Here's a Thought about Bernie's Inevitability
I read today that Elizabeth Warren may soon come out with an endorsement for a Presidential Candidate. And I thought 'that's curious' because an earlier endorsement would have made a big difference in the current standing of the race. So why would she withhold an endorsement until it would make a lesser impact? Assuming that the endorsement of Elizabeth Warren would have a significant impact on the race, it would seem that a 150-200 point shift in the current allocation of delegates would leave either campaign despondent. And I can see how it serves the party beneficially to keep both sides' supporters motivated and energized all they way until the convention. Really, it's better to let the loser be blindsided during the last few weeks.
This led me to reconsider all of the other events of this campaign in a different light. Was the current debate schedule foisted upon the Sanders campaign, or did they agree to it? Did the states rearrange their primary schedules before or after learning that Bernie was the opponent? Was the decision to triage southern states a calculated move by the Sanders campaign?
OK call me crazy but it looks to me like there is a possibility that Sanders is giving Clinton a lead. Judging by what her campaign has already done to get to +300, can you imagine what it would be like inside the blogosphere if Clinton was only ahead right now by +90? Isn't it better that the Sanders camp is getting a daily ration of humility?
Perhaps it's been known since last August that it would only seem like a horse race between Sanders and Clinton, but in the end Bernie's momentum would sweep into his most favorable terrain and easily trounce her in the homestretch. A lot of what has happened to the Sanders campaign can be viewed undesirably, as if they are a victim. But is it possible that some of these were strategic concessions, like giving up the inside rail?
Comments
I don't see Sanders holding back.
He is in this for us so I would be disappointed to know he wasn't putting in 100%. As for Warren, I wonder would it be more effective if she endorsed Sanders right before New York? Then it would be fresh. If she had endorsed him months ago then there would be no bounce from it, if she endorses before NY, she might make a difference.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
The party controls the primary
To paraphrase Stalin, it's the one that counts the votes that wins.
It is my understanding that the primary schedule was designed to place conservative states at the front of the season. In most years, poor primary performance means no money and you're forced out of the race. That way they maintain the turd (Third) way wing of the party. The DNC (Debbie Nominates Clinton) determines debates. A couple of additional debates were added when the Clinton camp wanted a debate before NH, one was the Flint MI debate and the other Bernie wanted in NY but it ended up in Philly. Most of the debates aired during low viewer times. That my memory of it anyway.
As to Sen Warren, I think she has made a decision not to endorse Sander or Clinton until the convention. I can't help but in my heart think she is pulling for Bernie, but the Clintons are powerful enemies and they are known for holding grudges and exacting revenge. Remember the powwow between Warren and Clinton before the election? I suspect that influenced her decision.
So no Bernie is not creating a victim strategy. He's doing his best to create a peoples movement. I hope you'll help us push the boulder up the hill!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
You got one thing right
The DNC wanted Bernie out of the race by now, that is for sure, and the primary calendar was heavily weighted to force that conclusion by now. And your recollection of the debate scheduling is accurate. Both of these are what I would call "strategic concessions."
What I would not call a "strategy" is the appearance of being a victim either of these two events, or more recent ones like Bill electioneering in Mass and Illinois. Like vote suppression in Arizona, or campaign subterfuge in North Carolina. If Sanders has any long term strategy here it's the role of Underdog.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
You got one thing right
twitchy trackpad double-post
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Been there.................................n/t
Yeah--
I don't see the Sanders campaign as that calculated. I wonder if he thought he might not even make it for a month until the small donor contributions started rolling in. As to Warren? I have been wondering and wondering what is the holdup? Was it that she thought she might weaken her own chances by endorsing Sanders before the Mass Primary? Mass is a Hillary state and perhaps she feared damaging her own status at home? That doesn't seem like Warren but politics being what they are. hmmmm. I can't see her endorsing Clinton for a second. There is some animosity there.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Warren plays her cards close to the vest.......
I have been a little disappointed with her decisions over time, but have allowed for her having information that I don't have, and playing the long game. Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, has thrown her hat in the ring and risked the venom of the DNC aka DWS. I would like to see Bernie announce her as a VP pick sooner, rather than later. I think she would lend a great deal to his run.
Tulsi for VP and then the 1st female president.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Her chance to make an impact has long since passed.
She blew it.
Of Course Warren Sold Out
Elizabeth Warren became a senator and was sucked into the machine. They all do. This is what makes Bernie so exceptional, he is a lion. The only way to change things is if we can build a progressive movement of support so they become beholden to us.
What will be will be
N.B. this comment was in reply to kharma, above
I really don't want to give the impression that I think Bernie isn't working this 100%, but resources aren't unlimited. It's well known that he conceded some states (S.C.) to focus on other ones (MI). Did anyone predict his crushing 80-20 wins in Idaho and Utah? What if those-in-the-know foresaw this a long way off and the only way to make it appear even is to stack the deck for Hillary in the beginning and put California last. You propose a good alternate explanation for why Warren has not endorsed as yet.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
IMO, that's ridiculous.
Bernie would not go through all of this for Hillary. Warren is being protected by Bernie and Warren, and I don't have a problem with that. If Hillary is the Pres, Warren is already on her shit list. If she endorses Bernie and he loses, she'll be lucky if they don't lock the doors to her office. If Bernie wins, she's the VP. If there is a test, it is of us. Bernie can't do squat unless the vote count makes an overwhelming case for him. Delegates that want to switch are still covering there asses. Bernie has to make it safe.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Have to agree with dkmich here
Warren has accepted a very important and challenging mission: get 60 public trough/corporate "donor" bloated Senators to vote for banking and campaign finance reform. Daunting to say the least. If Bernie is President he will need strong Senate leadership (Warren for Majority Leader?). She may well just be saying that she has accepted a mission, it is not accomplished, and she never gives up. Plus, she is young enough to run for President after Bernie.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
I am not a student
Of electoral history, but I would be interested to hear whether there was any historical precedent of a candidate intentionally letting the opposition win for awhile (assuming they hadn't been somehow paid off to do so).
It sounds like what a parent might do playing board games with a child, not like grown up politics.
Stay on track. Stay in lane. Don't throw rocks.
worked for Muhammad Ali
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire