think the NH debate will only happen if Bernie agrees. If not, and the sponsors are willing to hold the debate with just Hillary and OâMalley, then I agree, it would look bad for him to have the two of them up there debating his empty chair. But if itâs just a matter of Hillary (and OâMalley, not that anyone cares) criticizing him for preventing the debate from happening, I donât think Bernieâs too worried about that, nor should he be. Hillaryâs complaint wilts in the face of the reality that heâs offered more debates and sheâs refused. So the fallout in that scenario seems likely to be a draw. Basically I donât see much incentive for Bernie to unilaterally back down on this one. I do see some incentive for both of them to compromise. So my best guess is thatâs what will happen. But itâs not out of the question that they both stick to their current positions, and the DNC does as well, this proposed NH debate doesnât happen, the candidates trade recriminations, and then we re-visit the debate issue after New Hampshire as the DNC has stated they will do.
I will add that there is another scenario where Bernie faces probably irresistible pressure to attend the New Hampshire debate even without a firm commitment to future debates. That would be if the DNC simply reverses itself and sanctions the NH debate. Bernie has already said he would attend any DNC sanctioned debates, and has specifically said heâd attend this one if the DNC sanctions it. So, why hasnât the DNC done that? Because after months of insisting the current debates were sufficient, and that the DNCâs debate schedule wasnât designed to help Hillary, it would be quite an embarrassing reversal, and an (even more) transparent admission of bias, if they were to suddenly agree to this additional debate â and only this one â which Hillary obviously believes might be beneficial to her. And of course this would put more pressure on the DNC to sanction additional debates after New Hampshire (which Hillary apparently doesnât want to commit to, but would have little choice if theyâre sanctioned).
This is why Hillaryâs campaign is so keen to get Bernie to agree to this additional debate, with no preconditions about future additional debates. That way the DNC can sanction the debate Hillary wants, justified on the basis that âhey, all three asked for it.â Then, if Hillary doesnât want to go along with any additional debates, the DNC can accommodate her by refusing to sanction any further debates, justifying that with âwell, that New Hampshire one was different, because all three candidates supported it.â It appears to me that this is the game HIllary and the DNC are trying to play. Team Bernie, understandably, isnât planning to just roll over and go along with it.
1 Like
Totally agree. Kasich has always been the guy I worried about. Heâs even wrapped himself in Jesus and embraced the ACA.
If he does well enough in NH (3rd place is well enough, remember Bill Clintonâs '92 2nd place âcomeback kidâ claim?), then the media will fall all over itself with âwho is John Kasich?â coverage since theyâve pretty much ignored him til now. To most of the voting public, heâs a blank slate which is an opportunity for establishment Repâs to define him.
A lot of big ifs before Kasichmentum takes hold, but I think Kasich represents the best shot the Repâs have in this election. Thankfully, they are just crazy enough to ignore the low-hanging fruit.
That would be a great argument, if that was actually Bernieâs position. But itâs not, so it isnât.
1 Like
His stance has always been that he wants more debates. He told Maddow on the air that if she scheduled this NH debate, he would be there.
Now that she has, he is shying away. Now that their is another debate, he is backing away from it.
Those are both pretty clear shifts in position. What reasoning he has for that shift is open to interpretation, but call me jaded, I am going to go with the more cynical reasoningâŚits a matter of political expedience.
Oh please.
This IS NOT about Hillary. It is all about berns being a crybaby wusss!
He wanted more, yet whines when offeredâŚtypical.
Gee, what a persuasive argument. Positively Trumpian in its logic and maturity. You âwin.â
1 Like
The oddâs are too long on Kasich winning the nomination for me to worry about him.
For the argument that Rubioâs the guy to worry about check out this 538 article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-rubio-or-bust-for-republicans-who-want-to-win/
Bernie is proposing 4 additional debates, including the one Hillary wants. Hillary is proposing just the one, which happens to be in the one state where sheâs struggling most. Those are the facts. People can draw their own conclusions.
Care to make a prediction on what actually ends up happening in terms of this proposed debates and future additional debates? Bernie gives in and agrees to this NH debate with no preconditions about additional debates? Hillary gives in and agrees to additional debates in order to secure Bernieâs involvement in this NH debate? They compromise â some additional debates but not as many as Bernie wants, and/or not stretching as late into the campaign season as Bernie wants?
Or perhaps the DNC swallows its pride and goes ahead and just sanctions this proposed New Hampshire debate (which Bernie has already said heâll attend if they do), takes the hit for appearing to favor Hillary, and moves on?
Some other possibility?
Not being snarky, Iâm genuinely curious, since Iâm not at all sure myself.
The campaigning is getting heated and negative, so I actually hope they donât do any more debates. Saw a clip last night of the infamous âyouâre likable enough, Hillaryâ from 2008. We donât need any more of those.
I am pretty confident that Bernie will never go anywhere near as negative on Hillary as she and Barack went on each other in 2008. And we were able to come back together and win that election. I think weâll be just fine.
Feel better?
Berns is the one wanting more debates. When he finally gets one, he whines and refusesâŚhence, crybaby wusss!
Well, looks like compromise won out. Bernie will debate in New Hampshire, Hillaryâs camp committed to additional debates in the spring. Both sides, of course, will declare victory.
http://www.unionleader.com/Clinton,_Sanders,_O%26%238217;Malley_agree:_Debate_in_NH
Hillary wanted the New Hampshire debate, she got it. Bernie wanted additional debates in the coming months, it sounds like he will get them. So unless Hillary tries to renege on the latter (I donât think she will), it looks like a good outcome for both sides. (And for OâMalley of course, not that I think it will do him any good in the end).
Edit: Looks like the âdanceâ isnât quite over:
What I find humorous is that the effect of momentum that Iâm citing isnât even remotely controversial, yet youâre treating it like it is. In fact itâs a reality, and itâs why thereâs always talk questioning why the early primary states have such an outsized influence on the presidential primary process when their numbers of electoral votes doesnât justify their influence.
Like I said, what Iâm stating here is common knowledge and an effect of the rolling presidential primaries that we have in our country. Iâm really surprised that you seem so befuddled about such a staple of our political process. I generally expect your posts to be more informed Davey.
So if youâre aware of the very real effect of momentum on the primary process, youâd understand that the things youâre citing like âsubstantial and consistent leads in pollingâ with later states is really insignificant compared to effect of early momentum in the first 4 states because those âsubstantial and consistent leadsâ are subject to immediate change based on the narrative and generated momentum of the early primaries.
Trying to dispute the effect Iâm referring to is like trying to argue that Iâm not citing enough evidence to you that the world is round. Itâs hilarious in a certain sense that youâre even demanding proof of such a well known aspect of our primary process. It doesnât even require to look back that far, all the way back to 2008 only, where the inevitability of Hillary was turned on its head after Obama surpassed expectations earlier and changed the entire narrative of the race.
So Iâm really not sure what your point is, but itâs surprising coming from you that you would dispute my point that Sanders has a shot should he exceed early expectations. I find it fascinating that anyone would try to perpetuate the myth of Clinton inevitability given what happened last time and especially in our current political climate that has been entirely unpredictable and has already seen Bernie way surpass expectations.
The âmomentumâ effect you are describing happened in precisely one electionâŚ1976 with Jimmy Carter. At that time, Iowa had just recently been moved up to the front and was largely ignored by everyone. Carter rolled the dice and went big in Iowa,and wonâŚand the propelled him to the front of the papers and eventually to winning the nomination.
Since then, going big in Iowa is done because 1) you have a year to campaign thereâŚa luxury that disappears very quickly after it and 2) because strategically, nobody wants to allow another Carter to emerge like that.
But as I pointed out elsewhereâŚIts not been repeated; if anything Iowa has become a killing field for campaigns. Santorum in 2012, Huckabee in 2008, Bob Dole AND Pat Robertson (both finished ahead of the eventual winner H.W Bush) in 1988, H.W in 1980
The outcome on the Democratic side is just as bleak since Carter. Gephardt in 1988, and Tom Harkin in '92 (who won Iowa with a whopping 72%âŚBill Clinton posted just a lil over 2%). The other wins, with the exception of Obama, were all by the favored frontrunner who went on to win the nomination (a possible argument could be made for Kerry in '04, but he was hardly an unknown). And Obama didnât start a momentum effectâŚthe '08 campaign was one of (if not THE) longest and hardest fought primary campaigns. He became a real contender because of Iowa, but he hardly steamrolled through the primary.
So no, I am not demanding proof of well known effect. Quite the opposite. I am showing you that empirically, the âmomentum effectâ you are describing doesnât exist. Its one of those nugget of âconventional wisdomâ you were accusing Silver of swallowingâŚand its not true.
And yes, you can google each and every one of the races I mentioned. Here is a link in case you donât want to bother with the effort.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/caucus-history-past-years-results/
Eh? You just confirmed my point.
He became a real contender because of Iowa, but he hardly steamrolled through the primary.
Not sure where you got the idea of âsteamrollingâ. I never predicted Sanders would steamroll anyone. Again, my point is that should he exceed expectations then heâs got a shot just like Iowa and the early primary performance of Obama gave him a legit shot at sustainability that made the '08 primaries a race.
And again, I"m not strictly talking about Iowa as you seem to think. Iâm talking about the entire narrative the comes out of those first 4 early states and the momentum generated from exceeding expectations. Momentum in the rolling primary process is real, and itâs something that Bernie is looking to capitalize on given his recent surges and outperforming expectations in Iowa. So Iâm still really not sure what youâre trying to argue about.
As for Silver, I think youâre just being stubborn. Silver has been consistently wrong about Trump based on dogmatic beliefs he held about the candidate that had nothing to do with the number based analysis that he made his fame on. This really isnât up to dispute. So if you read the article I posted from Slate youâd see that his taking to conventional wisdom from that book too seriously is a legitimate source of speculation as to where that dogmatism came from. Like I said, itâs opinion and I even qualified it as such by citing it as âprobableâ, but itâs a decent educated guess given how wrong heâs been.
Look, you obviously have your true believer goggles on and are intent on disavowing any discussion that Sanders is not poised to win the nomination. I am sorry you canât see that the âmomentum effectâ you are discussing has not happened since it happened once in 1976.
And for the record âmomentumâ does not equal âsustainabilityâ.
I read the article on Slate. I made my comments about it to someone else on this comment stream. Thatâs why I knew you had read it, you were basically parroting the same thing. In the future, its usually considered good style to link the actual article you are lifting your points from.
And if you read the article from FiveThirtyEight that I also linked, Silver discusses the book and his take on it, and how he agrees and disagrees with parts of it. The argument that Silver has gone all âconventional wisdomyâ by referencing an factual analysis of the history that parties have played in the nomination processes is completely off base. And this is coming from someone who has been known to criticize Silver on more than one occasion.
WTF? This is hilarious when I havenât said anything of the sort. You keep inferring your stilted and biased reading of what you think Iâm saying.
How does me saying Sanders has a shot if he can exceed expectations somehow translate to âdisavowing any discussion that Sanders is not poised to win the nominationâ. Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Iâve always tempered any idea of Sanders running away with it with the caveat that heâd need to exceed expectations. Youâre the one with this huge vested interest in pushing the hardline narrative of Clinton inevitability that I find particularly bizarre. Why do you think you have some special ability to predict the future?
I suggest you drop your weak attempt to browbeat and strawman my position as something I clearly never said. Youâre the one stifling discussion with you incessant appeals to pure fiction.
Nor are you even communicating coherently. So you commented on the Slate article to someone else, so thatâs how you knew I read it? How does that even make any sense? FYI: I DID provide a link to the article so you could read it. Are you really so pathetic that youâre reduced to accusing me of things I clearly never did? All you need to do is scroll up and see that I did provide a link.
Sorry but I think youâre losing it. No, I really couldnât be bothered tracking through the weird redundant comment structure on this site to read every comment you posted on this article. But like I said, I do find it amusing how youâre so adamant about Sanders having no shot based on your assessment of the delegate math, as if thatâs even relevant before a single vote has been cast. Just stop. Youâre really not adding anything to this discussion by resorting to fabricating my positions so Iâm over reading any more of your responses. Your self righteousness is really off the charts, you might want to consider toning it down.