US Presidential Election 2020

DreamsBurnDown · 25-04-2019 11:18pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

I would need convincing of that figure.
IMO some of those may have been Bernie supporters that couldn't or wouldn't hold their nose and vote for Clinton. But i doubt they represent a switch of party affiliation.

Why is it that people can't seem to grasp that 42% of American voters are Independent and are quite comfortable changing parties from election to election? Of course there are core Republican and core Democrat voters, but Independent voters are the largest group. While a majority might lean toward one party or the other, the historical evidence is they will switch if motivated.

It's on the 4th page of this report, 28.7% of white working class voters switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016, and a whopping 60% who had not voted in 2012 voted for Trump.

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-5/april/SocSci_v5_234to245.pdf

Fr Tod Umptious · 26-04-2019 1:32am

vetinari wrote: »

This has been shown to be wrong multiple multiple times. Elections are not about getting other party members to vote for you. They're about getting your own base out. Personally I think Biden is a poor choice from that standpoint. He's too old. The best comparison the Democrats can do is have a significantly younger candidate. Trump is currently showing serious signs of senility. Why run a candidate whom similar accusations could be leveled against?

It's an issue for the leading democratic candidates. Warren, Biden and Sanders are all too old. They need one of the younger candidates (60 or younger) to start gaining some traction. That will give them an advantage in the general election in terms of the comparison to Trump.

But nobody is expecting core GOP voters to vote Dem

What the Dems need to do is win back the voters, in the swing States, who did not vote for Clinton but would have voted Dem in the past.

Those voters are going to be white, working class, a little bit older and a bit conservative with a small "c"

Joe Biden is the only one who might deliver those voters in 2020 and might get Trump out of the White House.

Biden would be too old for a second term so fire away with progressives etc for 2024 but for 2020 if you want Trump out, Biden is the only man, and even he is not a guarantee.

vetinari · 26-04-2019 3:32pm

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The problem with your analysis is that millions of white working class who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched their vote to Trump in 2016.

Again, this is patently false. I'd wager that you know what you're saying is false but are saying it anyways. Total vote numbers were way down in the 2016 election. Trump won because of that, not because millions of Democratic voters voted for Trump. He won because circa 80 thousand Democratic voters didn't vote.

DreamsBurnDown · 26-04-2019 4:00pm

vetinari wrote: »

Again, this is patently false. I'd wager that you know what you're saying is false but are saying it anyways. Total vote numbers were way down in the 2016 election. Trump won because of that, not because millions of Democratic voters voted for Trump. He won because circa 80 thousand Democratic voters didn't vote.

So, you managed to combine six incorrect statements and an accusation of lying into one paragraph, well done.

1. Read the study I posted or at least the fourth page, it 100% supports what I said.

2. Total vote numbers were up in 2016 versus 2012, 137 million voted versus 129 million. Clinton got almost identical votes to Obama (-70k) but you have to look at it on a state by state basis, she got more votes in CA for example but lost the swing states because Independents switched or Democrats stayed at home.

3. Trump got 2 million votes more than Romney and more votes than him in 38 states. Of most significance, he got more votes in states like Ohio and Michigan where Clinton was (433k) and (300k) below Obama's numbers.

4. I didn't say Democrats switched to vote for Trump, I said voters who voted for Obama in 2012 switched to Trump. They are Independents who might normally vote Democrat but they switched in 2016.

I accept your apology for suggesting I am a liar.

marno21 · 26-04-2019 4:26pm

It would be wonderful if the "I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary" brigade might wake up for 2020. Sure, Hillary isn't perfect but is what we've got really any better?

"I can't vote for Biden because of his creepiness" - but the alternative?

Manic Moran · 26-04-2019 4:31pm

Kamala would make bits of him. A 3 decade state deputy DA/DA/AG isn't going to wilt facing a bully.

I don't think Hilary did either. Kamala's competence and character is not a problem. Kamala's background and reputation is.
To people not firmly in the Democratic camp, she is a San Francisco liberal, and a number of her San Francisco-friendly policies are going to follow her on the trail. Inherently this is a turnoff to a number of folks in the swing states. Enough to scupper her? Maybe, maybe not. But it is more of a handicap for her to have to deal with than her ability to stand up to Trump.

This article was on the front page of CNN a couple weeks back. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/kamala-harris-death-penalty-decisions/index.html

That's not the sort of reporting which a Presidential candidate needs to be facing. What's a swing state voter going to think of her policy on the death penalty? What's a swing state voter going to conclude her policy on the death penalty even is? Remember, even in California, it has a majority approval, in middle America, it's not much of an issue. Texas executed John William King this week, and not a tear was reported in the major broadcast news anywhere in the country (Approval and even cheering was reported, however).

It's not the only controversy. Also on CNN, a month ago, the article claims she was mischaracterizing an immigrant policy she supported in the past, which she no longer supports. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-immigration-policy-answer/index.html

That's not the sort of baggage which other candidates have. If these... well.. not exactly hit pieces, but not positive pieces are hitting CNN now before she's even the candidate, what's going to hit once she is? Combine that with her being from the showpiece in the rest of the US of "Why to not vote Democrat", her candidacy would be courting disaster.

The only thing in her favour seems to be that the Republicans are trying harder to alienate voters than she is.

Doctor Jimbob · 26-04-2019 4:32pm

marno21 wrote: »

It would be wonderful if the "I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary" brigade might wake up for 2020. Sure, Hillary isn't perfect but is what we've got really any better?

"I can't vote for Biden because of his creepiness" - but the alternative?

I'm concerned about this as well. I welcome the element within the Democrats who want to become more progressive, but trying to go too progressive too soon is going to result in Trump getting a second term. I know painting it as "too progressive" is unpalatable for some, but I think that's the reality of it.

vetinari · 26-04-2019 5:54pm

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

So, you managed to combine six incorrect statements and an accusation of lying into one paragraph, well done.

1. Read the study I posted or at least the fourth page, it 100% supports what I said.

2. Total vote numbers were up in 2016 versus 2012, 137 million voted versus 129 million. Clinton got almost identical votes to Obama (-70k) but you have to look at it on a state by state basis, she got more votes in CA for example but lost the swing states because Independents switched or Democrats stayed at home.

3. Trump got 2 million votes more than Romney and more votes than him in 38 states. Of most significance, he got more votes in states like Ohio and Michigan where Clinton was (433k) and (300k) below Obama's numbers.

4. I didn't say Democrats switched to vote for Trump, I said voters who voted for Obama in 2012 switched to Trump. They are Independents who might normally vote Democrat but they switched in 2016.

I accept your apology for suggesting I am a liar.

You're willfully misinterpreting the data. That would be what a liar does.
This article explains it pretty well.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#85fb03f53ab1

Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

vetinari · 26-04-2019 5:59pm

The biggest factor for the 2020 election to me will be how Trump is covered by the media.
He's still imo judged by too low a standard. What helped him in 2016 was that other candidates seemed to be held to a conventional standard but Trump was put in a separate category.

Compared to Trump, no scandal that a Democratic candidate has should be detrimental.
And yet like some posters have mentioned, Kamala Harris's past will be an issue, Biden's issues with women will be an issue, Warren's native American past will be an issue.

The danger is that the media will fall prey to the need for false equivalency and elevate any Democratic "scandals" to a similar level to Trump.

Also to add, this concern over a candidate being too progressive falls in the same category.
A progressive president will need Congress to pass any legislation.
Also, if judging honestly, the most radical progressive possible should still be a better candidate than Donald Trump.

DreamsBurnDown · 26-04-2019 6:26pm

vetinari wrote: »

You're willfully misinterpreting the data. That would be what a liar does.
This article explains it pretty well.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#85fb03f53ab1

I'm not misrepresenting anything, read the study I posted.

The article you posted was written a week after the election before any real analysis had been done. You can find hundreds of articles that argue the reasons why Hillary lost, but any honest article that's based on data accepts that white working class voters changing sides was a huge factor, along with a small change in core Democratic turnout.

It also doesn't address at all the point I was making, which was that 28.7% of white working class voters (who are 40% of all voters) switched sides from the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate from 2012 to 2016. If you don't think that between 6.7 - 9.2 million voters switching sides was a major factor in Trump winning then I can't help you further.

If those voters hadn't switched sides Hillary Clinton would have won in a landslide.

What you are basically arguing is that 70,000 Democratic voters who stayed home is more significant than ~8 million who switched sides. I have to assume statistics isn't your strong suit.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

marno21 · 26-04-2019 7:06pm

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I'm not misrepresenting anything, read the study I posted.

The article you posted was written a week after the election before any real analysis had been done. You can find hundreds of articles that argue the reasons why Hillary lost, but any honest article that's based on data accepts that white working class voters changing sides was a huge factor, along with a small change in core Democratic turnout.

It also doesn't address at all the point I was making, which was that 28.7% of white working class voters (who are 40% of all voters) switched sides from the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate from 2012 to 2016. If you don't think that between 6.7 - 9.2 million voters switching sides was a major factor in Trump winning then I can't help you further.

If those voters hadn't switched sides Hillary Clinton would have won in a landslide.

What you are basically arguing is that 70,000 Democratic voters who stayed home is more significant than ~8 million who switched sides. I have to assume statistics isn't your strong suit.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

Those 70k voters were also incredibly important. Had the small margins in MA/PA/WI been reversed, it would have swung the election the other way. There was likely enough people in those states (and likely a fair few in FL/AZ/NC, all of which had ~100k winning margins) that wouldn't vote for Hillary because they were too pure to do so, without one consideration for what their abstention has resulted in.

BluePlanet · 26-04-2019 7:21pm

vetinari wrote: »

You're willfully misinterpreting the data. That would be what a liar does.
This article explains it pretty well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#85fb03f53ab1

Joe Biden will suffer the same.
There is no one, beyond the closed circles of corporate Dems, that's actually excited to see another old, establishment candidate.

I'm starting to imagine another jerry-rigged primary to get the DCCC pre-approved candidate across, and another paltry turnout at the polls.

DreamsBurnDown · 26-04-2019 7:28pm

marno21 wrote: »

Those 70k voters were also incredibly important. Had the small margins in MA/PA/WI been reversed, it would have swung the election the other way. There was likely enough people in those states (and likely a fair few in FL/AZ/NC, all of which had ~100k winning margins) that wouldn't vote for Hillary because they were too pure to do so, without one consideration for what their abstention has resulted in.

Agreed they turned out to be decisive, but we wouldn't be having the conversation at all if so many hadn't switched sides. 7-9 million who switched sides is a far bigger question for the DNC to ponder than 70k who stayed home, as is the fact that 8 million voted for third party candidates compared to 2 million in 2012. It's actually quite stunning that the majority of people who voted didn't like either candidate.

The lesson for the DNC is don't run an unpopular candidate. Trump had the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in history at 61%, HRC was second highest at 52%. Hoping that your candidate will win because they are less unpopular turned out not to be a good strategy.

DreamsBurnDown · 26-04-2019 7:31pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Joe Biden will suffer the same.

He won't, Biden is quite popular and respected, especially in the rust belt. Whether he is the best Democratic candidate or not is another debate, but he would have beaten Trump in 2016 and is very likely to beat him in 2020.

BluePlanet · 26-04-2019 7:40pm

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

He won't, Biden is quite popular and respected, especially in the rust belt. Whether he is the best Democratic candidate or not is another debate, but he would have beaten Trump in 2016 and is very likely to beat him in 2020.

He can't bring minorities out, nor women, nor millenials.
He's old school and should stay retired.

marno21 · 26-04-2019 7:50pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

He can't bring minorities out, nor women, nor millenials.
He's old school and should stay retired.

This election won't be decided on who brings out minorities, women or millenials, just the same way the last one wasn't. Winning over white voters in rust belt states and purple states is far more important here.

If 100k minority/white/women voters in LA/NY stay at home it won't make a blind bit of difference.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Agreed they turned out to be decisive, but we wouldn't be having the conversation at all if so many hadn't switched sides. 7-9 million who switched sides is a far bigger question for the DNC to ponder than 70k who stayed home, as is the fact that 8 million voted for third party candidates compared to 2 million in 2012. It's actually quite stunning that the majority of people who voted didn't like either candidate.

The lesson for the DNC is don't run an unpopular candidate. Trump had the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in history at 61%, HRC was second highest at 52%. Hoping that your candidate will win because they are less unpopular turned out not to be a good strategy.

Indeed. It was disappointing to see Biden start off his campaign with a video condemning Trump's behaviour re: Charlottesville. HRC tried all that the last time around and it didn't work. Trump is a fairly well known quantity at this stage and I'm not sure what you can say about him that would turn people who aren't already turned at this stage.

BluePlanet · 26-04-2019 8:07pm

The demographics show the % of whites is shrinking every election cycle.
By running Biden they are playing to the always shrinking pool of voters, while masses of people stay home.
To break that cycle they need an energizing candidate like Obama was.
They need to get those stay-at-homes to turn out.

Biden can never do that.
If they want an old white guy, they should just let Bernie win the primary.
At least he has an actual message that resonates.

briany · 26-04-2019 8:20pm

I'd say Trump's tactic would be to tar Biden with the 'establishment' brush. He'll be referred to as something like Joe "Obama's 3rd term" Biden.
Really, though, will Biden have any policies that are radical departures from Obama, or will he run entirely on a platform of "I'm not Trump! I'm experienced. I'm presidential." etc. etc?

Something another poster mentioned above about getting Biden in for one term and then having a real progressive in for 2024 isn't really realistic, imo. American politics isn't set up for that to happen. Anybody whose points get too far from the centre ground is branded a lunatic or a raving madman or something similar, and if they're running on a Republican or Democratic ticket, those parties will do all they can to quell the tide. This happened to Trump as well, but a set of factors ended up favouring him. However, we don't know if it's something you can count on at all.

BluePlanet · 26-04-2019 8:25pm

I have never heard of any actual policy that Biden holds.
He strikes me as a total waffler.
Russian troll farms are probably cranking out De-Motivational memes with his face, right now.
It would not be difficult.

The Phantom Jipper · 27-04-2019 1:52pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

He won't, Biden is quite popular and respected, especially in the rust belt. Whether he is the best Democratic candidate or not is another debate, but he would have beaten Trump in 2016 and is very likely to beat him in 2020.

He can't bring minorities out, nor women, nor millenials.
He's old school and should stay retired.

What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.

BluePlanet · 27-04-2019 2:28pm

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.

Call it a hunch.
Kamala Harris maybe, but Biden has no chance here.

Watching his mug leading a panel of privileged, older, white males grilling a single young black woman plays very poorly for him.

How can he have any appeal to black voters, what are you basing that on?

pixelburp · 27-04-2019 2:43pm

Biden running is hubris, pure and simple. And while he may lead the polls now, I suspect once candidates get to debate each other he may find himself out of touch very quickly, shown up by Sanders, Harris, Warren or Booker (O'Rourke and Buttigeig will sink without a trace IMO). As I've said before, Obama was nowhere near the top of the polls when the 2008 primary started. Ditto Trump,I think, am less sure there but he was definitely a joke and wildcard.

batgoat · 27-04-2019 2:45pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Biden running is hubris, pure and simple. And while he may lead the polls now, I suspect once candidates get to debate each other he may find himself out of touch very quickly, shown up by Sanders, Harris, Warren or Booker (O'Rourke and Buttigeig will sink without a trace IMO). As I've said before, Obama was nowhere near the top of the polls when the 2008 primary started. Ditto Trump,I think, am less sure there but he was definitely a joke and wildcard.

Personally hoping for Harris or Warren tbh. Think they're strong and could win it. Plus I love Warren's policies...

eagle eye · 27-04-2019 2:51pm

pixelburp wrote:

Biden running is hubris, pure and simple. And while he may lead the polls now, I suspect once candidates get to debate each other he may find himself out of touch very quickly, shown up by Sanders, Harris, Warren or Booker (O'Rourke and Buttigeig will sink without a trace IMO). As I've said before, Obama was nowhere near the top of the polls when the 2008 primary started. Ditto Trump,I think, am less sure there but he was definitely a joke and wildcard.

Agree with all you say there except one thing, O'Rourke has a lot of charisma and I think he'll be a serious contender.
You are right about Trump too, he was an outsider and even when he was still in it with good support for the nomination he was dismissed by all.

pixelburp · 27-04-2019 2:55pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Agree with all you say there except one thing, O'Rourke has a lot of charisma and I think he'll be a serious contender.
You are right about Trump too, he was an outsider and even when he was still in it with good support for the nomination he was dismissed by all.

Oh, O'Rourke has charisma but IMO he's a paper tiger, and the little I've read up on him has suggested ties with lobby groups that might stick. His social media game is on point, but when debating with seasoned, more left leaning pros, may find himself quickly outgunned and outthought. Just an inkling and like I said I openly admit to having less info on him (and Buttigeig) than others.

4068ac1elhodqr · 27-04-2019 3:03pm

If the Dems had any sense, they would brush away all the old hat (and new well-meaning corner flag holders) candidates that are paper tokenism against the mighty Trump.

Instead select the chap with the most:'clearly universal, and attractive USP for each and every voter' if they want to win in 2020.

rossie1977 · 27-04-2019 3:18pm

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.

Biden actually quite strong among black voters and his 8 year association with Obama will help.

It's Hispanic voters he struggles with. AOC as VP would be perfect as she would appeal to demos Biden is weak but obviously she is too young to qualify.

Screen_Shot_2019_02_12_at_9.35.15_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2019_02_12_at_9.35.15_AM.png

2020 election comes down to who wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Harris, O'Rourke can't win 3 out of 3 there in my opinion.

The Phantom Jipper · 27-04-2019 3:55pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.

Call it a hunch.
Kamala Harris maybe, but Biden has no chance here.

Watching his mug leading a panel of privileged, older, white males grilling a single young black woman plays very poorly for him.

How can he have any appeal to black voters, what are you basing that on?

I'm basing it on polls that show him performing strongly with black voters, rather than hunches.

Danzy · 27-04-2019 11:02pm

If I had to call it, I'd say Biden as Pres. and Harris for VP.

Out of current crop.

Harris's bid weakness for VP is that the Dems will carry California anyway, so go for a VP from a swing state.

It will surely be a black woman he'll pick.

The modern Democratic Party activists are obsessed with skin pigmentation, it's poorer voting base is not but that doesn't matter in a nomination race.

I think the hill to climb for the Dems will be too steep.

is_that_so · 28-04-2019 9:52am

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

If the Dems had any sense, they would brush away all the old hat (and new well-meaning corner flag holders) candidates that are paper tokenism against the mighty Trump.

Instead select the chap with the most:'clearly universal, and attractive USP for each and every voter' if they want to win in 2020.

And that is who? Sounds more like a VR candidate to me!

One simple plan is what they need, pick someone who can beat Trump.

is_that_so · 28-04-2019 9:58am

pixelburp wrote: »

Biden running is hubris, pure and simple. And while he may lead the polls now, I suspect once candidates get to debate each other he may find himself out of touch very quickly, shown up by Sanders, Harris, Warren or Booker (O'Rourke and Buttigeig will sink without a trace IMO). As I've said before, Obama was nowhere near the top of the polls when the 2008 primary started. Ditto Trump,I think, am less sure there but he was definitely a joke and wildcard.

You could say that about most of them. He took long enough to make up his mind which suggests he needed some persuading or he was waiting for numbers to suggest that it is a runner. His ability to generate funds and name recognition will put him in the mix. I don't think Sanders is a good call and it would be a battle of the angry men, which Trump is likely to win.

Danzy · 28-04-2019 10:22am

is_that_so wrote: »

You could say that about most of them. He took long enough to make up his mind which suggests he needed some persuading or he was waiting for numbers to suggest that it is a runner. His ability to generate funds and name recognition will put him in the mix. I don't think Sanders is a good call and it would be a battle of the angry men, which Trump is likely to win.

He waited as it meant he was outside the restraints of being a candidate, strategic reasons.

He bitterly regrets not running in 2016 , I think he'd have won it then.Now less likely.

is_that_so · 28-04-2019 10:50am

Danzy wrote: »

He waited as it meant he was outside the restraints of being a candidate, strategic reasons.

He bitterly regrets not running in 2016 , I think he'd have won it then.Now less likely.

I don't think anything will be clear until they get into their primaries. They all look very shiny and convincing for now. I'm not sure about him but he does tick certain boxes and Trump is beatable. I do think there a risk that the Dems will make this more about themselves and what they stand for.

Danzy · 28-04-2019 11:04am

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think anything will be clear until they get into their primaries. They all look very shiny and convincing for now. I'm not sure about him but he does tick certain boxes and Trump is beatable. I do think there a risk that the Dems will make this more about themselves and what they stand for.

Trump is beatable but it less likely than his re-election.

Biden's danger imho is that his decades of public life will give his opponents plenty to finish him off. Stuff like plagiarizing speeches, opposing desegregation, his financial legislation pieces, his horrendously creepy approach to young girl's etc etc.

The Democratic Party is going to tear itself apart.

There is a vast gap between its well to do, largely white, activist base, who are obsessed with race, intersectionality, etc. The AOC fans versus the wider electorate of any colour or creed who are not well heeled. The New York Times had a good piece on it.

This is a massive problem for parties on the Left all over the Western world, the class divide between activists and their voters.

One could argue that there are 3 parties now in the Dems and all are significant in size and loath each other.

If they lose in 2020, they'll be out for another 2 terms.

Lots of time to talk about impeachment and Mueller then and just as useful.

4068ac1elhodqr · 28-04-2019 1:10pm

is_that_so wrote: »

And that is who? Sounds more like a VR candidate to me!
One simple plan is what they need, pick someone who can beat Trump.

The chap that's offering (everyone) a free $1,000 per month {$48,000 over the term}, and all for 'nuttin. He's well aware of both 'VR', but moreso automation - hence the free cash on a plate being offered to all.

If there is a more 'universal' (and attractive) USP than this, simply haven't heard of it yet.

Has been well backed (along with Trump) on the markets, and with some time to go, odds will only reduce further, once his offer is pondered over in the lower-literate inner city bars and dustbelt drive-ins.

'Old hat' folks such as Biden/Sanders simply don't have a chance.

Would view Beto is the only sensible alternative rival to Mr.Yang (Pete is good too, but a slight novelty).

Else the media orgs can look forward to more years of sensational 'triumpant' headlines to edge their share prices higher, amist their own disapproval.

rossie1977 · 28-04-2019 4:19pm

Danzy wrote: »

Trump is beatable but it less likely than his re-election.

Biden's danger imho is that his decades of public life will give his opponents plenty to finish him off. Stuff like plagiarizing speeches, opposing desegregation, his financial legislation pieces, his horrendously creepy approach to young girl's etc etc.

Meh, regardless who emerges in primary something is going to be held against them. Its laughable though that Trump has so much baggage but his supporters don't hold any of that against him...

The Democratic Party is going to tear itself apart.

Based on what? Dem party are more united now than Republicans were in 2014-16. I have yet to see fights breaking out between Dem members and I am sure the Dem national convention next year will go off with alot less fireworks than Republican one in 2016 did.

For a party on the verge of tearing itself apart they did ok in the midterms just gone!

There is a vast gap between its well to do, largely white, activist base, who are obsessed with race, intersectionality, etc. The AOC fans versus the wider electorate of any colour or creed who are not well heeled. The New York Times had a good piece on it.

NYTimes wrote an anti progressive article..shocked I am

This is a massive problem for parties on the Left all over the Western world, the class divide between activists and their voters.

Dems aren't a party on the left so not really relevant. Some of their members are left leaning but as of now the ideology of the party is centre right.

One could argue that there are 3 parties now in the Dems and all are significant in size and loath each other.

Loath? AOC endorsed Pelosi as speaker of the House just a few months ago, surely if there was such a gap in the Dem party that wouldn't have happened. You see establishment Dems like Booker embracing AOC's policies.

If they lose in 2020, they'll be out for another 2 terms.

Do you have the lottery numbers? Nobody can predict the vote of 24/28 based on 2020. Fact is Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1988 and there are more registered Democrats than Republican. Couple that with the fact that the US population as a whole is becoming more progressive not more conservative. The fact you are predicting 16 years of Republican presidential rule is quite a statement.

Lots of time to talk about impeachment and Mueller then and just as useful.

I think the arrogance of Republican supporters might be their downfall. I have seen many Republicans here and elsewhere say 2020 is a guaranteed win. Limbaugh just said nobody can beat Trump.

DreamsBurnDown · 29-04-2019 1:15am

rossie1977 wrote: »

Dems aren't a party on the left so not really relevant. Some of their members are left leaning but as of now the ideology of the party is centre right.

Not left by European standards for sure. I agree though that it's true from Bill Clinton onward, Democrats became similar to moderate Republicans. Essentially there has been no significant difference in economic policies between Republican and Democratic administrations since Reagan, the battleground has mainly been social issues.

Republicans have moved further right though (to distance themselves from Democrats who invaded their space?), which is why I would argue Democrats don't need to shift left to win elections. Reconnecting with their traditional working class and middle class voters and the concerns of those voters are what matters, and the evidence of the 2018 midterms is that's the chosen strategy.

It cannot be denied that the Democratic party is much broader than the Republican party, spanning everything from conservatives, to liberals, to progressives, to democratic socialists. It still shouldn't be too difficult to unite around a common platform focused on jobs, wages, health care, immigration, gun control, etc. The question is who can best enunciate that platform to the electorate, we won't know that until the debates and early primaries.

Manic Moran · 29-04-2019 4:54am

It still shouldn't be too difficult to unite around a common platform focused on jobs, wages, health care, immigration, gun control, etc.

You make that sound so easy, as if people in San Francisco and Cleveland have identical opinions on things like immigration, gun control, etc.

Overreach is a problem. It is far better to stick with a message of fairly empirical matters which share broader support such as economics and healthcare, and be relatively silent on the ideological issues. If the ideological issues such as immigration, gay rights or gun control are a big issue likely to affect a voter's opinion, I suspect that folks are already one one end of the spectrum or the other, and unlikely to be swayed on the campaign trail, and may even be discouraged. As a result, better to be quiet on the matter. Is a Democratic candidate who is for single-payer healthcare, raised taxes on the top 1%, subsidised college, or whatever, going to got any fewer votes in Ohio or Wisconsin than one who is all of the above and, oh by the way, also wants to ban semi-auto rifles and prohibit States from working with ICE? The last two may play well in California, but the Democrats don't need votes in California.

CNN visited swing-state country two days ago. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/04/26/pennsylvania-swing-voters-trump-economy-battleground-marquez-pkg-lead-vpx.cnn
A definite sentiment of a swing against Trump, but not as big a one as you might expect. I am reminded of the BBC articles before the 2016 election, when their reporters went around the rustbelt. They were sounding the correct signals, but nobody wanted to hear them.

BluePlanet · 29-04-2019 2:18pm

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I'm basing it on polls that show him performing strongly with black voters, rather than hunches.

such as?

DreamsBurnDown · 29-04-2019 4:05pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

You make that sound so easy, as if people in San Francisco and Cleveland have identical opinions on things like immigration, gun control, etc.

Overreach is a problem. It is far better to stick with a message of fairly empirical matters which share broader support such as economics and healthcare, and be relatively silent on the ideological issues. If the ideological issues such as immigration, gay rights or gun control are a big issue likely to affect a voter's opinion, I suspect that folks are already one one end of the spectrum or the other, and unlikely to be swayed on the campaign trail, and may even be discouraged. As a result, better to be quiet on the matter.

I actually think it is easy, go back to the policy positions that Obama ran on in 2008 and 2012 and run a candidate with a high favorability rating.

I don't think "being quiet" on issues works, it's one of the main reasons so many stay away from the voting booth. If we take two issues, immigration and gun control, I think there's a lot more consensus on these issues now than a decade ago. 2/3 of Americans now rate Immigration as a higher concern than the economy (OK, maybe because the economy is doing OK), and 50% are unhappy with how immigration is being handled by government. The Obama platform of a route to citizenship for long term illegals in the country especially dreamers, deportation for those committing serious crimes, and robust border security I believe still resonates with a majority, regardless of state. Talk of open borders and disbanding ICE needs to be knocked on the head though, as neither have much support.

On gun control, 70% of Americans now believe gun control laws needs to be strengthened, including 50% of Republicans. A clear majority favor stricter background checks and waiting periods, a ban on semi-automatic weapons, limits on gun magazines, and a federal ban on mentally ill people buying guns. If 70% of people support something, there is little downside to making it your platform. Of course there will be states where gun control is opposed but those states won't won't vote Democrat anyway.

I agree though that come the election, health care and the economy will be the two big issues, and that should be the main focus for Democrats.

29-04-2019 4:13pm

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

The chap that's offering (everyone) a free $1,000 per month {$48,000 over the term}, and all for 'nuttin. He's well aware of both 'VR', but moreso automation - hence the free cash on a plate being offered to all.

If there is a more 'universal' (and attractive) USP than this, simply haven't heard of it yet.

Has been well backed (along with Trump) on the markets, and with some time to go, odds will only reduce further, once his offer is pondered over in the lower-literate inner city bars and dustbelt drive-ins.

'Old hat' folks such as Biden/Sanders simply don't have a chance.

Would view Beto is the only sensible alternative rival to Mr.Yang (Pete is good too, but a slight novelty).

Else the media orgs can look forward to more years of sensational 'triumpant' headlines to edge their share prices higher, amist their own disapproval.

Yang is no joke candidate, very smart guy with a very detailed policies that actually make a lot of sense. And he's not divisive like other candidates.

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-04-2019 4:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yang is no joke candidate, very smart guy with a very detailed policies that actually make a lot of sense. And he's not divisive like other candidates.

Agree, the most 'universal' thing is being offered, and to everyone. What's not to like?

Yang: "Here have an extra $1,000 each month, for nothing"
Liberal: "No sir, I will not. I will not take your nice free money, no way Jose".

He may be a bit too much of an early adapter, but come 2024 there will be millions upon millions writing him nice letters with flowers and pretty pictures on the front.

pixelburp · 29-04-2019 4:37pm

Yang this and Yang that; I've seen one interview with him and he seems well meaning ... but first, is be actually running, and second, as an independent, right? Just seems like a total pipe dream candidate

Yurt2 · 29-04-2019 5:38pm

Emerson Polling has Beto on 22%? Can't understand his appeal. Mayor Pete (my pick) gaining ground on Bernie "millionaires and billionaires" Sanders.

http://emersonpolling.com/

Health warning: margin of error of +-5.2%

Edit: Curiously, Beto is more popular in the 30-49 cohort than the 18-29 (where Sanders comes out on top). To be cynical, I guess Gen-Xers appreciate his skateboard/ Dead Kennedys / standing on tables and waving his arms shtick.

The Phantom Jipper · 29-04-2019 5:40pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

such as?

This is an interesting read for a bit of an insight into where black voters are currently leaning.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-voters-like-bernie-sanders-just-fine-they-just-might-like-other-candidates-more/

The Phantom Jipper · 29-04-2019 5:42pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Emerson Polling has Beto on 22%? Can't understand his appeal. Mayor Pete (my pick) gaining ground on Bernie "millionaires and billionaires" Sanders.

http://emersonpolling.com/

Health warning: margin of error of +-5.2%

This is in his home state of Texas though? He seems to be floundering around on 5ish% in most national polls that I've seen, and deservedly so in my opinion.

Castro at 4% in Texas is diabolical. Why he's even in the race to begin with is a mystery.

Yurt2 · 29-04-2019 5:59pm

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

This is in his home state of Texas though? He seems to be floundering around on 5ish% in most national polls that I've seen, and deservedly so in my opinion.

Castro at 4% in Texas is diabolical. Why he's even in the race to begin with is a mystery.

Didn't spot that it was Texas only, thought it was a national sample. Oops.

Yurt2 · 29-04-2019 6:16pm

For perspective, at about this time in the race in 2007, Obama was polling at in or around 25% (Klinton was way out ahead in the mid-40s) with Dem voters for the nomination, and he enjoyed 80% name recognition among the general population.

None of the 'others' (those being not Biden or Sanders) enjoy a name recognition anything like that I'd suspect. Even political veteran Warren.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/103495/election-summary.aspx

Manic Moran · 29-04-2019 6:29pm

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I actually think it is easy, go back to the policy positions that Obama ran on in 2008 and 2012 and run a candidate with a high favorability rating.

I don't think "being quiet" on issues works, it's one of the main reasons so many stay away from the voting booth. If we take two issues, immigration and gun control, I think there's a lot more consensus on these issues now than a decade ago. 2/3 of Americans now rate Immigration as a higher concern than the economy (OK, maybe because the economy is doing OK), and 50% are unhappy with how immigration is being handled by government. The Obama platform of a route to citizenship for long term illegals in the country especially dreamers, deportation for those committing serious crimes, and robust border security I believe still resonates with a majority, regardless of state. Talk of open borders and disbanding ICE needs to be knocked on the head though, as neither have much support.

On gun control, 70% of Americans now believe gun control laws needs to be strengthened, including 50% of Republicans. A clear majority favor stricter background checks and waiting periods, a ban on semi-automatic weapons, limits on gun magazines, and a federal ban on mentally ill people buying guns. If 70% of people support something, there is little downside to making it your platform. Of course there will be states where gun control is opposed but those states won't won't vote Democrat anyway.

I agree though that come the election, health care and the economy will be the two big issues, and that should be the main focus for Democrats.

The problem is that you are using national polling and attempting to assume that that is how swing state voters think. It doesn’t matter what the twenty million people in LA and San Francisco areas think of semi-auto rifles or border crossings, when the 300,000 voters in Swing-state Pittsburgh are actually voting for Democrats who advertise that they own and shoot them, and who are a little less tolerant of illegal immigration than Californians are.

This is the dilemma that the Democrat party faces. The reachable voters in swing areas are what in Europe may be termed social democrats. Amendable enough to state provided policies and benefits, but ideologically a little more conservative. But the big dollars are coming from the more progressive areas.

So, again, what is the benefit to having a position beyond minimalist? Which current Democratic candidates are being talked about at the national level who are for background checks on all sales, but do not go as far as wanting to ban certain firearms popular in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc? How many have announced support for increase in border security, even while talking about pathways for DACA recipients? https://www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/democratic-candidates-tune-out-voter-anxieties-over-border-security/article_8ee6c8db-53d2-5212-b60c-eec27fe8b3fb.html or https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/2020-Democrats-grapple-with-immigration-message-13746205.php?psid=1DsUy Right now, all you hear is “oppose the wall” and “pathway to citizenship”. That is not the only thing voters in swingable states want to hear. The candidates have to look at what the swig staters are thinking, not what the national polls are saying.

The bottom line is that to win, you need to if not reach out to swing state voters, at least not turn them off. Trump is managing to turn off a number of them, no need to copy him and give him a chance.

Itssoeasy · 29-04-2019 6:48pm

The democrats need to pick the best candidate to beat trump. If they start trying to find one in the field that’s the political equivalent to fresh snow and ticks every box that the many parts of the Democratic Party want then they will fail.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments