2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

pretty sure the Democrats are a house divided at this point. id rather have a coked out nic cage in the office than bloomberg.

Wouldn't we all?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Bloomberg buys his way in, meanwhile Tulsi polls respectively, is mentioned by Republicans and independents as the only democratic candidate who might capture their votes, owns Pete and Kamala in past debates and the DNC finds justification to exclude her from future debates.

It's almost as if they want to lose this thing.

 

[The Cat]

Wouldn't we all?

I would actually love to watch that state of the union address. Vote for Castor Troy.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Bloomberg buys his way in, meanwhile Tulsi polls respectively, is mentioned by Republicans and independents as the only democratic candidate who might capture their votes, owns Pete and Kamala in past debates and the DNC finds justification to exclude her from future debates.

It's almost as if they want to lose this thing.

Depends on if you think modern politics is truly defined by swing voters or if it's more about getting people on your side to actually turn out and vote for you. The former is certainly the traditional view, but I think the latter is more accurate. Hillary banked a lot on support from "Never Trump" republicans which never materialized.

I'd invite you to read this article.

An Unsettling New Theory: There is no Swing Voter

It mentions people who were never going to vote for Trump but voted for a third party, as well.

I do disagree with what's mentioned in the article about the person nominated not actually mattering, though I'm not sure if that's just author of the article's interpretation. I think different candidates can motivate people to come out and vote more than others, and appealing too much to "Never Trump republicans", for instance, can have a negative effect. Triangulation might have worked for a brief time in the 1990s, but the time for that is past.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Depends on if you think modern politics is truly defined by swing voters or if it's more about getting people on your side to actually turn out and vote for you. The former is certainly the traditional view, but I think the latter is more accurate. Hillary banked a lot on support from "Never Trump" republicans which never materialized.

I'd invite you to read this article.

An Unsettling New Theory: There is no Swing Voter

It mentions people who were never going to vote for Trump but voted for a third party, as well.

I do disagree with what's mentioned in the article about the person nominated not actually mattering, though I'm not sure if that's just author of the article's interpretation. I think different candidates can motivate people to come out and vote more than others, and appealing too much to "Never Trump republicans", for instance, can have a negative effect. Triangulation might have worked for a brief time in the 1990s, but the time for that is past.

I read it yesterday.

While I don't put a lot of stock in the idea of a massive bloc of swing voters, I do think there's always going to be a small segment of voters who usually vote for one party but are willing to vote for "the right" candidate from the opposition party. It could still matter in a close election, or in close districts.

More important than swing votes though is the enthusiastic vote. One Bernie supporter may have voted for Hillary but I can guarantee that's likely as far as their support went and they probably weren't out knocking on doors for Hillary or even trying to convince their friends and family to vote for her. Many of them likely just stayed home.

I've met a lot of Trump supporters who generally have low enthusiasm for him and seem to tolerate (at best) or cringe at his actions. I believe a lot of them would be swayed to vote democratic if the right candidate were nominated. Many have said as much to me. Those who aren't swayed will likely do the bare minimum and go pull the lever for him in November.

(this is why I think the Impeachment was a bad idea going into an election year when they knew they didn't have the senate votes to convict. It's possible that the overall enthusiasm for Trump would be lower than expected in his base come November had there been no impeachment, but coming out of the impeachment, I fear that enthusiasm may have been kicked up a few notches).

I agree the voting population can best be characterized as coalitions rather than three solid blocs of democratic, republican and swing voters. I've never met anyone who neatly fell into any one of those three groups. I've known supposedly staunch dems and repubs who weren't above defecting (case in point, a lot of older lieflong republicans in my family voted for the black man with the funny sounding name in 2008 over the war hero republican)

 

[ceecee]

I agree the voting population can best be characterized as coalitions rather than three solid blocs of democratic, republican and swing voters. I've never met anyone who neatly fell into any one of those three groups. I've known supposedly staunch dems and repubs who weren't above defecting (case in point, a lot of older lieflong republicans in my family voted for the black man with the funny sounding name in 2008 over the war hero republican)

No me either and I'm fairly familiar with at least state level politics. The GOP/RNC and the Dems/DNC want you to think there are only three solid blocks of voters and there is no such thing as a swing state or a swing voter anyway.

An unintended benefit of the implosion of the Iowa caucus - this vastly un-democratic process/institution can go bye. Once less thing on the list to get rid of.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I read it yesterday.

Cool.

While I don't put a lot of stock in the idea of a massive bloc of swing voters, I do think there's always going to be a small segment of voters who usually vote for one party but are willing to vote for "the right" candidate from the opposition party. It could still matter in a close election, or in close districts.

More important than swing votes though is the enthusiastic vote. One Bernie supporter may have voted for Hillary but I can guarantee that's likely as far as their support went and they probably weren't out knocking on doors for Hillary or even trying to convince their friends and family to vote for her. Many of them likely just stayed home.

People blame Bernie supporters for staying home and not voting, but what did Hillary ever do to court them? Imagine if she'd picked Sanders as VP instead of Tim Kaine. Like so much else, Hillary seemed to take them for granted.

I think there's also a lot of merit to the idea that "independents" are usually tied closer to a particular party than conventional wisdom might hold. It's not like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader were competing for the same pool of people in 2000.

I've met a lot of Trump supporters who generally have low enthusiasm for him and seem to tolerate (at best) or cringe at his actions. I believe a lot of them would be swayed to vote democratic if the right candidate were nominated. Many have said as much to me. Those who aren't swayed will likely do the bare minimum and go pull the lever for him in November.

(this is why I think the Impeachment was a bad idea going into an election year when they knew they didn't have the senate votes to convict. It's possible that the overall enthusiasm for Trump would be lower than expected in his base come November had there been no impeachment, but coming out of the impeachment, I fear that enthusiasm may have been kicked up a few notches).

Interesting. Do you think enthusiasm for him is a lot lower than 2016 (or at least before that impeachment)? If so, I think Bernie would not just win (which I think would happen anyway), but crush him.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

People blame Bernie supporters for staying home and not voting, but what did Hillary ever do to court them? Imagine if she'd picked Sanders as VP instead of Tim Kaine. Like so much else, Hillary seemed to take them for granted.

I think there's also a lot of merit to the idea that "independents" are usually tied closer to a particular party than conventional wisdom might hold. It's not like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader were competing for the same pool of people in 2000.

Yes, I've always been an independent more aligned with democrats than with republicans. That's kind of how it goes in a two party system though. Occasionally I align with libertarians but I think that aside from their economic platform, they're way more in line with moderate democrats than they are with the current republican party (pro gay marriage, pro legal weed, open borders, free trade, etc)

Interesting. Do you think enthusiasm for him is a lot lower than 2016 (or at least before that impeachment)? If so, I think Bernie would not just win (which I think would happen anyway), but crush him.

Yes, but difficult to quantify how much lower it is. I think it's almost always the case that enthusiasm drops for incumbent presidents when running for re-election. Obama didn't enjoy quite the same levels in 2012 as he did in 2008, but I think what worked in his favor was generally low enthusiasm for Mitt, plus Mitt's leaked comments about 47 percent of voters. I don't really think enthusiasm for Bill was any higher in 1996 than in 1992, just happened that Perot ran again, splitting the conservative vote, and also that enthusiasm was never that high for Dole in the first place.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes, but difficult to quantify how much lower it is. I think it's almost always the case that enthusiasm drops for incumbent presidents when running for re-election. Obama didn't enjoy quite the same levels in 2012 as he did in 2008, but I think what worked in his favor was generally low enthusiasm for Mitt, plus Mitt's leaked comments about 47 percent of voters. I don't really think enthusiasm for Bill was any higher in 1996 than in 1992, just happened that Perot ran again, splitting the conservative vote, and also that enthusiasm was never that high for Dole in the first place.

On an anecdotal level, it seems like the level of pro-Trump "noise" is much less than in 2016. If we can get a candidate in there who people are really excited to vote for (gosh, I wonder if there's anyone like that running), I'm pretty optimistic about Trump being a one term President. My past pessimism was because I thought Biden would be the nominee, which doesn't look nearly so certain now.

Lots of excitement (and trepidation) about tonight. I'll probably watch movies until like 10. Hopefully we'll actually have results by then.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I changed my mind. He may be worse, because he’s smarter than Trump. Doesn’t mean I’d vote Trump. Probably stay home and mourn the death of the facade of democracy if it ends up Bloomberg vs Trump. How depressing

As my local saying says "It is easy to hit rose bushes with someone else's dic*", but I am going to be open here. Even if that will probably be quite unpopular.
If for some reason this whole "Bernie + working class" thing fails the Bloomberg is probably the second most logical option. I mean realistically one more heart attack on Bernie's side and that could be gamer over (literally). Therefore consider alternatives:



Biden - too mentally old and too much baggage
Warren - doesn't know how to campaign, has "silly" baggage and probably would lose GE
Pete - pure talk and establishment, probably will lose GE
Klobuchar - ok if you really have to, but doesn't have enough enthusiasm
Yang - wouldn't win the nomination and perhaps will lose GE
Tulsi - wouldn't win the nomination.




I mean if you have liberal tendencies you will not vote for Trump either.
However next to Bloomberg all his talk on the level "I am rich" will look ridiculous, especially since Bloomberg will look as emotionally stable against him. Also rich gathering behind Bloomberg will greatly change the media partisan narrative in GE. While if he earned so many billions just maybe he will be smart enough to balance 1% and 99% in attention (considering 2016 and general social climate). I don't know too many details but it seems that someone evidently wants to turn USA into plutocracy and therefore you can at least have it out in the open for everyone to see it. Why bother with the middle man and noise in the system ?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I mean realistically one more heart attack on Bernie's side and that could be gamer over (literally).

Dick Cheney had like four heart attacks and he's still ticking along.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Dick Cheney had like four heart attacks and he's still ticking along.

I think you missed the whole point, at least this is what this quote it. I was playing the devil's advocate card but the thing is that despite pressing the agenda it might not be bad to put things in a perspective. There are plenty of unknowns ahead.

 

[Tomb1]

Sciencedaily is givin' Sanders great odds of another heart-attack...

Risk Of Repeat Attacks In Heart Patients Causes Concern For Doctors -- ScienceDaily

but odds of surviving it are very grim.

Cardiac survival rates around 6 percent for those occurring outside of a hospital -- ScienceDaily

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Just spent two days in Iowa. These poor folks are so embarrassed. They are very afraid that they will lose "1st in the nation" status.

Iowa makes a lot of money off the process, with candidates, staff, and media everywhere. My contacts mentioned that tensions were very high and one mentioned several fights between various supporters, including one in particular between staffers for Biden and staffers for Warren.

They really believe the caucus system might be done, even if they stay 1st....

 

[Virtual ghost]

Sciencedaily is givin' Sanders great odds of another heart-attack...

Risk Of Repeat Attacks In Heart Patients Causes Concern For Doctors -- ScienceDaily

but odds of surviving it are very grim.

Cardiac survival rates around 6 percent for those occurring outside of a hospital -- ScienceDaily

But if he is the only candidate that can perhaps help you in your life situation all of this means nothing.
There are too many of those that have nothing to lose in voting for him. Even if his age is a gamble.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

If nominated they'll definitely try to push Bernie to select a young moderate like Pete as his VP. I could even see the DNC allowing an easy path to nomination for Bernie, knowing he may bite it in his first term, thus paving the way for a moderate status quo VP to take over. They can say "look how progressive we are" as they bide their time waiting for his successor to take over. Kind of depressing, really, as they'd never let him choose a visionary or a progressive like Yang as his running mate, and I doubt they'd even let him choose someone closer to the center like Tulsi, since she's not the DNC insider favorite they'd want on the ticket.

So even if we get Bernie and he wins, let's not be too hopeful for the progressive utopia.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Elizabeth Warren's New Hampshire–Primary Stakes - The Atlantic

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Elizabeth Warren's New Hampshire–Primary Stakes - The Atlantic

She needs to drop out if she loses in NH. Otherwise she's only going to continue to split the progressive vote and it will benefit Bloomberg, Pete or Biden.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If nominated they'll definitely try to push Bernie to select a young moderate like Pete as his VP. I could even see the DNC allowing an easy path to nomination for Bernie, knowing he may bite it in his first term, thus paving the way for a moderate status quo VP to take over. They can say "look how progressive we are" as they bide their time waiting for his successor to take over. Kind of depressing, really, as they'd never let him choose a visionary or a progressive like Yang as his running mate, and I doubt they'd even let him choose someone closer to the center like Tulsi, since she's not the DNC insider favorite they'd want on the ticket.

So even if we get Bernie and he wins, let's not be too hopeful for the progressive utopia.

No way man.... you gotta BELIEVE.

j/k . I was wondering about running mates earlier, and you bring an interesting point.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

No way man.... you gotta BELIEVE.

j/k . I was wondering about running mates earlier, and you bring an interesting point.

Can you imagine the awesomeness of a Sanders Yang ticket?

Just thinking of the contrast between Yang and Pence on a VP debate stage is surreal.