The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee

[Agema]

But... Castro was only evil... he did nothing to help his people. It's why he stayed in power for so long...

He was in numerous ways pretty unpleasant.

People do forget that Communist systems still broadly managed to provide life improvements for their citizens. It is more accurate to say that it was less successful than capitalism in the 20th C. than that it "failed". They also perhaps forget that economic growth is not the only reason people may choose a political/economic system.

The USA's campaign against Cuba is in my view an absurdity - it has long passed into mere petty vindictiveness. I'd actually put its hostility to Iran in the same category: something kept alive by historical sentiment rather than appropriat modern day pragmatism or realism. But that's the thing: appealing to sentiment wins elections, even if it's obsolete 40+ year old sentiment.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

But... Castro was only evil... he did nothing to help his people. It's why he stayed in power for so long...

He was in numerous ways pretty unpleasant.

People do forget that Communist systems still broadly managed to provide life improvements for their citizens. It is more accurate to say that it was less successful than capitalism in the 20th C. than that it "failed". They also perhaps forget that economic growth is not the only reason people may choose a political/economic system.

The USA's campaign against Cuba is in my view an absurdity - it has long passed into mere petty vindictiveness. I'd actually put its hostility to Iran in the same category: something kept alive by historical sentiment rather than appropriat modern day pragmatism or realism. But that's the thing: appealing to sentiment wins elections, even if it's obsolete 40+ year old sentiment.

They are just upset that they lost their Casinos and all other Capitalist ventures they had planned for Cuba. Cuba was all but a US puppet state under the Batista dictatorship.

But the problem with Castro is that he fought because he was on the wrong side of the dictatorship, not that there was a dictatorship.

 

[TrulyBritish]

1) The rise in approval in the article proper refers to two Gallup polls which now show net-positive. The article itself notes that in the aggregate Trump's approval is at 45% (to a net of -6, up from -12) which is consistent with what Avnger stated, making neither of you wrong per se.

Pointing out that the current number being reported is a recent blip that may disappear and does little on its own to move the average for his whole term is perfectly valid. But I did in fact say "at the moment", and calling me a liar is a bit of a step beyond making that point.

As I said, I'm not weighing in on either side, just providing the context.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Polls have been closed for a few hours an most outlets are calling South Carolina with 50% reporting, with Biden having a substantial lead over Sanders. I'll update the results in the morning.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

MSNBC is reporting that Tom Steyer is dropping out of the race. Waiting on confirmation.

EDIT: It is confirmed

 

[Elfgore]

Ick, looks like Biden had a solid turnout in South Carolina. Looks the polls finally agreed with him for once. Hopefully Bernie can keep a solid lead after Super Tuesday.

 

[Agema]

South Carolina: Biden wins on 48%, Sanders a far distant second on 20%.

Of the others,

Steyer - 11% (and has dropped out of the race)
Buttigieg - 8%
Warren - 7%
Klobuchar - 3%

Rumours are that Buttigieg and Klobuchar are assessing whether continue, although Klobuchar has publicly vowed to go into Super Tuesday. If Biden recovers, it's potentially the end of Bloomberg, too.

 

[Pseudonym]

Biden has been polling at around 30% nationally for most of last year and is still hanging on in second place. Those voters had to be somewhere. Guess it was South Carolina. Word has it that Biden invested heavily there and not enough in other states, hoping that winning SC big would get him media attention and would show that he is electable. We'll see if that gambit payed off on Tuesday.

 

[Agema]

Biden has been polling at around 30% nationally for most of last year and is still hanging on in second place. Those voters had to be somewhere. Guess it was South Carolina. Word has it that Biden invested heavily there and not enough in other states, hoping that winning SC big would get him media attention and would show that he is electable. We'll see if that gambit payed off on Tuesday.

Biden is known to be strong with African American voters; SC has a very high proportion of them, plus Biden benefitting from endorsements from local bigwigs.

I do think this win is extremely important, because centreist Democrats want a "stop Sanders" candidate, and that will be either Biden or Bloomberg. I think a lot of these voters are not highly invested in either of the two, and will simply back the best option. SC means Biden goes into Super Tuesday looking like a major contender, whereas had he had a poor performance it would probably have destroyed confidence in him and ensured his eclipse. Sanders can be disappointed to have not done better, but the only real loser of the night was Bloomberg.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Apparently a Clyburn endorsement carries SC. Alright. Interestingly, Bernie won more votes in SC this time than in 2016.

Biden has been polling at around 30% nationally for most of last year and is still hanging on in second place. Those voters had to be somewhere. Guess it was South Carolina. Word has it that Biden invested heavily there and not enough in other states, hoping that winning SC big would get him media attention and would show that he is electable. We'll see if that gambit payed off on Tuesday.

Biden is known to be strong with African American voters; SC has a very high proportion of them, plus Biden benefitting from endorsements from local bigwigs.

Strong, but as of recent actually behind nationally.

I do think this win is extremely important, because centreist Democrats want a "stop Sanders" candidate, and that will be either Biden or Bloomberg. I think a lot of these voters are not highly invested in either of the two, and will simply back the best option. SC means Biden goes into Super Tuesday looking like a major contender, whereas had he had a poor performance it would probably have destroyed confidence in him and ensured his eclipse. Sanders can be disappointed to have not done better, but the only real loser of the night was Bloomberg.

Voters themselves appear to be humorously resistant to this sort of analysis. But absolutely this is very important for Biden's support among those who are opposed to Bernie Sanders- primarily the elite democratic establishment.

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1233924691603132417

 

[Agema]

Strong, but as of recent actually behind nationally.

Relatively much superior to Sanders, in that Biden is pretty much evens for the black American vote with Sanders nationally, despite being about half as popular with all voters.

Voters themselves appear to be humorously resistant to this sort of analysis.

There aren't absolutes, sure. But Biden and Bloomberg's supporters both have Sanders underrepresented and each other overrepresented as second choices.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Honestly, it seems like Biden and Bernie are going to be the two main players here, at least that's what I think the best outcome would be. Honestly, I just want Pete and Bloomberg to crash and burn, I don't want them as president and I'm pretty sure they won't win against Trump.

 

[dreng3]

Electability seems to be the returning question here, and I feel that the other candidates have tried to smear Bernie pretty hard in the week gone by.

My fear is that if Bernie ends up being the candidate the republicans will already have a wave to ride on with the attacks.

 

[SupahEwok]

Electability seems to be the returning question here, and I feel that the other candidates have tried to smear Bernie pretty hard in the week gone by.

My fear is that if Bernie ends up being the candidate the republicans will already have a wave to ride on with the attacks.

Framing the key issue around "electability" has been a mistake from the Dems' part from the beginning. Framing the election around beating Trump as opposed to fixing the country and solving the issues inspires nobody, and just comes off as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump has few enough strengths, it is repeatingly baffling that the Dems insist on playing to them.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Honestly, I just want Pete and Bloomberg to crash and burn,

You partially got your wish. Pete is out of the race now.

Also I can't decide if I should cross party lines since my state has an open primary. I'm leaning towards no, but it's a tempting prospect.

 

[Marik2]

I was hoping Saelune would have been here for election season. And I am crossing my fingers for Bernie. I do hope this will be his comeback.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I wonder if Pete was asked to drop out so the DNC could early consolidate behind Biden? Man I hope we don't get the sundowner in the general election. I'm pretty sure only Bloomberg would be a worse choice.

 

[Marik2]

Please don't let this be a repeat of 2016.

 

[Asita]

Electability seems to be the returning question here, and I feel that the other candidates have tried to smear Bernie pretty hard in the week gone by.

My fear is that if Bernie ends up being the candidate the republicans will already have a wave to ride on with the attacks.

Framing the key issue around "electability" has been a mistake from the Dems' part from the beginning. Framing the election around beating Trump as opposed to fixing the country and solving the issues inspires nobody, and just comes off as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump has few enough strengths, it is repeatingly baffling that the Dems insist on playing to them.

Not really, actually. While there's an argument to be made about the virtues of cynically appealing to electability, "TDS" (Particularly as it applies here) is more based in pundit spin than reality. To make a long story short, conservative pundits have been trying to make some variant of "liberal hysterics" catch for as long as I can remember. "Trump derangement syndrome" is just more of the same, and what success they've had with it is largely attributable to Trump (and more importantly his cabinet and political allies) giving them a veneer of legitimacy by consistently making similar claims about how any negative reaction to what he does is nothing more than some flavor of prejudice against him. The idea that "concerns about electability" comes off as such is ultimately little more than falling for that same spin. In truth, electability concerns are a pretty well-trodden consequence of our voting system.

When you actually apply any degree of scrutiny to the idea, being concerned about a candidate's electability is nothing more or less than tactical voting. "My first choice is Candidate A, but I don't think Candidate A can win against C, who is my least favorite option. I don't like Candidate B as much as A, but I fancy their chances against C better. So I'm going to support B's candidacy over A's." That's not something new to Trump's political career. It's something we've known and been complaining about for a good long time now. Allow me to illustrate:
The Ecology of Tactical Voting in Britain (Jan 9, 2013)
Tactical Voting in the 2010 British Election: Rational Behaviour in Local Contexts? (June 1, 2011)
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained (Mar 9, 2011)
Tactical Voting (last edited Sept 14, 2009)
In Defense of Tactical Voting (Summer 2004)
Thatcher calls June 11 Elections, Buoyed by a Big Lead in the Polls (May 12, 1987)

This last really isn't about tactical voting, but it does touch on it towards the end of the article. To quote the relevant section:

Spoiler

Talk of Labor and the Alliance working together in a campaign of ''tactical voting'' to deny Mrs. Thatcher a majority in a ''hung Parliament'' has recently waned as the Alliance has become more frank about its hopes of displacing the Labor Party as the main opposition force. Still, a dip below 38 percent in the total Conservative vote could cost Mrs. Thatcher her majority and open the way for her opponents to form a coalition government. That is regarded as the major risk she takes in calling an election at this point.

Truth be told, it's not even something unique to politics, it's part and parcel of negotiation in general. Even if you adopt interest-based strategies instead of positional ones, you're unlikely to get everything you want out of a negotiation, so you compromise and give up some things you want in order to to secure other things. It doesn't work so well in first-past-the-post elections due to the format enforcing a false dichotomy, but the principle is the same.

 

[Kwak]

Amusing and terrifying.