2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by molson

So the battle for the soul of the Democratic party is basically senior citizens screaming unattainable promises at clouds v. vague young feel-good enthusiasm.

(And I guess Biden awkwardly standing around hoping both approaches fail).

Yup (smh) four more years of Trump for sure.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

What point are you even trying to make then? That Trump is going to win on the strength of the economy and Dems are doomed no matter who they put up, so why even bother?

I don't believe that. I think a lot of moderate republicans/independents are DYING for a choice that isn't Trump. They just need someone who will appear to not be rocking the boat on the economy and they will jump. Bloomberg or Biden would both fit the bill there. Sanders, however, is just too much of a change for them to handle. At the end of the day, you could roll out Mickey Mouse as the democrat candidate and the left will be out in droves to vote for him. You are going to get a good turnout from the left no matter what, the key is pulling away the middle who clearly does not like Trump but doesn't want to put someone else in who they think will destroy this good economy.

Approval ratings fluctuate. His is still, by and large, on the whole, historically terrible. There is a lot of time for Trump to piss people off again (and again, and again...). And he’s one market downturn from his one big platform to stand on collapsing him.

That's the thing with Trump. He pisses people off and makes a gaff every day. It's almost like the Boy who cried Wolf with him. He does so many stupid things that get constantly reported on that when he truly does something awful, people are just desensitized from it all. I've never really seen anything like it and I can't see anything that he does lowering his approval rating. The only chance for that is an economic downturn - and that just doesn't seem likely by November.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

....I think people are smart enough to differentiate. And the media is even starting to get wise and call it what it is, democratic socialism...

I think putting money on the American public being smart is a losing bet. When those ads come up every commercial break, on every Facebook or Google ad, screaming "Socialist" and turning Bernie into Casto, Miduro, Stalin, Mao, we can only hope the "smarts" show up. I believe that many of his positions can actually poll well, but when you add "socialist" to them, their support plummets.



We just might not in the end have a candidate that can take Trump running. Because what Billy said is true. The Democrats have never won the White House with having the youth turn out. What he didn't mention is the other factor. They have all been pretty moderate as well. You need the candidate to bridge the gap of the party to succeed. If you can get youth, but the older voters (which are the larger numbers by far) stay home or vote for the other guy, you can't win.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

You are going to get a good turnout from the left no matter what

That's not necessarily true. One of the big reasons that Clinton lost in 2016 is because black voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania did not turn out to the levels they did for Obama. Now undoubtedly part of that is voter suppression (Milwaukee especially) and other part of it is that no one is getting as much black vote as Obama. But you can't just automatically count on left turnout.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

You are going to get a good turnout from the left no matter what, the key is pulling away the middle who clearly does not like Trump but doesn't want to put someone else in who they think will destroy this good economy.

In 2016 it was assumed Dems would get a large turnout to defeat Trump. The reality was the young voters that turned out for Obama in 2008 stayed home.

Biden and Bloomberg will not get the youth vote. They'll stay home. Most see very little difference between Biden or Bloomberg and the GOP.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's not necessarily true. One of the big reasons that Clinton lost in 2016 is because black voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania did not turn out to the levels they did for Obama. Now undoubtedly part of that is voter suppression (Milwaukee especially) and other part of it is that no one is getting as much black vote as Obama. But you can't just automatically count on left turnout.

Comparing 2008 to 2016, black voter turnout was down 5.5% and 18-29 voting was down 3%. Those are significant numbers and both were expected to be higher because the assumption was there would be motivation to beat Trump.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Pete is trying to be everything for everybody. It sounds great at first, until you hear him make an exact opposite promise to someone else.

Pete is this year's Marco Rubio. He'll be finished when someone with 4% kamikazes on him like in Rubio 2016.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

In 2016 it was assumed Dems would get a large turnout to defeat Trump. The reality was the young voters that turned out for Obama in 2008 stayed home.

I don't think people really viewed Trump as having a legit chance to win and people hadn't seem Trump in action for 4 years as president. I think a lot of people stayed home because they weren't that excited about Hillary and the media had been telling them for months that Trump had no chance. I don't think those people will be making that same mistake in 2020 - even if a stiff runs for the dems.

Biden and Bloomberg will not get the youth vote. They'll stay home. Most see very little difference between Biden or Bloomberg and the GOP.

So, you think that young people who have been conditioned to think Trump is worst thing imaginable as President are going to stay home if Biden is the nominee but go out in droves for Bernie? I don't think it matters. The ones that care enough to vote, will do so. The ones that don't, won't. Bernie may get a few more young votes, but most will be voting against Trump anyway. The young vote rarely turns out - even for Obama. He got a much higher black turnout than youth turnout to win - and I don't see that black turnout for an old, crabby looking white guy. I do, however, see a chance for dems to pick off non-social conservatives who have been holding their nose to vote for Trump because of the economy. If they have a decent alternative, many will switch. It sucks voting for a guy you really don't like.

[RainMaker]

People who call for moderates to run have forgotten what happened to the last moderates the Democrats nominated. Hillary lost to a game show host and Kerry lost to one of the worst Presidents in modern history.

[ISiddiqui]

Is this when I point out that Barack Obama ran as a moderate in 2008? Heck, he ran to the right of Hillary Clinton on health care - being against the individual mandate.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who call for moderates to run have forgotten what happened to the last moderates the Democrats nominated. Hillary lost to a game show host and Kerry lost to one of the worst Presidents in modern history.

Kerry was an awful candidate and Hillary would have won if many democrats/moderates didn't stay home because they thought the election was in the bag for her. Obama ran as a moderate and got a ton of crossover support. W also ran as a "compassionate conservative" and also got moderates. It's rare a pure partisan candidate wins the presidency. Clinton, W, Obama and even Trump all ran as more moderate candidates.

There just isn't a lot of evidence of hard left/right wingers winning presidential elections. You turn off too many people and create a situation of fear/turnout for your opposition.

[JPhillips]

Kerry outperformed the fundamentals and almost won. Bush2 wasn't really loathed until into his second term. His approval rating was @50% during the election, and mostly a net positive.

[RainMaker]

I don't think Obama ran as a moderate who wouldn't rock the boat. He was pretty open about all the "change" he wanted. Sure he backed out of all that after being elected, but he ran to the left of Hillary in that primary.

[lungs]

Just turned on the debate. Biden looks even older than I thought.

[GrantDawg]

I don't know what the polls will say about who won the debate, but MSNBC had a bunch of undecided New Hampshire voters in an audience to talk after the debate. If what they are saying holds, Amy Klobuchar had a great night.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

She committed to kicking Trump's ass all night. That seems like a good strategy given the Democratic opposition to all things Trump.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I don't know what the polls will say about who won the debate, but MSNBC had a bunch of undecided New Hampshire voters in an audience to talk after the debate. If what they are saying holds, Amy Klobuchar had a great night.

My impressions:

I was impressed with her. Sanders was nice and consistent, nothing noteworthy probably but he makes his points very cleanly and consistently, Warren just doesn't seem to do well in any of these, I've got nothing bad to say but really nothing good either. Biden talking like he's the only one who has ever introduced positive legislation in congress over and over and over just wears so thin on me at least. Mayor Pete flailed pretty bad in a couple spots - most notably when asked about legalizing all drugs even heroin, and on marijuana arrests in south bend being so disproportionate against blacks. I honestly don't know what to make of Steyer at all.

Klobuchar definitely impressed the most, but I don't think it's going to save her campaign. I feel like Warren is slowly fading away, which is a big deal for Bernie. I kind of feel like Biden didn't help himself recover any here which is a win for Mayor Pete.


Additionally, I feel like every single candidate completely failed when the conversation turned to race. Yang basically evoked MLK to pitch UBI and it felt horribly gross. All the other candidates just don't feel like they're speaking about anything in a way that is going to inspire anyone imo. I'll just quote a much more eloquent friend of mine here:

"When we talk about 'the african american' community, the debate drifts toward who will hand out the largest sums to most people, education, food stamps, etc. How dare we imagine that black people, latino peole, asian people as any other people do not wish to build a company, a career - to succeed and thrive and be competitive. They are not simply there to be looked after, or for us to save. It is up to us instead to empower."

Not a single one of these candidates seem like they get it, at least in their presentation at tonight's debate.its

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

She committed to kicking Trump's ass all night. That seems like a good strategy given the Democratic opposition to all things Trump.

Honestly, this is straight up, what we should be hearing. No holds barred. I'm gonna kick his ass, and he better be ready. That attitude and message could move mountains.

[bob]

So predictions for NH? Mine:

1. Sanders
2. Mayor Pete
3. Klobuchar
4. Biden
5. Warren

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bob

So predictions for NH? Mine:

1. Sanders
2. Mayor Pete
3. Klobuchar
4. Biden
5. Warren

Flip Warren and Biden. Which begs the question, how much will really bad showings in the first two states hurt Biden? He already has money trouble.

[Edward64]

Biden just has to keep things together until SC and then Super Tuesday. I really don't think the "socialist" message will work well against Trump so still hoping for Biden. I do wonder if Biden wins the nomination will Sanders and Warren supporters rally behind him in force.

Biden's lack of debate skills is problematic though. I also think Hunter is a liability now that Trump & supporters are relatively free to pursue that.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Biden just has to keep things together until SC and then Super Tuesday. I really don't think the "socialist" message will work well against Trump so still hoping for Biden. I do wonder if Biden wins the nomination will Sanders and Warren supporters rally behind him in force.

Biden's lack of debate skills is problematic though. I also think Hunter is a liability now that Trump & supporters are relatively free to pursue that.

Yeah I agree with all your points. It boils down to the Dems are screwed no matter what direction they go it seems. Maybe Bloomberg will be the savior of the D party.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Yeah I agree with all your points. It boils down to the Dems are screwed no matter what direction they go it seems. Maybe Bloomberg will be the savior of the D party.

Good note on Bloomberg. I would say he is #2 right now for me. I do want to see him in debates and understand his stances more before making a decision.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bob

So predictions for NH? Mine:

1. Sanders
2. Mayor Pete
3. Klobuchar
4. Biden
5. Warren

I agree, and I think that Pete and Klobuchar will be very close (but who technically comes in second will matter for the narrative).

What's so weird to me is that the vast majority of Dems want to just get this done so we can get behind a candidate to beat Trump. But the way the process is playing out seems designed to create one of the most contested primaries in modern times. Sigh.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree, and I think that Pete and Klobuchar will be very close (but who technically comes in second will matter for the narrative).

What's so weird to me is that the vast majority of Dems want to just get this done so we can get behind a candidate to beat Trump. But the way the process is playing out seems designed to create one of the most contested primaries in modern times. Sigh.

The other interesting thing is that this most contested primary has been relatively non-combative. This week has seen the most punched thrown, but they have really been pretty weak compared to what you would normally see in a free-for-all contest. No one wants to come out as being too negative. It also especially seems no one wants to really anger Bernie's base.

I have a theory that the campaigns are really just staying back and letting the internet do the negative campaigning. Most especially Bernie's campaign. He can soft-touch any criticism knowing that his online fandom is going to paint all of his opponents as racist Nazi's.

[GrantDawg]

The Amy Klobuchar surge has me pretty excited. Still, her history as a DA is going to be a problem among AA voters.

[JediKooter]

He should drop out right now in my opinion.

#BLOOMBERGISRACIST Trends As Second Resurfaced Clip Shows Dem Candidate Saying 'WE DISPROPORTIONATELY STOP WHITES TOO MUCH AND MINORITIES TOO LITTLE'

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

He should drop out right now in my opinion.

#BLOOMBERGISRACIST Trends As Second Resurfaced Clip Shows Dem Candidate Saying 'WE DISPROPORTIONATELY STOP WHITES TOO MUCH AND MINORITIES TOO LITTLE'

Stop and frisk right? The funny part is people will act like this is new and groundbreaking. From what I remember nothing he said he ever really was wrong it just wasn't what people wanted to hear. Minorities disproportionately account for more murders. Racist numbers! Males account for more murders. Sexist numbers!

[JPhillips]

Crime in NYC is lower now than it was during Bloomberg's tenure.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Crime in NYC is lower now than it was during Bloomberg's tenure.

I don't care one way or the other about stop and frisk. I actually thought it was more about the fear or terrorism than blacks but I don't live there so I'm sure it was both. My only thought was to save the racist nonsense for people like Donald Trump who actually dog-whistles racist nonsense all the time. Bloomberg is doing nothing but discussing actual numbers. It's just sad to see the Democratic party cannibalize itself and then end up nominating Bernie Sanders who will get demolished in a general election. I get besmirched all the time for laughing about the "lessor of two evils" paradigm. But the Democrats actually can win with this strategy and instead are going to nominate a more polarizing figure than even Donald Trump and somehow Trump will be the lessor of two evils to most of the electorate.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

Stop and frisk right? The funny part is people will act like this is new and groundbreaking. From what I remember nothing he said he ever really was wrong it just wasn't what people wanted to hear. Minorities disproportionately account for more murders. Racist numbers! Males account for more murders. Sexist numbers!

I'm not following you here. The sentence, "We disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little", is him saying that he wants more minorities stopped and frisked or is he saying he wants less white people stopped and frisked? Either way, it sounds racist. Or are you saying he was really saying that it should be a 1 for 1 thing?

If I remember correctly, the entire policy of stop and frisk has been controversial. Perhaps if this country had not had over 250 years of treating minorities like garbage, this would just be nothing more than something that wasn't communicated very well.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm not following you here. The sentence, "We disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little", is him saying that he wants more minorities stopped and frisked or is he saying he wants less white people stopped and frisked? Either way, it sounds racist. Or are you saying he was really saying that it should be a 1 for 1 thing?

If I remember correctly, the entire policy of stop and frisk has been controversial. Perhaps if this country had not had over 250 years of treating minorities like garbage, this would just be nothing more than something that wasn't communicated very well.

Bloomberg's campaign is not a hill I care about dying on but yes it's a horrible quote that isn't as bad as it sounds in context. I completely disagree he should drop out immediately but also would like to see Trump not get reelected so I admit to being biased towards candidates that actually have a chance of winning.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

Bloomberg's campaign is not a hill I care about dying on but yes it's a horrible quote that isn't as bad as it sounds in context. I completely disagree he should drop out immediately but also would like to see Trump not get reelected so I admit to being biased towards candidates that actually have a chance of winning.

While I don't quite agree with you as well, I definitely understand where you are coming from, thank you for clarifying and as much as I hope he is not a racist, but, I have committed to 'anyone but trump'.

*Edit - This word salad is what I get for trying to type this while talking to someone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If I remember correctly, the entire policy of stop and frisk has been controversial. Perhaps if this country had not had over 250 years of treating minorities like garbage, this would just be nothing more than something that wasn't communicated very well.

I'd say not the policy itself - which is constitutionally permitted - but the impacts of it in a city like NYC. Officers can briefly detain people on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and they can frisk them on reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous. The media always reports on it as if officers are just randomly stopping and frisking people walking down the street.

The problem is that the reasonable suspicion standard is very low, and if utilized freely, it will disproportionately impact minorities in cities like NYC even if the police offers were robots who didn't see race. That's because some of the permissible factors for generating reasonable suspicion include things like evidence of gang membership, whether the neighborhood is dangerous, and whether the individual is known to have a criminal record or to carry weapons - things that are going to unfortunately impact minorities more than white people, even without any police targeting (though officers will often be deployed disproportionately to neighborhoods that have higher crime rates), because we live in a society with racial injustice generally. Kind of like if officers always stop cars where there's visible evidence of some registration/license violation, they're going to disproportionately pull over poor people, and in the U.S., unfortunately, in urban areas, that means they're also going to disproportionately pull over minorities even if we assume race-blind officers. The officers didn't invent that racially unjust reality, they're just thrown into it. So disproportionate racial arrest stats don't prove race-intent based arrests, it proves that minorities generate more reasonable suspicion and probable cause due to their disparate economic status, even if they say, use drugs at the same frequently as, or less than, white people.

Most agencies' officers don't perform Terry stops and frisks every possible time they can. If they did, minorities are going to be stopped more. NYC used to have fairly lax police when it came to little things, they were focusing on serious things. Then the idea came around, mostly under Giuliani, to focus on the little things and to do everything the constitution permitted them to do, because hey, when you arrest a subway toll jumper, or when you stop a known gang member in a dangerous neighborhood who has a visible bulge in his pocket that might be contraband, you might also get lucky and arrest someone who is dangerous, or who has warrants, or who is a drug dealer. The people fairly struck back against this approach (especially after the city got safer), and reasonably asked the police to not to stop and frisk everybody that the constitution says they can stop and frisk. That's their prerogative, and police agencies should carry out the will of the legislature and the people, not just do whatever they're allowed to do. That's easier said then done when societal expectations of officer behavior evolve faster than the law does, but, it is something that agencies should strive to do anyway.

I don't know the context of what Bloomberg was talking about. Best case, he was saying that the officers shouldn't be consciously attempting to stop more white people to help out the much-scrutinized stats about that kind of thing.

(This has also been on my mind generally based on the increasing attacks on Buttigieg based on this kind of thing in South Bend).

[RainMaker]

I think the bigger issue with Bloomberg is that he's a Republican running in the Democratic primary. I don't know why anyone would vote for another oligarch but so be it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the bigger issue with Bloomberg is that he's a Republican running in the Democratic primary. I don't know why anyone would vote for another oligarch but so be it.

If the best Republican running in 2020 happens to be doing so in the Democratic primary, I can see some significant number of people getting behind that.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the bigger issue with Bloomberg is that he's a Republican running in the Democratic primary. I don't know why anyone would vote for another oligarch but so be it.

Some of the better regarded Democratic presidents have been oligarchs like JFK and FDR.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd say not the policy itself - which is constitutionally permitted - but the impacts of it in a city like NYC. Officers can briefly detain people on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and they can frisk them on reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous. The media always reports on it as if officers are just randomly stopping and frisking people walking down the street.

The problem is that the reasonable suspicion standard is very low, and if utilized freely, it will disproportionately impact minorities in cities like NYC even if the police offers were robots who didn't see race. That's because some of the permissible factors for generating reasonable suspicion include things like evidence of gang membership, whether the neighborhood is dangerous, and whether the individual is known to have a criminal record or to carry weapons - things that are going to unfortunately impact minorities more than white people, even without any police targeting (though officers will often be deployed disproportionately to neighborhoods that have higher crime rates), because we live in a society with racial injustice generally. Kind of like if officers always stop cars where there's visible evidence of some registration/license violation, they're going to disproportionately pull over poor people, and in the U.S., unfortunately, in urban areas, that means they're also going to disproportionately pull over minorities even if we assume race-blind officers. The officers didn't invent that racially unjust reality, they're just thrown into it. So disproportionate racial arrest stats don't prove race-intent based arrests, it proves that minorities generate more reasonable suspicion and probable cause due to their disparate economic status, even if they say, use drugs at the same frequently as, or less than, white people.

Most agencies' officers don't perform Terry stops and frisks every possible time they can. If they did, minorities are going to be stopped more. NYC used to have fairly lax police when it came to little things, they were focusing on serious things. Then the idea came around, mostly under Giuliani, to focus on the little things and to do everything the constitution permitted them to do, because hey, when you arrest a subway toll jumper, or when you stop a known gang member in a dangerous neighborhood who has a visible bulge in his pocket that might be contraband, you might also get lucky and arrest someone who is dangerous, or who has warrants, or who is a drug dealer. The people fairly struck back against this approach (especially after the city got safer), and reasonably asked the police to not to stop and frisk everybody that the constitution says they can stop and frisk. That's their prerogative, and police agencies should carry out the will of the legislature and the people, not just do whatever they're allowed to do. That's easier said then done when societal expectations of officer behavior evolve faster than the law does, but, it is something that agencies should strive to do anyway.

I don't know the context of what Bloomberg was talking about. Best case, he was saying that the officers shouldn't be consciously attempting to stop more white people to help out the much-scrutinized stats about that kind of thing.

(This has also been on my mind generally based on the increasing attacks on Buttigieg based on this kind of thing in South Bend).

That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way. My exposure to the policy via any kind of media has been that it had been utilized as a workaround to the Constitution. I still don't agree with it and probably never will though. My suspicions are already raised with how Bloomberg has come in at this point in the game, reading the article about what he said definitely doesn't help his appeal to me. Plus, I don't think he will make the changes that need to be made to keep another trump from happening in the future. However, if it is him that will get trump out, I'll vote for him, just like I would Biden.

[Kodos]

Absolutely. Whoever the Dems nominate gets my vote.

[GrantDawg]

Early numbers from the exit polls are showing a large drop in younger demographic from four years ago. That would be bad for Bernie, and of course the Bernie Bros will crying about conspiracy theories immediately.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If the best Republican running in 2020 happens to be doing so in the Democratic primary, I can see some significant number of people getting behind that.

Republicans are going to vote for Trump. Are you really going to energize a party by convincing them they need to vote for a Republican to beat Trump?


If given the choice, why not just vote Trump? At least we get some laughs out of it.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Early numbers from the exit polls are showing a large drop in younger demographic from four years ago. That would be bad for Bernie, and of course the Bernie Bros will crying about conspiracy theories immediately.

They did sort of rig the Iowa primary already.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Early numbers from the exit polls are showing a large drop in younger demographic from four years ago. That would be bad for Bernie, and of course the Bernie Bros will crying about conspiracy theories immediately.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

We’ll see, but this needs some serious context.

1. Those exit polls were from a period between 8-11am. Young voters typically vote later in the day.

2. NH is the 2nd oldest state by median age in America.

3. NH has passed well documented voter suppression legislation to suppress the young vote where college students have to have a NH drivers license AND their car registered in the state to vote. This is not a “Bernie Bro” conspiracy, and was talked about since way back. (Source: https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/11/08...ire-voting-law)

[RainMaker]

Whatever you think of the candidates, they would never let Bernie win.

[Lathum]

CNN reporting Yang is out

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

CNN reporting Yang is out

He was the biggest surprise in this primary and made it far further than anyone would have expected. He has a place in politics somewhere. Hopefully his political interest goes beyond just running for president.

EDIT: In memory of Yang's campaign I'll post the line of the debates thus far (IMO).

[NobodyHere]

Well there goes my favorite. Onto ... Klobachur?

[NobodyHere]

Is Warren about to endorse Amy?

ETA: I guess not

But what is Warren's path from here? She's not getting any delegates tonight.

[Atocep]

I had no idea Michael Bennet was still running until he announced he was dropping out.

[GrantDawg]

Warren has no path at this point. I think she might see if she gets any movement in Nevada. If not, she might drop before the actual caucus.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

Biden will stay around until at least Super Tuesday, but his chances have to be gone with a potential 5th place finish in New Hampshire.