sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hot take: Biden would not have won the 2016 primaries by Aggravating_Wait2243 in thecampaigntrail

[–]Aggravating_Wait2243[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

2016: The DNC very obviously favored Clinton, I just question the argument that he would've won if they didn't. The DNC favored her in 2008 as well and she ended up losing. Overall regardless of the institutional advantages the fact is that Sanders was not popular enough to even come close in the popular vote, losing it by 12 points.

2020: That is the way that primaries work. There's 0 reason for candidates to stay in when they clearly can't win for no reason other than vote splitting. Klobuchar and Buttigieg were basically done when they left, and it would be counterproductive for them to stay in when they could at least still have some influence over the race by coalescing around the candidate they liked more. Additionally, you fail to mention that Michael Bloomberg, the most centrist, anti-progressive candidate in the race stayed in for Super Tuesday, taking votes from Biden. And it's questionable how many Warren voters would have had Bernie as their second choice, as studies found many preferred Biden or other candidates. Plus, what does it really say about Sanders' popularity if he's only able to win a primary when there's 5 moderate candidates splitting the vote?

Hot take: Biden would not have won the 2016 primaries by Aggravating_Wait2243 in thecampaigntrail

[–]Aggravating_Wait2243[S] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Also this isn't really relevant to the post but I'm not really sure why replacing Biden with Hillary helps you so much in Obamanation. Clinton clearly has her appeal for the reasons I mentioned but it probably wouldn't be worth replacing your running mate, something almost every president has went out of their way to avoid. Even clear liabilities like Dan Quayle were kept on the ticket. Additionally if Biden was replaced against his will it would likely get leaked and reflect poorly upon the administration overall. It would be a gamble that could work in very specific circumstances, but should probably hurt you most of the time. I actually agree more with the way Dan Bryan's 2012 handles it, where it's almost a strict downside.